.'V 
 
 .0>.'.'V. 
 
 '^'v 
 
 I .» 
 
 ■^ 
 
 B^fS? 
 
 tti>*.' -. 
 
 l<«<^. 
 
sa^^K 
 
 n -3 y/-/ 
 
 ■*¥^' 
 
 / 
 
 ^s 
 
 
 
 
 Theological S 
 
 eminary , 
 
 
 PRINCETON, 
 
 N. J. 
 
 Case, 
 
 * 
 
 Shelf, 
 
 Division. £s^WSy«^', 1 
 
 Seci-cr^i^ O t! err* 
 
 Boohy 
 
 .., Ma,, 
 
 V.A. 
 
 
'-^^ a/Z^ .^X.^^ 
 
 3rZ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
I S T O R Y 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Apoftles and Evaogelifts, 
 
 Writers of the 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT: 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 The Evidences of the Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, 
 the Ads of the Apoflles, the Epiftles, and the Book 
 of the Revelation, and the Times when they were 
 writ, are reprefented in a Light fuited to all Ca- 
 pacities. 
 
 WITH 
 
 REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS 
 
 UPON 
 
 Every Book of the New Teftament, ufeful for all, who 
 defirs to undenland the christian religion. 
 
 IN THREE VOLUiVIES. 
 
 By NATHANIEULARDNER, D. D. 
 
 The Second Edition. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for j. buckland, and w. fenner, in Pater-nofl-er-ro\v; 
 J. WAUGM, in Lombard-ftreet ; p. davy, and r. law, in 
 Ave-oiary-lane i and t. field, in Cheapfide. 1760. 
 
A 
 
 * 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Apoftles and Evangelifts, 
 
 Writers of the 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 V O L. I. 
 
 Containing general Obfervations upon the Canon of the 
 New Teilament, and a Hiftory of the four Evangelifts, 
 with the Evidences of the Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, 
 and the Ads of the Apoftles, the Times, when they were 
 writ, and Remarks upon them. 
 
 By NATHANIEL LARDNER. D. D. 
 
 The^Secofid Edition. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for j. buckland, and w. fenner, in Pater-nofter-row ; 
 J. WAUGH, ill Lombard-ftreet ; p. davy, and b. law, in 
 Avemary-lane i and t. field, in Cheapfide. 1760. 
 
Vtt 
 
 >: d^m^ ^^ *^i.^*' r^"^ e¥)^ y^ 
 M ^n^ "^^^ ^^'^ "^^ ^^ ^ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP I. Page. 
 
 GENE R AL Denominations of the Colleftion of 7 
 facred Books, received by Chriftians. j 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 General Obfervations upon the Canon of the New"^ 
 
 1- 
 
 Teftament. j 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of the Method, in which the Canon of the New Tef- 
 tament has been formed. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Time of writing the Gofpels, efpecially, the firll^ 
 Three. S ^^ 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 St. Matthew, Apoftle, and Evangelill. 86 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 Of the Time, when the Apoftles left Judea, to go and ) o 
 preach the Gofpel in other countreys. J 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 St. Mark, Evangelift. 155 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 St. Luke, Evangelift. 209 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 St. Johnj ApofJe, and Evangelift. 315 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 The Queftion confidered, whether any one of the firlip 
 three Evangelifts had ken. the Gofpels of the others, > 455 
 before he wrote. b 
 
 A PLAN 
 
viu 
 
 A Thn of the ^imes and Places of writing 
 the four Gofpels^ and the ASls of the Apof- 
 ties. 
 
 Gospel s&c. Place. A. D, 
 
 f Judea,! 
 St. Matthew's. *{ or r about 64. 
 
 (.near it. J 
 
 St. Mark's. Rome 64. 
 
 r. . . . 63. 
 
 St. Luke's, Greece. \ or 
 
 I . . . . 64. 
 
 St. John's. Ephefus. .... 68. 
 
 theApoftles. J [....64. 
 
 A SUP- 
 

 HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Apofliles and Evangeliils, 
 
 Writers of the , ■ ' 
 
 NEIY TESTAMENT. 
 CHAP. -L 
 
 General De:-2o??iinatiom of the CoUeBlon of 
 facred Books^ 7'ecei'ved by ChriJIians, 
 
 I. Scripture. II. Bible, III. Canon, IV. 
 Old and New ^efl anient, V. Injlrimcnf* 
 VJ. Bigefl, VII. Gofpel 
 
 I. ^3^^)eC"'2^^ of the general denomlna- Sa-itfure, 
 § O § tiQV\^ of facred books is Scrip- 
 M M ^2^^^> or Scriptures, liferally, 
 
 k-^)^Mj>^ and primarily fignifying wri- 
 ting. But by way of eminence and diftinc- 
 tion the books in highefl efteem are called 
 Sc?-ipture, or the Scriptures, 
 Vol. I. ' *B This 
 
General Tjenominatiom Ch. I. 
 
 This word occurs often in the New Tef- 
 tament, in the Gofpels, the Ads, and the 
 Epiftles. "Whereby we perceive, that in the 
 time of our Saviour and his Apoftles this 
 word was in common ufe, denoting the 
 books received by the Jewifli People, as the 
 rule of their faith. To them have been 
 fince added by Chriftians the writings of A- 
 poftles and Evangelifts, compleating the col- 
 ledion of books, received by them as facred 
 and divine. 
 
 Some of the places, where the word 
 Scripture is ufcd in the fingular number for 
 the books of the Old TeO:am.ent, are thefe. 
 2 Tim. iii. ]6. All for ipt tire is given by in- 
 fpiration of God, And Luke iv. 21. John 
 ii. 22. Acts i, 16. viii. 32. 35. Rom. iv. 
 3. Gal. iii. 8. James ii. 18. 23. i Pet. ii. 6. 
 2 Pet. i. 20. Scriptures, in the plural num- 
 ber, in thefe following, and many other 
 places. Matth. xxi. 42. xxii. 29. xxvi. ^4. 
 Luke xxiv. 27. 32. 45. John v. 39. Ads 
 xvii. 2. 1 1, xviii. 24. 28. 2 Tim. iii. 15. 
 2 Pet. iii. 16. 
 
 St. Peter applies this word to the books of 
 the New, as well as of the Old Teftament, 
 to St. Paufs Epiflles, in particular. 2 Pet. iii. 
 16. . * as alfo i?i all bis epijiks . . which they 
 
 that 
 
Cb. I. of f acred Books. 
 
 that are unlearned^ wrejl^ as they do alfo the 
 
 other fcriptures^ unto their own dcflrii^ion. 
 
 Plainly denoting, that * St. Paul's Epiftles 
 
 are Scriptures in the higheft fenfe of the 
 
 word. 
 
 II. Bible is another word, which has now Bible. 
 been long in ufe annong Chriftians, denoting 
 the whole colle(5!ion of writings received by , 
 them, as of divine Authority.'; 
 
 The word, primarily, denotes book. But 
 now is given to the writings of Prophets and 
 Apoftles by way of eminence. This col- 
 ledion is the Book^ or Bible^ the book of 
 books, as fuperior in excellence to air other 
 books. The word feems to be ufed in this 
 fenfe by ChryfoJIom in a pafTage already (a) 
 cited. ** I therefore exhort all of you to 
 " procure to yourfelves Bible Sy (2iQxU. If 
 " you have nothing elfe, take care to have 
 " the Nev/ Teftament, particularly, the 
 " Ads of the Apoftks, and the Gofpels, 
 ** for your conftant inftrudors." And Je- 
 rome fays, *' That (b) the Scriptures being 
 
 B 2 « all 
 
 * Hac parte (quod bene notandum eft) Petrus canoni- 
 zat, ut ita loquar, id eft, in canonem facrarum fcripturarum 
 afcribit, atque canonicas facit epiftolas Pauli. Dicens e- 
 nim, Jtcut i3' ceteras fcripturas, utique fignificat, fe etiam 
 illas in fcripturarum numero habere. De facris autem fcrip- 
 turis eum loqui, in confefTo eft. EJi. in he. 
 
 (a) Vol. X. p. 349. (b) The fame. p. 158. 
 
General Denominations Ch. I. 
 
 ** all writ by one Spirit, are called one book. 
 We likwife faw formerly a paiTage o^-Au- 
 gujlin^ where he informs us, " That (c) 
 *' feme called all the canonical fcriptures 
 " one book, on account of their wonderful 
 ** harmonie, and unity of defign through- 
 *' out." And I then faid : "It is likely, 
 that this way of fpeaking gradually brought 
 in the general ufe of the word BiMe, for 
 the whole colledion of the fcriptures, or the 
 books of the Old and New Teftament." 
 
 In (liort, the ancient Chriftians were con- 
 tinually fpeakin": of tbe Divi?2e Oracles, and 
 the Divine Eooks, and were much employed 
 in reading them, as Chryfoflom directs in a 
 pafiage, tranfcribed (d) below : where he 
 recommends the reading the divine books 
 daily, forenoon and afternoon. At length 
 the whole colleflion was called the bock:, or 
 the Bible. 
 
 Dr. Heumann has an Epijile, or fliort Dif- 
 fertation (e) concerning the origin of this 
 
 name 
 
 (c) Vol. X. p. 256. 
 
 (d) 'AaA« cT'ri ^uvjce, Kdiplv ii-nyiJ^eiov YiyeiStcit Tirpoi 
 Tiiv Taw '!g-!>'iVf/.cOiX-ci>v ^'Oyav J^idtXi^tv AvviKroy.Z'^u J^ 
 
 \7ia<7iui i^.sTU Xe'.pa.'; KuCoifji^ to. '2-t^a ^iChla, Ti;u e^ do\ci.v 
 KctfTT^aydLi K^pkXeiocv. In i. Ge;u horn. jr. 7". 4. /. 81. C. Bcned. 
 
 (ej De origins norninis Bibliorum. Heum. Poed/e, Tm, i. 
 p, 412. . . 415. 
 
Ch. I. offacred Bcoh, 
 
 name of our facred collection of books. And 
 for forae while he was of opinion, that (f) 
 it was fo called, as being the moil: excellent 
 of all books : in like manner as the Jews 
 had before called their colledion the Scrip- 
 tures, by way of eminence. So Ads xviii. 
 24. and 28. But (g) afterwards he fufpec- 
 ted, that the origin of this name was in thofe 
 words o( Pauly 2 Tim. iv. 13. T^he cloak that 
 I left at Troas with Carpus ^ when thou comefty 
 bring ivith thee^ and the books, zou ra ISi^Xioc, 
 For he believed, that thereby the ancient 
 Chriflians underftood the facred code. But 
 he afterwards acknowledgeth, that he had 
 not found any inftance of that interpretation 
 in ancient writers. It feems to me there- 
 fore, that this conjeduie fliould be dropt, 
 as deftitute of foundation : and that it 
 fliould be better for us to adhere to the 
 forementioned origin of this name, which 
 appears to have in it a good deal of proba- 
 bility. 
 
 B 3 III. Ca- 
 
 (f) Sufplcari deinde coepi, ideo Bihlta diftiim efle fa- 
 crum codicem, quod tanquam liber omnium praeftantiffimus 
 %a.r i^oyjiv diftus fit ra ^iCk'ik. Suppetias conjefturae 
 huic ferre videbatur ilia appellatio, qua idem divinum opus 
 vocari folet at y^a^a.U e. gr. Aft. xviii. 24. 28. Id. ib.p, 
 413. 
 
6 General Denom'matiom Ch. I. 
 
 Canon. JJJ. Cdjion is Originally a Greek word, 
 
 flgnifying a rule or ftandard, by which o- 
 ther things are to be examined and judged. 
 
 As the writings of the Prophets and Apof- 
 tles and Evangehfts contain an authentic 
 account of the revealed will of God, they 
 are the rule of the belief and pradife of 
 thofe who receive them. 
 
 Sometimes canon feems equivalent to a 
 lift or catalogue, in which are inferted* thofe 
 books, Vi^hich contain the rule of faith. 
 
 Du Pin fays, " This (h) word fignifies 
 " not only a law or rule, but likewife a ta- 
 ** ble, catalogue, lift. Some have fuppofed, 
 " that the canonical books were fo called, 
 " becaufe they are the rule of the faith. But 
 " though It be true, that they are the rule of 
 ** our faith ; yet the reafon of their being 
 ** called canonical, is, becaufe they are placed 
 " in the catalogue of facred books." 
 
 Perhaps, there is no need to difpute about 
 this. For there is no great difference in 
 
 thofe 
 
 (h) Le mot fignifie non feulement une loi, une regie, 
 mais aufii une table, un catalogue, une lifte. . . . Quelques- 
 uns ont cru, que les livres canoniques etoient ainfi appellez, 
 parcequ'ils font la regie de la foi. Mais quoique cela foit 
 vrai, ce n'eft pas ce qui leur a fait donner le nom de cano- 
 niques, qu'ils n'ont que parceque Ton a nomme canon- le ca- 
 talogue dcs livres facrez. DiJJ'. Prelim. I. \. ch. i. §. ii. 
 
Ch. r. of facred Booh, 
 
 thofe two fenfes. And there may be paffa- 
 ges of ancient writers, where it would be 
 difficult to determine, which of them is in- 
 tended. 
 
 St. Faiil has twice ufed the word canon^ 
 or rule. Gal. vi. i6. As many as walk aC' 
 cording to this rule. Upon which verfe T^heo- 
 doret\ comment is to this purpofe : " He (i) 
 " calls the forementioned dodrine a rule, as 
 " being ftrait, and having nothing wanting, 
 " nor fuptrfluous." Again, fays St. PW, 
 Philip, iii. i6. Whereunio we have already at- 
 tai?iedy let us walk according to the Jame rule. 
 Where he fpeaks of the doctrine of the 
 gofpel in general, or of fome particular 
 maxim of it : not of any books, containing 
 the rule of faith. However, his ufe of the 
 word may have been an occafion of affixing 
 that denomination to the books of fcripture. 
 For it is of great antiquity among Chrif- 
 tians. 
 
 TrenacuSj fpeaking of the fcriptures, as the 
 words of Godj calls (k) them the rule, or 
 
 B 4 canon 
 
 ip^«cr«u. Theod. in loc, 
 
 (k) Nos autem unum et folum verum Deum doflorem 
 feqiientes, et regulani veritatis habentes ejus fermones, de 
 
 iifdem 
 
8 General Denominations Ch. I. 
 
 canon of truth. Here cation is not a cata- 
 logue, but the books, or the dodrine con- 
 tained in the books of fcripture. 
 
 Clement oi Alexandria^ referring to a quo- 
 tation of the Gofpel according to the Egyp^ 
 tians^ fays with indignation : " But (I) they 
 " who choofe to follow any thing, rather 
 ** than the true Evangelical Canon, [or the 
 ** canon of the Gofpel,] in fid jupon what fol- 
 ** lows there as faid to Salome!" In another 
 place he fays : *' The (m) ecclefiaftical ca- 
 *' non is the confent and agreement of the 
 " Law and the Prophets with the teftament 
 '' delivered by the Lord." 
 
 Eiifebe^ as (ii) formerly quoted, fays of 
 
 Origen : " But in the firft book of his Com- 
 
 *' mentaries upon the Gofpel of Matthew, 
 
 " obferving (o) the ecclefiaftical canon, he 
 
 " declares, that he knew of four Gofpels 
 
 <« only," 
 
 Ifliall 
 
 -airJem femper eadem dicimus omnes. Le». I. 4. c. 35. ah 69. 
 /./). 277. 
 
 (I) See Vol. a. p. 529. or 527. 
 
 (m) l^xvMV S'i hiy.?H(n:fsiK9i J7 auvcoJ'ia x^ n <7vix(panx v'oix^ 
 '7£ ^ '^fQ(piiTicv Til xctra Tijc TK KV^'m '7saf^(xia.v 'wafxx.J^iS'Q' 
 f.'iVi) cf'iccd-m'.yi, CI. Strain. I. 6. p, 676. C. 
 
 (n) Ch. 38. <vol. Hi. p 2^^. 
 
 (0) . . , Tov i>i)t^.mtx?^iKov (i/VhuTlcov KdVova.' -^p. Eufeh, /, 
 6. f. Z^.p. 226. J?, 
 
Ch. T. of/acred Booh, 
 
 I {hall add a few more pafTages from 
 later writers, chiefly fuch as have been al- 
 ready quoted in the foregoing volumes : to 
 which paflages therefore the reader may eafi- 
 ly have recourfe. 
 
 Athanafius (p) in his Feflal Epiftle fpeaks 
 of three forts of books, the canonical^ the 
 fame, which are now received by us, fuch 
 as were allowed to he read, and then of fuch 
 as are apocryphal : by which he means books 
 forged by heretics. 
 
 In the Sympjis of Scripture, afcribed to 
 him, but probably not writ till above a hun- 
 dred years after his time, near the end of 
 the fifth centurie, is frequent mention (q) 
 of canonical and uncanonical books. 
 
 The Council oi Laodicea, about 363. or- 
 dains, that (q) *' no books, not canonical, 
 " fiiould be read in the church, but only 
 *' the canonical books of the Old and New 
 ** Teftament." 
 
 Rufijj, enumerating the fcriptures of the 
 Old and New Teftament, makes (r) three 
 
 forts 
 
 (p) See vol. (viii. p. 228. 229. 
 (q) See 'voL 'viii.p. 243. . . 245, 
 (q) The fame. /. 291 . 
 (r) See •vol, x. p. 1 87. 1 88. 
 
lo General Denominations Ch. T. 
 
 forts of books, fuch (s) as are included in the 
 canon ^ fuch as are not canonical^ but eccle- 
 Jiajiicaly allowed to be read, but not to be 
 alleged for proof of any dodrine, and laftly, 
 apocryphal books, which were not to be pub- 
 licly read. 
 
 'Jerome likewife often fpeaks of the canon 
 of Scripture, as we faw in his chapter, 
 where he fays : *' Ecclejiajliciis, (t) Judith, 
 «' T^obit, and the Shepherd, are not in the ca- 
 <' non :" and " that (u) the Church reads, or 
 " allows to be read, Judith, Tobit, and the 
 " Maccabees, but does not receive them a- 
 mong the canonical fcriptures : and that 
 they, and the books of JVifdom and Eccle- 
 ^ fiajlicus, may be read for the edification of 
 the people, but not as of authority, for 
 proving any doctrines." And for the Old 
 Teftament he recommends [x) the true Jew^ 
 ifo canon, or Hebrew verity. I refer below 
 
 to 
 
 (s) Haec funt, quae patres intra canonem concluferunt, 
 & ex quibus fidei noitrae affertiones conflare voluerunt. . . . 
 Sciendum tamen eft, quod a!ii libri funt, qui non funt ca- 
 nonici, fed eccleiiaftici a majoribus appelhti funt. . . Quae 
 omnia legi quidem in ecclefiis voluerunt, non tamen pro- 
 ferri ad auftoritatem ex his fxdei confirmandam. Ceteras 
 vero fcripturas apocryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclefiis legi 
 Koluerunt, Rujin. citat, ubi fupra p. 1S5. not. (gj. 
 
 (tj Vol. X. p. 41. (u) . . ./>. 43.. (x) , . . 52. 
 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
 (( 
 cc 
 
Ch. I. of facred Books, II 
 
 (y) to another place relating to the books of 
 the New Teftament. 
 
 The third Council of Carthage^ about 397. 
 ordains, *' that (z) nothing bedde the cano- 
 " nical fcriptures be read in the Church un- 
 *' der the name of Divine Scriptures." 
 
 Augufiin^ in 395. and afterwards, often (a) 
 fpeaks of canonical fcriptures^ and the (b) 
 whole canon of fcripture^ that is, all the facred 
 books of the Old and New Teftament. We 
 " (c) read of fome, fays he, that they fear ch^ 
 " ed the fcriptures daily , whether thofe things 
 ^^ were fo, Adls xvii. 11. What fcriptures, 
 *' I pray, except the canonical fcriptures of 
 " the Law and the Prophets ? To them have 
 " been fince added the Gofpels, the Epiftks 
 "of Apoftles, the A<fls of the Apoftles, and 
 " the Revelation of "Johny Of the fuperior 
 authority of the canonical fcriptures to all 
 others, he fpeaks frequently in pafTages af- 
 terwards alleged {d) in the fame chapter. 
 Chryfojlom in a place already cited (e) fays : 
 
 '* They 
 
 (y) Vol. X. p.S6. fzj . . . p. 193. 
 
 (a) 'The fame p. 20"] > ■ 
 
 (b) Totus autem canon fcripturarum . . his libris conti- 
 netur. lb. not. (r) p. 2o8. 
 
 (cj , . . p. 252. ((/J Seep. 253. 256. 259. . . 263. 
 
 (e)Vgl.xii.p. J 26. 
 
12 General Denominations Ch. I. 
 
 " They (f) fall into great abfurdities, who 
 '« will not follow the rule (or canon) of the 
 ** divine fcripture, but truft entirely to their 
 *' own reafoning." I refer to another place 
 (g) to the like purpofe. 
 
 Says Jfdore of Pelufium, about 412. " that 
 " (i) thefe things are fo, we fhail perceive, 
 " if we attend to the rule [canon] of truth, 
 ** the divine fcriptures/' 
 
 And LeontiuSy oiCovjlanUnople, about 610. 
 havinjy cited the whole catalogue of the 
 books of fcripture from Genefis to the Re- 
 velation (k) concludes : " Thefe (I) are the 
 '* ancient and the new books, which are re- 
 ** ceived in the Church as canonical." 
 
 By all which v/e difcern, how much the 
 ufe of thefe words, canon and canonical, has 
 obtained among Chriftians, denoting thofe 
 books, which are of the highefi: authority, 
 and the rule of faith : as oppofed to all other 
 
 what- 
 
 (f) "Ofa^, ei{ oam aTOTTieiv \yj7ri'7f\\i(rtv ol /xri ^vXoiJ.ivot rS 
 in? '^(nctf ypa(p'iii xaToacoK^id-eiv Kavm >s. A. /« Gef:. cap. 33. 
 iom. 58. T. 4.^. 566.5. 
 
 CgJ Vid. horn. 33. /« ■^^' Ap. fuhjin. 
 
 (i) "Otj Si taZta 'ira; £%«, tov Kctvova. rtii aha^eicLcf 
 T«f -S-tHaf (?«//« y^xtpa;, v.Axx'/liudcoi/.iv. Ifui. ep. 114./. 4, 
 
 (k)SeeVol.xi.p. 381. 
 
 (I) Tat-vra hi to. Kavovt^oyAVct ^iCh\a h 7} iMhYHfif, i^ 
 mahoilot 39 vix. Citat. ibid. p. 380, not. (ej. 
 
Ch. I. of facrd Booh. 13 
 
 whatever, particularly, to ecclefiaftical, or 
 the writings of orthodox and learned catho- 
 lics, and to apocryphal^ the productions, 
 chiefly, of heretics, which by a fpeciousname 
 and title made a pretenfion to be accounted 
 among facred books. 
 
 IV. The moft common and general divi- on and 
 fion of the canonical books is that of anciejit iaZJ. 
 and new ^ or the Old and New ^ejiament. The 
 Hebrew word, berith^ from which it is tran- 
 flated, properly fignifies (m) covenant. St. 
 
 Faiil 2 Cor. iii. 6 18. fhewing the fupe- 
 
 rior excellence of the gofpel -coven ant, or the 
 difpenfation by Chriji^ above the legal cove- 
 r.ant, or the difpenfation by Mofes, ufeth the 
 word tejlamenty not only for the covenant it- 
 felf, but likewife for the books, in which it is 
 contained. At iefi: he does fo, in fpeaking of 
 the legal covenant. For, reprefenting the cafe 
 of the unbelieving part of the Jewifti People, 
 he fays v. 1 4. Until this day remaineth the fame 
 'vail imtaken away in reading the OldTeJlatnenf, 
 
 It is no v/onder therefore, that this way of 
 fpeaking has much prevailed among Chrifti- 
 
 ans. 
 
 (m) Notandum, quod Brith, verbum Hebraicum, Aquila 
 cvv^nmv, id eft, paaum, interpretatur : lxx femper S'toc^ium, 
 id eft, tejiamentum : et in plerifque fcripturarum locis tefta- 
 mentum non voluntatem defundorum fonare, fed padum vi- 
 venlium. Uieron. in Malach. ca^. ii. 2". 3 . /.. 1 8 1 6. 
 
14 Ge?jeral Denominations Ch. I, 
 
 ans. Melito, Bifliop of Sardis about the year 
 J 77. went into the Eaft, to get an exadt ac- 
 count of the books of the Law and the Pro- 
 phets. In his letter to his friend Onefimus^ 
 giving an account of his journey, and reckon- 
 ing up the books in their order, he calls them 
 (n) the ancient books ^ and (0) the books of the 
 Old Tejiament. Eiifebe calls it (p) *' a cata- 
 *' logueof the acknowledged fcriptures of the 
 '' Old Teaament." Our Ecclefiaftical Hif- 
 torian elfewhere (q) fpeaks of the fcriptures 
 of the New Tef^ameut. I (hall remind my 
 readers of but one inftance more. Cyril of 
 yerufalemy introducing his catalogue of fcrip- 
 tures received by the Chriftian Church, fays : 
 There (r) things we are taught by the di- 
 vinely infpired fcriptures of the Old and 
 '^ New Tedament." Many other like ex- 
 amples occur in the preceding volumes of 
 this work. 
 hflrumem. V. jnftead oftepament Latin writers fome- 
 times ufe the word injirument^ denoting wri- 
 ting, 
 
 (n) "£Ti cTI ;^ //flt-9-Sw Tj;u T&jf' 'jxXailov ^iC\icjy s^bAhOks 
 <?>cp)b««tv. y.' A. ^p. Eufeb. I. 4. c. 27. p. 148. D. 
 . (0) . . Koii anfiCui ij.x^uv T« THJ xaAct/as S'ix^ny.y)<; ^iChiA* 
 lb. p. 149. ^. 
 
 (p) Ibzd. f. 1 48. D. (q) See Vol. 'viii. p. 1 97, 
 
 ■ (rj The favte, p. 267. 
 
 
Ch. I. of f acred Booh. 15 
 
 ting, charter, record. We find it feveral times 
 in T'erttiUiajiy reckoned the moft ancient La- 
 tin writer of the Church now remaining. In 
 a pafTage already (s) cited he calls the Gof- 
 pels, or the New Teftament in general, the " 
 Evangelic Inftrument. And fays : " How (t) 
 large chafms Marcion has made in the epiftle 
 to the Ro?nmis, by leaving out what he pleafes, 
 may appear from our entire Inftrument :" or 
 our unaltered copies of the New Teilament, 
 particularly of that epiflle. Speaking of the 
 Shepherd of Hermas, he fays, it (u) was not 
 reckoned a part of the Divine Inftrument : ^ 
 thereby meaning, as it feems, the New Tef- 
 tament. Which pafTage was quoted by us 
 (x) formerly. Recalls (y) iht Law and 
 the Prophets the Jev/ifli Inflruments : 
 that is, writings, or fcriptures. He fpeaks 
 
 of 
 
 (s) See Vol. U. p. 577. 
 
 (t) Quantas autem foveas in ifta vel maxime epiiTola [ad 
 Romanes] Marcion fecerit, auferendo quae voluit, de noftri 
 Inftrumenti integritate patebit. Adv. Marcion. I. 5. cap, 13. 
 p. 601. 
 
 (u) Sed cederem tibi, fi fcriptura Partoris — divino inftru- 
 raento meruiffet incidi. . . De Pudicit. cap. 10. p. 727. A. 
 
 (x) See Vol. a. p. 638. 
 
 (y) Aut nunquid non jufti Judaei, & quibus poenitentia 
 non opus elFet, habentes gubernacula difciplinae, & timoris 
 inflrumenta, Legem & Prophetas. De Pudicitia. cap 7. p. 
 722. B. 
 
1 6 General Denominations Ch. I. 
 
 of the antiquity (z) of the Jevvidi Inftru- 
 ments, or Scriptures. He (a) feems in one 
 place to ufe the word tnftriunent, as equiva- 
 lent to fcriptures, containing the doctrine of 
 revelation, or the revealed will of God. 
 ■^'^^- ' VI. Digeft is another word ufed by Ter- 
 tullian in fpeakingof the fcriptures. ** Luke's 
 (b) Digeft, he fays, is often afcribed to 
 Taiiiy He calls (c) the Gofpels, or the 
 whole New Teftament, our Digefi^ in allu- 
 fion, as it feems, to fome colledion of the 
 Roman Laws digefted into order. Thofe 
 two pafTages were cited in the chapter of 
 TertuUian. I now tranfcribe the later be- 
 low (d) more at large^ it having alfo the 
 
 word 
 
 {^) Primam inftrumentis iftis audloritatem fumma antiqui- 
 tas vindicat. Jpol.cap. \().p. ig. B, 
 
 Sed quoniamedidimus, antiquilTimisJiidacorum in&umen- 
 tis feclam iftam efle fuftu'tam. j4po/. cap. 21 . itii p, 20. 
 
 (a) Sed quo plenius et impreffius tarn ipfum, quam dilpo- 
 fitiones ejus et voluntatL;s adiremus, inilruinentum adjecit H- 
 teraturae, fi quis velit de Deo inqulrere. Jpol. cap, 1 8. p, 
 18. C. 
 
 (h) See Vol. a. p. ^Si. cr ^yc). 
 
 (c) The fame. p. 629. or 630. 
 
 (a) Si vero ApoHoli quidam integrum evangelium contu. 
 lerunt, de fola convidus inaequalitate reprehenfi, Pfeudapof- 
 tolj autem veritatem eorum interpolarunt, et inde funt noilra 
 dipefta : quod erit ger:nanum illud Apoftolorum inftrumen- 
 tum, quod adulteros pafTum eft ? Aihsr, Marc, I, 4. (ap, 3. 
 p. 504. B. ^ 
 
ell. r. of fdcred Booh. 17 
 
 word infti-ument, as equivalent to the Ne\\^ 
 Teftament. He like wife calls the JewiHi 
 Scriptures (e) Sacred Digefts. lie fcems to 
 ufe the word digeft (f) elfew'nere, as equi- 
 valent to writing, or work, in general. 
 
 I Hiall not take notice of any other general 
 denominations of the facrsd fcriptures. 
 
 Vlf. My chief concern is with the New Gofpel, 
 Tellament, wiiicii, as is well known, confifts 
 of Gofpels, the A6s, and Epiftles. The on- 
 ly word, that needs explanation is the firfl. 
 
 Gofpel is a tranilation of the Greek word 
 IvayytXioVi the Latin v/ord, e'vangelium^ 
 which fignifies any good melTage or tidings. 
 In the New Teflament the word denotes 
 the doctrine of falvation, taught by Jefus 
 Chriil-, and his Apodles. Which indeed is 
 gofpel by way of eminence, as it is the bed 
 tidings that ever were pubiiOied in this world. 
 Says T^keodoret upon Rom. i. i. ''He (g) 
 
 "calls 
 
 (e) Sed homines glorias, ut dijiimus, et eloquentiae follas 
 libidinofi, fi quid in fandis offenderunt digeftis, exinde regef- 
 tum pro inftituto curiofitatis ad propria verterunt. JpoL cap. 
 47./^. 41.5. 
 
 (/) Elegi ad compendium Varronis opera, qui rerum divi- 
 narum ex omnibus retro digeftis commcntatus, idcneum fe 
 nobis fcopum expofuit. Al Nation: L 2. ca*). i. p. 64. C. 
 
 (g) 'Evxyyi\iov J'i To yJjpvyuoi "Trcoffi^yopivimi, af tto'KI.Zv 
 nyA^U'V CiiTic^riyvw '}iefny\a.v> "E\i(xyyih\l%T0(4 5 «p TUi ts 
 
 Vol. I, * C '^«« 
 
$ General Deno?ninatk't7s Ch. I. 
 
 " calls it gojpeli as it contains aiTaraRce of 
 *' many good things. For it proclalais peace' 
 " with God, the overthrow of Satan, the 
 " remiffion of fins, the aboliiliing of death, 
 " the refurrev!tion of the dead, eternal life, 
 *' and the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Says St. Matthew h. 23. A}id '^efus 'went 
 about ail Galilee ^ teaching in their fynagogiies, 
 and preaching the go/pel of the kingdom. Koc\ 
 x,'/igvs-(Tcjv TO iuccyylXiOv T',:g (2oi(riXetocg' Mark 
 xiii. 10. jS?2d the gofpel [to IvayyiXiov] miijl 
 jirji be preached to all nations. Ch. xvi. 15. 
 Go ye into all the ivorld, and preach the gof- 
 pel to every creature. Kri^v^are ro &'jocyy&Xiov. 
 It is called the word of truth, the gofpel of 
 cur fdlvation. Eph. i. 13. And in like man- 
 ner, in other places. 
 
 But by gofpel, v/hen ufed by us concerning 
 the writings of the Evangelifts, we mean the 
 hifiorie of Chrili's preaching, and miracles. 
 The word feems alfo to be fo ufed by St. 
 Mark i. i. Toe begining of the gofpel of Je- 
 fus Chriji, Which may be underfiood, and 
 
 para- 
 
 .Ji« KStlaXhxy&i, THV Tb S'lixCiXiS v.aldXvffi^, 7«v «/!/rtpT«//rt- 
 
 saffiv, rnv ^(:>iiv Tiiv atuviov, t«c ^9i7iK^-»v 7M «fctv«v. /« ej>. 
 cdRom.T.i.p, lO.B. 
 
Cb. f. of facred Books. 19 
 
 paraphrafed thus : " Here (a) begins the 
 ** Hiftorie of the life and dodrinc of Jefus 
 '' Chrifl:, the Son of God, aiid Saviour of 
 *' mankind." 
 
 St. Luke^ referring to the book of his Gof- 
 pel, fays : Ads i. i. 2. 'The former treatife 
 have I made, TtecpbUuSy of all that Jefus 
 began to do and teach, until the day in the 
 which he was taken up, after that he through 
 the Holy Ghcfl had given commandments unto, 
 the Apojlles, ivhcm he had cbofen. But St. 
 Luke, as it feems, there puts the prindoal 
 part for the whole. For he has therein writ 
 alfo the hiRorie of our Lord'3 miraculous 
 birth, and divers extraordinarie events at* 
 tending it : and likewife the hidorie of the 
 birth oifohn the Baptiilj and divers circum- 
 francesof it, and his preaching and death. 
 
 In this fenfe the word Gofpel is frequent- 
 ly underflood by us. A Gofpel is the hifto- 
 
 C 2 rie 
 
 (a) That is Dr. darkis Paraphrafe, But I am fenfible, it 
 will not be allowed by all. Oecumenius fays, that by gofpel 
 Mark dots not intend his own writing, but Chrift's preach- 
 ing. l:lx^y.<^, ^?'/J, ?wcr], tb ivayyiXmha-Z yj^^^* ^^^ « 
 ii\v lat/T« <7vyy^!x.(phv xahe. kueayyiAtov, ahfj to tk pcp/rs 
 y.()fvyixa. Oecum. in Jtl. Ap. rIe proceeds to fay, that the 
 faithful afterwards called the writings of the Evan'^-elifts 
 Go/pels, as truly containing the gofpel, that is, th^ dodrine of 
 Chrift. Seg Vol. xi. /• 413, 
 
20 Generd Denominat'iDJiSi &c. Ch. I. 
 
 rse of Jefus Chrift, bis do6lrine, miracles, re- 
 furredtion, and afcenfion : not excluding the 
 hiilorie of his fore-runner, who (b) alfo is 
 faid to have preached the gojpcl, th.at is, the 
 dodlrine of the gofpel, or the kingdom of 
 God. 
 
 The Gofpel according to Matthew ^ Mark^ 
 Luke, Johny is the hiftorie of Jefus Chrift, 
 as writ by thofe feveral Evangehds. 
 
 (b) Matt. iii. I. 2. In thofe days came John the Baptijly 
 freachmg in the 'wildemejje of Judea, and faying : Repent , 
 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Compare Mark i. 4. 
 Luke iii. i. 2. And fays St. Luke iJi. 18. And many other 
 things ifi his exhortation preached he unto the people. YloK'Aa (J.iv 
 %v )tj iJioci 'TtocPAKochccv, 'ivi]yyzh!i(i'vo TQV kotov- Which may 
 be litterally rendred thus : Jnd exhorting tnany other lih things, 
 he evangelized [or preached the gofpel /o] the people. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
21 
 
 "iCt^ (net (Dc^ (nct\ (net, ** ,«c^ (TiCt fnct^ jDct pc 
 
 '-ditf' rabuj-' niikP rai)f> lii "lip <-Jjm> cstilar' •pVdJ' «-c8dff> ' 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 General Ohferniatlom upon the Canon of the. 
 New Teflament. 
 
 I. rM}^M"5«^ H E canonical books of the 
 
 Q rp S New Teftament, received by 
 
 '^ "^ Chriftians in this part of the 
 
 hj^^^jd world, are the Four Gofpels, 
 
 the Ads of the Apoftles, Fourteen Epiftles 
 
 of St. Pauly Seven Catholic Epiftles, and the 
 
 Revelation. 
 
 II. There may be different canons of the 
 New Teftament among Chriftians. 
 
 Indeed, there have been in former tlm«8, 
 and ftill are, different fentiments among 
 Chriftians, concerning the number of books 
 to be received as canonical. The (a) canon 
 of the Syrian churches is not the fame as 
 ours. Jerome tells us, that (b) in his time 
 fome of the Latins rejeded the epiftle to the 
 
 C 3 He- 
 
 (a) See Vol. ix. p. 221 . Vol. xi. p. 270, , . 275. 
 
 (b) Vol. x,p. \zz. 123. 
 
22 General Ohfcrvatiom Ch. II. 
 
 Hebrews, and fome of the Greeks the book 
 of the Revelation. FromCbryfo/iom's works 
 we perceive, that (c) he did not receive the 
 fecond epiflle of St. Peter, ncr the fecond and 
 third of St. John, nor the epiule of St. yude, 
 nor the Revelation. And there is reafon to 
 think, that (d) T^heodoref?, canon, likewife 
 was much the fame with Chryfojlom's, and 
 that of the churches in Syria. Neverthe- 
 lefs, we have obferved in the courfe of this 
 work, that about the fame time the Egyp- 
 tiajis, and the ChrlAians in divers other Darts 
 of the world, had the fame number of ca- 
 nonical books, that wc have. 
 
 But to come nearer our own time. Cal- 
 vm (e) Grotius (f) Le Clerc (g) Philip 
 Limborch (h) and fome other learned mo- 
 derns, have not admitted the epillle to the 
 
 He- 
 
 (c) The fame. p. 341. (d) Vol. xl. p. 88. 89. 91. 
 
 (e) Ego lit Paulum' agnofcam audorem, adduci nequeo. 
 Cal-vin. argum, in ep. ad Hebr, 
 
 (f) Facillima refutatu eft poftrema haec opinio, ideo quod 
 Paulinae epii^olae inter fe fint germanae, pari charadtcre ac 
 dicendi modo : haec vero manifelle ab ils difcrepet, felec- 
 tiores habens voces Graecas, leniufque fluens, non autein 
 fraiTta brevibus incifis, ac falebrofa. .... Grot. Prooem.in ep» 
 ad Hear. 
 
 (g) Hiji. Ec. Ann. 69. />. 455. . . 461. 
 (h) Prclegom, in ep. ad Heir. 
 
Ch. II. tipon the Canon cf the N. T. 23 
 
 Hebreivs to have been writ by St. Paul: 
 though (i) they were willing to allow it 
 to he the work of an apoftolical man, and 
 a valuable part of facred fcripture. But I 
 cannot fay, that they were in the right in fo 
 doing. For it appears to me to have been a 
 maxim of the ancient Chriftians, not to re- 
 ceive any dodrinal or preceptive writing, as 
 of authority, unlefs it were known to be the 
 work of an Apodle. Confequently, the epif- 
 tle to the Hebrews y if writ by an apoftolical 
 man only, fliould not be efteemed canonical. 
 Grotius (k) likewife fuppofed the fecond 
 
 C 4 epiille 
 
 (t) Hifce argumentis utrinque attente expenfis dicendum 
 videtur, Paulum epiftolae hujus fcriptorem non videri .... 
 . . Quis vero illius fcriptor fit, inceri:um eft. Alii earn Lu- 
 cae, alii Barnabae, alii Clementi adfcribunt. . . Interim di- 
 vinam hujus epiftolae autoritatem agnofcimus, multifque a- 
 liis, quas ab Apoftolis efTe fcriptas, conftat, ob argument! quod 
 tradlat praeftantiam praeferendam judigamus. Liinb. ibid. 
 Fid. et Calvin, uhi fiipra. 
 
 (k) Jam olim veterum muki credidere, non cffe apolloli 
 Petri, argumcnto turn difiionis ab epiflola priore raultum 
 diverfae, quod agnofcunt Eufcblus & Hieronj'mus, turn quod 
 multae dim ecclefiae hanc non receperint. . Scriptorem autcm 
 hujus epillolae arbitror efle Simeonem five Simonem, epifco- 
 pum poft Jacobi mortem Piierofolymis, ejufdemque Jacob!, 
 
 cujus epifiolam habemus, fuccefTorem & imitatorem 
 
 Unde etiam conilat, vixi/fe hunc port cxcidium Hierofolymi- 
 tanum ad Trajani tempore, & tunc pro nomine Chrifti cru- 
 cifix um. Aimot. in E^, Petri fecund. 
 
24 General Ohf creations Cli. II. 
 
 epiille afcribed to Feter^ nc^ to have been 
 writ by the Aportle Simon Feter, but by 
 Simeon y chofen BilliOp- cf Jcrufalem after 
 the death o^ James the JuO, whole epiftie 
 we have. Vvhich Simeon hved to the time 
 of l^rajan^ when he v/as crucified for the 
 name of ChriH:. Upon which I only obferve 
 at prefent, that if this Simeon be the writer 
 of this epifile, it fliould liot be a part of ca- 
 nonical fcripture. 
 
 The fame learned man fuppofeth (I) the 
 fecond and third epidles, called St. Johns, 
 not to have been writ by John the Apoftle, 
 but by another John^ an El.-er or Preibyter, 
 who lived about the fame time, and after 
 him, at Ephtfus. 
 
 And the epifile called St. JudeSy he 
 thought fmj to have been written by one of 
 
 tiiat 
 
 (!) Hanc epiflolam, & earn quae feqiil'tur, non ciTe Jo- 
 hannis Apolloli, veterum multi jam olim c'rediderunt, a qui- 
 bus. non diiTentiunt Eufebius & Hieronymus. Et magna * 
 Jimt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuifTe Johannes Ephefi, 
 -Apoftolum, ac Prefbyterum, ejus diicipuliim, femper con- 
 llitit ex fepulchris, alio hujus, alioillius : quae fepulchravidit 
 Hieronymus. Grof. Annot. in ep. Joan, fecund. 
 
 (m) Quare omnino adducor, ut credam efie hanc epifto- 
 1am Judae Epifcopi Hieiofolymitanij qui fuit Adrian! tem- 
 poribus, pauUo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad cp. 
 jfudae. 
 
^ 
 
 Ch, II. vpon the Camn of the N. T. 25 
 
 thatname, who was BKhopoi J emfohn in the 
 time cf the Emperour ^^a/^?;, and not till af- 
 ter there had been feveral other Bi&ops of that 
 diurch, fince the death of the forementioncd 
 Simeo?2. If fo, I believe, all men may be 
 of opinion, that this epiftle ought not to be 
 placed in the canon of the New Teftament. 
 It may not be thought right, if I Ihould 
 here entirely omit Mr. Wbiflon; vvhofe canon 
 confifted of the (n) ApoftolicalConftitutions, 
 and divers other books, as facred, belide 
 thofe generally received : and (0) the Confti- 
 
 tutions 
 
 (n) " The facred books of the New Teftament fiill ex- 
 tant, both thofe in the 85. canon, and thcfe written after- 
 wards, are the fame, which we now receive : together with 
 the eight books of Aj)oftolical Confutations, and their epi- 
 tome, the Dodrine of the Apoftles : the two epiltles of Cle- 
 fnent, the epiiUe o^ Bar?iabasy the Shepherd of Hei/xas : and 
 perhaps the fecond book of apocryphal E/Jras, with the 
 epiftles of Igfc.tius and Polycarp.''^ EJJhy on the Apojlolical Con^ 
 ftitutious. ch. I. p. 70. 71. 
 
 (0) " If any one has a mind to fort the feveral books of the 
 New Teftament, he may in the firft place fet the Apolloiical 
 Conftitutions, with it's extraft, or t)oclrine of the ApoAles, 
 as derived from the body, or College of the Apofdcs, met 
 in Councils. In the next place he may put the four Gofpcls, 
 with their appendix, the Adts of the Apoftles. The Apo- 
 calypfe of John alfo cannot be reckoned at all inferior to 
 them, though it be quite of another nature from them. In 
 the third rank may ftand the EpiRIes of the Apoftles, PW, Pe- 
 ter and John, In the fourth rank may ftand the Epiilles of the 
 
 bretlu-en 
 
26 General Obfcr'vations Ch. II. 
 
 tutlons, in particular, as the mofl facred of 
 all the canonical books of the New Tcfta- 
 ment. 
 
 Concerning which I beg leave to cbferve, 
 Jirft, that the receiving theConftitutionsas a 
 facred book, and part of the rule of faith, 
 would make a great alteration in the Chriftian 
 fcheme. Some might be induced to think 
 it no great bleffing to mankind, and fcarcely 
 defevving an apologle. Secondly^ Mr. Whif^ 
 ton^ canon is not the canon of the Chriftian 
 churches in former times : as is manifeft 
 from the large colieclions, made by us in the 
 preceding volum-es, from eccleiiaftical wri- 
 ters of every age, to the begining of the 
 tweU^'th centurie. ^hirdh\ Mr, V/hifton^ not- 
 withfl:anding all his labours, made few con- 
 verts to this opinion. Which I impute to 
 the knowledge and learning of our times. 
 And as the Chridian P^eligion is built upon 
 fads, the ftudie of Ecclefiaftical Antiquity 
 
 will 
 
 brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and laft 
 rank may {land the epilHes and writings of the companions 
 and attendants of the Apo?lles, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, 
 hnatius, Polycarp. All which, with the addition perhaps 
 of apocryphal hfdra:, and of the Apocalyife of Peter, and the 
 Ails of Paul, were they now exftant, I look upon, though in 
 dlfl^rent degrees, as the facred books of tlie Ne\^ Teilament." 
 Ibict.p, 72. 73- 
 
Ch. II. upon the CanOji of the N, T. 27 
 
 will be always needful, and may be of ufe, 
 to defeat various attempts of ingenious, but 
 miOaken and prejudiced men. 
 
 Iff. A fliort canon of Scripture is mofl 
 ejiQ;ible. 
 
 Religion i^ the concern cf all men. A 
 few fiiort hiftories and epiftles are better fit- 
 ted for general ufe, than numerous and pro- 
 lix writings. Befides, if any writings are to 
 be received as the rule of faith and manners, 
 it is of the utmoft importance, that they be 
 juftly entitled to that di(lind;ion. Odierwife 
 men may be led into errours cf very bad con- 
 fequencs. If any books pretend to deliver 
 the dodrine of infallible, and divinely infpir- 
 ed teachers, fuch as Jefus Chrift and his A- 
 poflles are efteemed by Chridians : great 
 care fliould be taken to be well fatisfied, 
 that their accounts are authentic, and that 
 they are the genuine writings of the men, 
 y.^hofe names they bear. The pretenfions of 
 writings, placed in high authority, to which 
 great credit is given, ought to be well at- 
 tefted. 
 
 Dr. yorthij fpeaking of the work, called 
 Apodolical Conftitutions, fays : " The (pj 
 
 au- 
 
 (pj Dr. 'jortms Rmvh on Ecclejiajlkal Uijloty. FoL i. 
 p. 229. 
 
28 General Qbfervaiions Ch. II. 
 
 *« authors of them are, it is pretended, the 
 *' twelve Apoilles and St. Paul gathered to- 
 *' gether, with Clement their amanuenfis. 
 
 " If their authority (hould appear only 
 ** ambiguous, it would be our duty to reje(5t 
 *' them, left we fliouki adopt as divine doc- 
 ** rines the commandments' of men. For 
 " iince each Gofpcl contains the main 
 " parts of ChriPiianity, and might be fuffi- 
 *' cientto make men wife to falvation ; there 
 «' is lefs danger in diminifliing, than in en- 
 " kreinp" the number of canonical books : 
 " and lefs evil would have enfued from the 
 ** lofs of one of the four Gofpels, than from 
 ** the addition of a fifth and fpurious one.'* 
 In my opinion, that is a very iine and va- 
 luable obfenation. 
 
 And I fliall tranfcribe again an obfervation 
 of Augiijiin, formerly (q) taken notice of. 
 *' Our canonical books of fcripture, which 
 ** are of the higheft Authority with us, have 
 " been fettled with great care. They ought 
 <* to be few, leaft their value fliould be di- 
 " miniOied. And yet they are fo many, that 
 *« their agreement throughout is wonder- 
 
 " ful." 
 
 IV. I 
 
 (q) SceVcl. x.p, 289. 
 
Ch. 11. upon the Canon of the N. T. 29 
 
 IV". I have been fometimes apt to think, 
 that the bcfl: canon of the New Teftamcnt 
 would be that, which may be colledcd 
 from (r) Eufebe of Caefurea, and feems to 
 have been the canon of ibme in his time. 
 
 The canon fliould conlift of two clafTes. 
 In the firft fliould be thofe books, which he 
 affures us v^ere then tiniverfally acknowledged^ 
 and had been ail along received by all ca- 
 tholic Chriftians. Thefe are the four Gof- 
 pels, the Ads of the Apoftles, thirteen epiftles 
 of St. FauU one epiftle of St. Teter^ and one 
 epiftle of St. 'John, Thefe only Ihould be 
 of the higheft authority, from which doc- 
 trines of religion may be proved. 
 
 In the other clafTe fhonld be placed thofe 
 books, of which 'Eufebe fpeaks, as contra- 
 dicted in his time, though well known : con- 
 cerning which there were doubts, whether 
 they were writ by the perfons, whofe names 
 they bear, or whether the writers were Apof- 
 tles of Chrift. Thefe are the epiPde to the 
 Hebrews^ the epiftle of James^ the fecond of 
 Peter^ the fecond and third of yohn^ the 
 epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation. Thefe 
 fhould be reckoned doubtful, and contra- 
 didled : though many might be of opinion, 
 
 that 
 
 (r) Vol. 'viii.p. 90. . . 105. 
 
20 General Obfervat 10725 Ch. II. 
 
 that there is a good deal of reafon to believe 
 them p;enuine. And thev Ihculd be allow- 
 ed to be publicly read in ChrKlian affemblies, 
 for the edification of the people : but not be 
 alleged, as aB'ording, alone, fufficient proof 
 of any dodrine. 
 
 That I may not be mifijnderdood, I mud 
 add, that there fhould be no third claffe of 
 facred books : forafmuch as there appears not 
 any reafon from Chridian antiquity to allow 
 of that character and denomination to any 
 Chriftian writings, bende thofe above-men- 
 tioned. 
 
 In this canon the preceding rule is regard- 
 ed. It is a (hort canon. And it feems to 
 have been thought of by feme (a) about the 
 
 time of the Reformation. 
 
 V. Ne- 
 
 (a) Vv'e learn from Paul Sarpi\}riVloxit of the Council of 
 Trent, that one of the doftrinal articles concerning facred 
 fcripture, extraiSied, or pretended to be extrai'ted out of Za- 
 thei-^ works, was this : " that no books Cioald be reckoned 
 ** a part of the Old Teilanient, befide thofe received by the 
 " jews : and that out of the New Teltament fhould be 
 " excluded the epiftle to the Hcbre'ws, the epiftle of "James, 
 *' the iecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, the 
 «' epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation." And there were fome 
 Eiihops in tliat Council, " who would have had the books 
 •' of the New Teftament divided into t;vo clafTes : in one of 
 *' which fltould be put thofe books only, which had been al- 
 
 «« ways 
 
Ch. II. upon the Camn of the N. T. 31 
 
 V. Neverthelefs that, which is now. gene- 
 rally received, is a good canon. 
 
 For it contains only thofe books, which 
 were acknowledged by all in the time of Eu- 
 jebe^ and from the begining, and feven other, 
 which were then well known, and v/ere next 
 in efteem to thofe before mentioned, as uni- 
 verfally acknovv'ledged i and were more ge- 
 nerally received as of authority, than any 
 other controverted writings. Nor is there in 
 them any thing inconfiftent with the fads, 
 or principles, delivered in the univerfally ac- 
 knowledged books. And moreover, there 
 may be a great deal of reafon to think, that 
 they are the genuine writings of thofe, to 
 whom they are afcribed, and that the writers 
 v/ere apoflles. This evidence will be care- 
 fully examined, and dirtindly confidered, as- 
 we proceed. 
 
 In this canon likewifetheabove-mentioned 
 rule is regarded. It is a fiiort canon. For 
 out of it are excluded many books, which 
 
 might 
 
 " ways received without contradiction : and in the other 
 " thofe, which had been rejeded by feme, or about which 
 " at left there had been doubts." And Dr. Ciurayer, in his 
 notes, feems to favor tliis propofal. See his French tranjla- 
 tion if the Hifior'ie of the CowidlofTvent. Li'V. 2, ch, 43. 7om. 
 i. p. 235. andch. 47./'. 240. and note i. 
 
32 General Oh fervatlom Ch. II, 
 
 might feem to make a claim to be ranked a- 
 niong f.^cred and canonical fcriptures. - 
 
 VI. There are not any books, beiide thofe 
 now generally received by us, that ought to 
 be efteemed canonical, or books of autho- 
 rity. 
 
 I fuppofe this to be evident to all, who 
 have carefully attended to the hifcorie in the 
 feveral volumes of this work : and that there 
 is no reafon to receive, as a part of facred 
 fcripture, the epiftle of Barnabas^ the epiftk 
 of demerit^ the Shepherd of Her mas ^ the Re- 
 ccgnltiom^ the Clementin Homilies., the Doc- 
 trine of the Jpoftles, the Apofiolical Confti' 
 tiitions^ the Gofpel of Peter ^ or Matthias^ or 
 ThomaSy the 'Preaching of Peter ^ the A5ls 
 of Peter and PaiiJ, of Andrew and fohn and 
 other Apojlksy the Revelation of Peter ^ and 
 Paul, their Travels or Circuits. That thefe 
 books were not received, as facred fcrip- 
 ture, or a part of the rule of faith, by Chrif- 
 tians in former times, has been {liewn. Nor 
 can they therefore be reafonably received by 
 us as fuch. 
 
 The onJy writing of all thefe, that feems 
 to make a fair claim to be a part of facred 
 fcripture, is the epiftle of St. Barnabas^ if 
 
 genuine. 
 
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 33 
 
 genuine, as I (s) have fuppofcd it to be. 
 Neverthelefs, I think, it ought not to be re- 
 ceived as facred fcripture, or admitted into 
 the canon, for thefe reafons. 
 
 I. It was not reckoned a book of autho- 
 rity, or a part of the rule of faith, by thofe 
 ancient chriftians, who have quoted it, and 
 taken the greateil notice of it. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria has (t) quoted this 
 epiftle feveral times, but not as deciiive, and 
 by way of full proof, as we fhewed. Nor is 
 it fo quoted by (u) Origen. Nor is the epif- 
 tle of Barnabas in any of (x) Origen s cata- 
 logues of the books of Scripture, v/hich we 
 flill find in his works, or are taken notice of 
 by Eiifebe, By that Ecckiiaftical Hiftcrlan, 
 in one place it is reckoned (y) among fpii- 
 rioiis writings, that is, fuch as were generally 
 rejected and fuppofed not to be a part of the 
 New Teflament. At other times it is called 
 by him (z) a co?itradi5led book, that is, not 
 received by all. 
 
 Nor is this epiflle placed among facred 
 
 (s) See Ch. i. Vol. z. /i. 23. ... 30. 
 
 (t) See Vol. it. />. 521 .... 523. 
 
 (u) See Vol. Hi. p. 305, 306. 
 
 (x)7hefame p. 234. . . . 243. 
 
 (y) Vol. -via. p. 97. 167. r^j^' 9^- 97* 
 
 Vol. I.. * D fcrip^ 
 
34 General Obfervations Ch.ll. 
 
 fcriptures by following writers, who have 
 given catalogues of the books of the New 
 Teftament. It is wanting, particularly, in 
 the Feftal Epiftle (a) of Atkanafius^ in (b) 
 the catalogue of Cyril of Jenifalem, of (c) 
 the Council of Lacdicea^ of (d) Epiphanius, 
 (e) Gregu-rie Naziafize?j, (f) Amphilochiiis^ 
 and (g) Jero?ne, (h) Rufin^ (i) the Council 
 of Carihage, and (k) Aiigujiin. Nor has it 
 been reckoned a part of canonical fcripture 
 by later writers. 
 
 2. Barnabas was not an Apoflle. 
 
 For he was not one of the twelve Apof- 
 tles of Chrift. Nor was he chofen in th« 
 room of Judas. Nor is there in the Ads 
 any account of his being chofen into the 
 number of Apoftles, or appointed to be an 
 Apoftle by Chrid:, as Paul was. What St. 
 Luke fays of Barnabas is, that he was a good 
 many and full of the Holy Ghojl, and of faith. 
 Ads xi. 24. And in ch. xiii. 1. he is men- 
 tioned among Prophets and Teachers in the 
 church of Anticch. But St. Luke fpeaks in 
 the like manner of Stephen^ of whom he fays, 
 
 he 
 
 (a) Vol. lili. p. Z2-J. , . . 229. (i>J P. 269. 270. 
 
 , fcj P. 291. . . 293. (^J P. 303. 304- 
 
 (e) Vol. ix. />. 133. (f)P''^M' H8. 
 
 (g) Vol. X. p. 76. jy. (h) P. 377. 178. 
 
 (ij P'l9i'i9^» (k) P. 210. 211. 
 
Ch. It. upon the Canon oftbeN.T. 35 
 
 he was n man full of faith, and of the Holy 
 Ghojl, vi. 5. full of faith and power, v. 8. 
 full of the Holy Ghoji. vii. k^^. And all the 
 feven were full of the Holy Ghofl^ and wif 
 dom. vi. 3, 
 
 That Barnabas was not an Apoflle, I 
 think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9. 
 where Paul fays : And ivhen fames, and Ce^ 
 phaSj and John, who feemed to be pillars.^ 
 perceived the grace that was given to me, they 
 gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of 
 Fellowfiip. By grace I fuppofe St. Paul to 
 mean the favour of the apofiletliip. So 
 Rom. i. 5. By whom we have received grace 
 and apojilefiipy that is, the favour of the 
 apofllelliip. Ch. xii. 3. For I fay, through 
 the grace given to me, meaning the efpecial 
 favour of the apofllefliip. And fee ch. xv. 
 15. I Cor. XV. 10. Eph, iv. 7. compared 
 with ver. 11. 
 
 If Barnabas had been an Apoflle, in the 
 fulleft fenfe of the word, St. Paul would not 
 have faid in the above cited place from 
 the fecond to the Galatians, when they per^ 
 ceived the grace given to me, but, when 
 they perceived the grace given to me, and' 
 Barnabas, And in the preceding part of the 
 context, particularly, in ver. 7. 8. he twice 
 
 D 2 fays 
 
^5 General Obfervations Ch. II. 
 
 fays jjie^ where he would have fald us^ if 
 Barnabas had been an Apoflle. For he- had 
 been mentioned before, in ver. i. 
 
 Indeed, in the A6ls, where Paid and Bar^ 
 nahas are mentioned together, Barnabas is 
 fometimes firft named, as Ads xi. 30. xii. 
 25. xiii. I. 2. and 7. xiv. 14, xv. 12. 25. 
 Which, I think, not at all ftrange, among 
 perfons, who were not intent upon prece- 
 dence : when too Barnabas was the elder in 
 years and difciplefhip. Bat in feveral other 
 places Paul is firil named, as in Ads xiii. 
 43. 46. XV. 2. 22. 35. of which no other 
 feafon can be well affigned, befide that of 
 Paul's apoftlefliip. 
 
 Moreover, wherever they travelled toge- 
 ther, if there was an opportunity for dif- 
 courfing, Paul fpake. So at Paphos, in the 
 iiland of (5'/>rz/j. Ads xiii. 6. . . 12. And at 
 Antloch'mPiJidia, ch. xiii. 15. 16. ' Seealfo 
 ch.xiv. 12. 
 
 And that Paul was the principal perfon, 
 
 appears from that early account, after they 
 
 had been inCypriis. ch. xiii. 13. Now when 
 
 Paul and his companie loofed from Paphos, 
 
 they came to Perga, in Pa?7?phyUa. 
 
 However, there are fome texts, which mufl 
 
 be confidered by us, as feeming to afford ob- 
 
 jedions. 
 
 Ads 
 
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 37 
 
 Ads xiv. 4. But the mtdtittide of the city 
 wns divided. Part held with the fews, and 
 part with the Apoftles : that is, Paul and Bar- 
 nahas^ who were then at Iconiiim. And af- 
 terwards, at Lyftra. ver. 14. Which when the 
 Apojiles^ Barnabas and Paul, heard, . • . • 
 Here Barnabas is ftiled an Apofilcy as well as 
 Paul, 
 
 To which I z\^(wtv,firjl. Both being now 
 together, and meeting with the like treat- 
 ment, might be called Apoftles : though only 
 one of them was, properly, fo. Secondly, it 
 is not unlikely, that Bar?2abas and Paul are 
 here ftiled by St. Luke Apoftles, in regard to 
 what had been done at Antioch, as related 
 by him. ch. xij. i. .-. 4. when by an exprefs 
 order from heaven, they were fent forth 
 from the church at Antioch, upon a fpecial 
 commiilion, in which .they were ftill em- 
 ployed. That defignation, however folemn, 
 did not make either of them Apoftles of 
 Chrift in the highefh fenfe. It was not the 
 apoftolical, which is a general commiflion. 
 But it was a particular commiilion, as appears 
 from that whole hiftorie, and from what is 
 faid at the conclufion of the journey, which 
 they had taken. Ads xiv. 26. And thence 
 they failed to Antioch, from whence they had 
 
 D 3 been 
 
2 8 General Qbfervations Ch. 11. 
 
 been recommended to the grace of God, for the 
 workj which they bad fulfilled. Neverthe- 
 kfs, they are not unfitly called Apofiles up- 
 on account of it. So 2 Cor. viii. 13. Whe- 
 ther any do inquire of Titu^^ he is my part ^ 
 ner^ and follow-helper concerning you : or 
 our brethren be enquired oj\ they (I) are the 
 wejfengers of the churches ^ literally, apoQles 
 of the churches, and the ghrie of ChriJL 
 If thofe brethren, which had been appoints 
 ed by the churches to go to Jerufalem, v/ith 
 the contributions, which had been made for 
 the relief of the poor faints in Judeay might 
 be called Apoftles ; there can be no doubt, 
 but Paul and Barnabas might be called A- 
 poftles in regard to the work, to which they 
 had been folemnly appointed by the church 
 at Antioch. 
 
 Again i Cor. ix. 5. 6. Have we not power 
 to lead about a fifter, a wije^ as well as other 
 Apofiles y and as the brethren of the Lord^ and 
 Cephas f Or I only^ and Barnabas^ have not 
 we power to forbear working F 
 
 Some may think, that Barnabas is here 
 fuppofed to be an Apoflle. I anfwer, that 
 though Barnabas vv^as not an Apoflle pro- 
 perly. 
 
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N. T. 39 
 
 perly, or equally with himfelf, yet P^u/, out 
 of an afiedtionate refped: to his friend, com- 
 panion, and fellow-laborer, might be difpofed 
 to mention him, upon this occafion, in the 
 manner he has done. This is faid, fuppofing 
 all before-mentioned to have been Apoftles 
 of Chrift, in the higheft fenfe. But, fecond- 
 ly, it is not certain, that all, before-mention- 
 ed, were flridly Apoftles. It feems to me 
 more likely, that by the brethren of the Lord 
 fome are intended, who were not Apoftles. 
 If fo, Faiil might reafonably, and without 
 ofFenfe, gratify his friendly difpofttion : and 
 infert here the name of Barnabas^ who had 
 fhared with him many fatigues and difficul- 
 ties in the fervice of the gofpel, though he 
 was not an Apoftle. 
 
 I do not therefore difcern any good reafon 
 from the New Teftament, why Barnabas 
 (liould be reckoned an Apoftle. But quite 
 otherwife. 
 
 The fenfe of the primitive Chriftlans is 
 agreeable hereto. Few or none of them 
 have thought Barnabas an Apoftle. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria has quoted Barna- 
 bas (?n) five or fix times. Twice he calls 
 
 D 4 him 
 
 (m) VqL a, p. 521. , • 523. 
 
4o . General Ohfervations Ch. II. 
 
 him Apoftk. In another place he calls him 
 the apojhlic Barnabas^ who was one of the 
 feventjj and fellow-laborer of Paul, Thefe 
 are the highefl: charaders, which he intend- 
 ed to give to Barnabas, and v/hat he means, 
 when he calls him Apojlle^ as is fully (hewn 
 in the place juft referred to. 
 
 By T^ertidlian, as cited by us (n) formerly, 
 Barnabas is plainly reckoned no mere, than 
 (o) a companion of Apoftles. 
 
 Eiifcbe^ in a chapter concerning thofe 
 who were difciples of Chrift, fays : " The 
 *' (P) names of our Saviour's Apoftles are 
 " well known from the Gofpels. But there 
 **= is no Vvhere exftant a catalogue of the 
 " feventy difciples. However, it is faid, that 
 " Barnabas was one of them, who is exprefg- 
 " ly mentioned in the Adts, and in Paul's 
 " epiitle to the GalatiansT That learned 
 Wi'itcT therefore did not know, that Barna^ 
 
 bas 
 
 (n) . . . p. 606 608.' 
 
 (0) Vo!o tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis A- 
 poftolorum tefcimonium fuperducere, idoneum confirmandi de 
 proximo i lire difciplinam Magiftrorum. Exftat enim Zc Bar- 
 nabas titulas ad Hebraeos. TertuIL de Pud'icit. cap. 20. p. 741 . 
 
 (p) . . . T&y cTe iCJ^oy.movla, [jiOi^-ATa^ n.uldhoy'^ f/eu k- 
 
 fi. E. /, I . caj-. xii. 
 
Ch. jr. upon the Canoji of the N. T. 41 
 
 3as was an Apoflle. In fq) another place of 
 the fame work, his Ecclefiailical Hillorie, 
 he quotes a paiTage from the feventh book 
 of Clement's Inftitutionsor Hypotopofes, where 
 Barnabas is ftiled one of the feventy. In his 
 Commentarie upon Ifaiah (r) Eufebe com- 
 putes fourteen Apoftles, meaning the twelve, 
 and Patd^ added to them, and equal to them, 
 and James the Lord's brother, Bifhop of Je- 
 riifalemi whom Eufebe did not think to be 
 one of the twelve. Nor does he here fay, 
 that (s) he was equal to them, or Paul. 
 However, from all thefe places we can be 
 fully afiured, that our learned Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorian did not fo much as fufped Barna^ 
 has to have been an Apoftle, in the higheft 
 fenfe of the word. 
 
 jerofne, in the article of Barnabas, in his 
 book of Ecclefiaftical Writers, fays, he (t) 
 was ordained with Paul an apoftle of the Gen^ 
 tils. But authors, .who write in hafte, as 
 Jerome often did, do not always exprefs 
 themfelvcs exadly and properly. Jerome did 
 not think, that Barnabas was equally an 
 
 Apoftle 
 
 (q) L. 2. cap. i. p. 38. D. 
 (r) Comm. in Ef. />. 422. 
 (s) See Vol, (viii. p. 1 54. 1 5 j, 
 (t) See f^ot, X. p. 1/^2, 143. 
 
421 General Obfervations Ch. IT. 
 
 Apoftle with Paul. This may be conckided 
 , from what there follows : He wrote an.epif- 
 tle jor the edification of the Churchy which 
 is read among the apocryphal fcriptures.- If 
 Barnabas had been an Apollle, ftridly fpeak- 
 ing, Jerome would not have faid, he wrote 
 an epiftle for the edification of the Church. 
 Which any man might do. Nor would 
 his epiftle have been reckoned apocryphal, 
 as Jerome here, and elfewhere (u) calls it. 
 When Jerome fays, that Barnabas was or- 
 dained with Paul an Apoftle of the Gentils j it 
 is likely, he refers to the hiftorie in Ads xiii, ' 
 
 1 4. of which I have already faid all 
 
 that is needful. 
 
 ^heodoretj as formerly quoted, fays : " The 
 <« (x) all-wife Deity committed the culture 
 *' of a barren world to a few men, and thofe 
 ** nfhermen, and publicans, and one tent- 
 <* maker." And to the like purpofe often. 
 Which (hews, that he did not reckon Bar' 
 nabas an Apoftle in the fulleft meaning of 
 the word. If he had, he muft have added, 
 and one Levite. The fame obfervation may 
 be applied to Chryfofionit who (y) in his ma- 
 ny 
 
 (zi) See agai):, as before, Vol, x, p. 143. 
 (xj Vol xi. p. 96. See alfo p. 97. 99. 103. 
 (y) See Vol. x. p» ^66. . . . 370. 
 
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N» 7*. 43 
 
 ny paflages fliewing the wonderful progrefle 
 of the gofpel, often mentions the Apoftles 
 Peter, a fifherman, and Paul a tent-maker, 
 but never Barnabas a Levite. 
 
 If then Barnabas was not an Apoftle, an 
 epiftle writ by him cannot be received as 
 canonical, or a part of the rule of faith : for- 
 afmuch as no men, befide Apoflles, have 
 the privilege of writing epiftles, or other 
 works, preceptive, and doctrinal, that fliall 
 be received by the churches, in that quality. 
 This has been faid feveral times in the 
 courfe of this (z) work. And I Aill think 
 it right. 
 
 Mark (a) and Luke, apoftollcal men, may- 
 write hiftories of our Lord's and his Apoftles 
 preaching, and dodrine, and miracles, which 
 fliall be received as facred, and of authority. 
 But no epiftles, or other writings, delivering 
 dodrines and precepts, (except only in the 
 way of hiftorical narration,) can be of autho- 
 rity, but thofe writ by Apoftles. 
 
 Says Jerome of St. John : «* He fbj was 
 " at once Apoftle, Evangclift, and Prophet : 
 
 *' Apof- 
 
 (z) See Apoflles in the alphabetical Table of principal 
 Matters. 
 
 (a) See Vol //. /)i 525. ' 
 
 (i>) Vol. x.p. 101. 
 
^4 General Ohfervatiom Ch. II. 
 
 ** Apoflle, in that he wrote letters to the 
 " churches as a mafter : Evangelift, as he 
 " wrote a book of the Gofpel, which no o- 
 ** ther of the twelve Apoilles did, except 
 *' Matthew : Prophet, as he faw the Reve- 
 ** lation in the ifland Patmos, where he was 
 " banished by DomitianJ' 
 
 Frederic Spanheim^ in his DifTertation con- 
 cerning the twelve Apoftles, readily acknow- 
 ledgcth this to be one prerogative of Apof- 
 tles : " That (c) they may write epiftles, 
 " which fliall be received as canonical, and 
 ** be of univerfal and perpetual authority in 
 
 «* the Church." 
 
 2. Barnabas docs not take upon himfelf 
 
 the charader of an Apoflle, or a man of au- 
 thority. 
 
 Near the begining of the epiftle he fays : 
 
 " I (dj therefore, not as a teacher, but as one 
 
 *' of you, iliall lay before you a few things, 
 
 *' that you may be joyful." 
 
 And 
 
 (c) Decimus nobis character apofiolicae Cyrs^^oyji^ eft po- 
 teftas fcribendi ad ecclefias plures, vel ad onmes, to7? kh- 
 ■^qXh 'ZfiToli, hujufmodi epiftolas, quae in canonem referri 
 mererentur, id eft, quae forent canonicae, univerfalis et per- 
 petuae in Ecclefia auftoritatis. . Dl/T- prima de Apcjlot. Ouod, 
 num. xu 0pp. T. 2. />. 310. 
 
 (d) Ego autem non tanquam dodor, fed unus ex vobis, de*. 
 monftrabo pauca, per quae in plurimis lactiores fitis. Barn. 
 (p. cap. i. 
 
Ch. II. upon the Canon of the N, T. 45 
 
 And fomewhat lower : ''Again, (e) I en- 
 " treat you, as one of yoa." 
 
 He writes as a man, who had gifts of the 
 Spirit, but not that full meafure, which was 
 a prerogative of Apoftles. *' He (f) who 
 *' put the engrafFed gift of his dod:nne in us, 
 " knows, that no man has received for learn- 
 *' ed] from me a truer word. But I know, 
 " that you are vi^orthie." 
 
 1 fliall add a few more very modefi: expref- 
 flons, not fuitable to an Apofile. 
 
 " Thus (g) as much as in me lies, I have 
 *' writ to you with great plainnefTe. And I 
 *' hope, that according to my ability, I have 
 '* omitted nothing conducive to your falva- 
 " tion in the prefent circumftance." 
 
 In the lall chapter : *' I (h) befeech you : 
 *' 1 aflc it as a favour of you, vvhilfl: you are 
 " in this beautiful veffel of the body, be 
 " v;^anting in none of thefe things." 
 
 And 
 
 (e) Adhuc Sc hoc rogo vos, tamquam unus ex vobls. lb. 
 cap. ^ 
 
 Old a, oTi tf^io/ grs Vf/.bi^. Lap. 9. 
 
 (g) '£(?' otrov fiv \v iS'mxTa ly uttXotut: J*ti\K(T<xi y//7v sA- 
 
 7UV avi)Kii]eov Ciulv ei<; (Tcmjpjav, hirarav. Cap. IJ. 
 
46 General Ohfern^atlom^ ^c. Ch. II. 
 
 And ftill nearer the conclufion. " Where- 
 ** fore I have endeavoured to write to you, 
 *' according to my ability, that you might 
 *' rejoice." 
 
 Upon the whole, this epiflle well anfwers 
 the charader given oi Barnabas in the Ads, 
 particularly, ch. xi. 24. He was full of the 
 Holy Ghoft, The writer of this epKile had 
 the gift of the Spirit, though not that mea- 
 fure, which was peculiar to Apoflles. He 
 was full of faiths The writer of this epiflle 
 had an earneft zeal for the truth and fimpli- 
 city of the gofpel. He was alfo a good man. 
 In this epiflle we obferve the mildnefie and 
 gentleneffe, by which Barnabas feems to have 
 been difiingui filed. But we do not difcern 
 here the dignity and authority of an Apoftle. 
 
 Confequently, this epiftle may afford edi- 
 fication, and may be read with that view. 
 But it ought not to be efleemed by us, as it 
 was not by the ancients, a part of the rule of 
 faith. 
 
 (i) A;o iMifKKo]) IffTriJ^acce. ypU'^Oii, «(^' ay wJ^t/v^-S-jjv, «if 
 To tvafcipon vij.o(i. Uid, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
47 
 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of the Methody in which the Canon of the 
 New Tejiament has been formed^ 
 
 r^^)^M"^ H E canon of the New Tefta- 
 
 '*ir' 'iff 
 
 Q 'P w ment is a colledlion of books, 
 )iC )i writ by feveral perfons, in feve- 
 
 ^<->.m^»sJK( i-^i places, and at different times. 
 It is therefore reafonable to think, that it was 
 formed gradually. At the rife of the Chrif- 
 tian Religion there were no written fyftertis 
 or records of it. It was firft taught and 
 confirmed by Chrift himfelf in his moft glo- 
 rious miniftrie : and was flill farther con- 
 firmed by his willing death, and his refurrec- 
 tion from the dead, and afcenfion to heaven. 
 AfterwaVds it was taught by word of mouth, 
 and propagated by the preaching of his Apof- 
 tles and their companions. Nor was it fit, 
 that any ^books fliould be writ about it, till 
 
 there 
 
■48 The Method Ch, III. 
 
 there were converts to receive and keep them, 
 and deliver them to others. 
 
 If St. FauT^ two epiilles to the T^hejjaloniam 
 • were the firil written books of the Nev/ Tef- 
 tament, and not writ till the year ci. or 52. 
 about twenty years after our Saviour's afcen- 
 lion, they would be for a while the only fa- 
 cred books of the new difpenfation. 
 
 As the Chriftians at TheJ/alom'ca had receiv- 
 ed the dodrine taught by Paul, not as the 
 word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word 
 of God. I Theff. ii. 13. they would receive 
 his epiftles, as the written word of God. And 
 himfelf taught them fo to do, requiring, that 
 they fliould be folemnly read unto all the 
 holy brethren, i Theff. v. 27. He gives a 
 like diredion, but more exteniive, at the end 
 of his epiiile to the Colojians. iv. 16. requir- 
 ing them, after they had read it amongfl them- 
 JelveSj to caiife it to be read alfo in the church 
 of the Laodiceans : and that they likewife read 
 the epiftle, that would come to them from 
 Laodicea. 
 
 AH the Apoille Paid'^ epldles, whether to 
 churches or particular perfons, vt'ould be re- 
 ceived with the like refpedt by thofe to whom 
 they were fent, even as the written word of 
 
 . - God, 
 
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N. T. 49 
 
 God, or facred fcriptures. And in like man- 
 ner the writings of all the Apoftles and E- 
 vangelifts. 
 
 They who firft received them would, as 
 there were opportunities, convey them to o- 
 thers. They who received them, were fully 
 aflured of their genuinnefle by thofe who de- 
 livered them. And before the end of the 
 firft centurie, yea not very long after the 
 midle of it, it is likely, there were colledi- 
 ons made of the four Gofpels, and mod of 
 the other books of the New Teftament, 
 which were in the hands of a good number 
 of churches and perfons. 
 
 From the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria^ TertuUian, and other writers of 
 the fecond centurie, of Origen in the third, 
 and of Eufebius in the fourth centurie, it 
 appears, that the greateft part of the books, 
 which are now received by us, and are cal- 
 led canonical, were univerfally acknowledg- 
 ed in their tim.es, and had been fo acknow- 
 ledged by the elders and churches of former 
 times. And the reil, now received by us, 
 though they were then doubted of, or con- 
 troverted by fome, were (a) well known, 
 
 (a) See Eufebius Vol. 'viii. p. 96. 97. 
 
 Vol. I. * E and 
 
50 The Method . Ch. III. 
 
 and approved by many. And AthanafiiiSy 
 who lived not long after Etifebius^ (having 
 iiouriQied from the year 326. and afterwards) 
 received all the fame book?, which are now 
 received by us, and no other. Which has 
 alfo been the prevailing fentiment ever fince. 
 
 This canon was not determined by the 
 authority of Councils. Bat the books, of 
 which it conlifts, were known to be the ge- 
 nuine writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, 
 in the fame way and manner that we know 
 the works of Cefat-, Cicero, Virgil^ Horace, 
 Tacitus, to be theirs. And the canon has 
 been formed upon the ground of an unani- 
 mous, or generally concurring tedinionie and 
 tradition. 
 
 In the courfe of this long work we have- 
 had frequent occalion to obferve, that the 
 canon oi the New Teftament had not been 
 fettled by any authority univerfally acknow- 
 ledged, particularly, not in the time of (b) 
 Eujebius, nor of (c) Augujiin, nor of (d) 
 Cajjiodorius : but t^at neverthelefs there was 
 a general agreement among Chriftians upon 
 
 this head. 
 
 That 
 
 (h) Vol. nJiii. p. 105. (c) Vol. x, 307. . .211* 
 
 (d) Vol. xi. 279. 
 
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N. T. 5 1 
 
 That the number of books to be received 
 as facred and canonical had not been deter- 
 mined by the authority of any Council, or 
 Council', univerfally acknowledged, is ap- 
 parent from the different judgements among 
 Chriftians, in feveral parts of the world, con-* 
 cerning divers books, particularly, the epifllc 
 to the HebreivSj and the Revelation : which 
 were received by fome, rejeded, or doubted 
 of by others. Not now to mention any of 
 the Catholic Epiftles. There was no cata- 
 logue of the books of fcripture in any canoa 
 of tlie Council of Nice, Auguflin (e) giv- 
 ing dired:ions to inquiative perfons, how they 
 might determine, what books are canonical, 
 and what not, refers not to thedecifionsof any 
 Councils. Caffodorhis^ in the fixth centurie, 
 has (f) three catalogues, one called Jerome's^ 
 another AngufiirJ%^ another that of the an- 
 cient verlion. But he refers not to the de- 
 cree of any Council, as decifive. And it 
 feems to me, that in all times Chriflian peo- 
 ple and churches have had a liberty to judge 
 for themfelves, according to evidence. And 
 the evidence of the genuinnefle of moft of , 
 the books of the New Teflament has been 
 
 E 2 io 
 
 (e) Vol. X. p. 207. (f) Vol, xi.p. 303. . . 306, 
 
52 1'he Method Ch. III. 
 
 fo clear and manifeft, that they have been 
 univerfally received. 
 
 The genuinnefTe of thefe books, as before 
 faid, is known in the fame way with others, 
 by teftimonie or tradition. The firft teftimo- 
 nie is that of thofe who were contemporarie 
 with the writers of them. Which teftimo- 
 nie has been handed down to Others. 
 
 That in this way the primitive Chriftians 
 formed their judgement concerning the 
 books propofed to be received as facred fcrip- 
 tures, appears from their remaining works. 
 Says Clement of Alexandria : " This (g) we 
 " have not in the four Gofpels, which have 
 *' been delivered to us, but in that according 
 *' to the Egyptians.'* TeriiilliaJi may be 
 feen largely to this purpofe. Vol. ii. 576. . . 
 581. I pafs on to Grigenj who fays : ** As 
 ** fbj I have learned by tradition concerning 
 '* the four Gofpels, which alone are received 
 •' without difpute by the whole Church of 
 •' God under heaven." So Eufebe^ in his 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, often obferves, what 
 books of the New Teftament had been quo- 
 ted by the ancients, and what not. And 
 having rehearfed a catalogue of books uni- 
 verfally 
 
 ts) ^''^' "' P' 496' <^»^ 529. (h) Vol, /«./. 235. 
 
Ch. III. of forming the Ca?2on of the N. T. 53 
 
 verfally received, and of others controverted, 
 he fays : " It (ij was needful to put down 
 ** thefe alfo : diftinguifhing the fcriptures, 
 '• which according to ecclefiaftical tradition 
 " are true, genuine, and univerfally acknow- 
 '* ledged, from thofe which are controverted, 
 " and yet appear to have been known to 
 *' many : that by this means we may know 
 ** them from fuch as have been publifhed 
 ** by heretics, under the names of Apoftles. 
 ** Which books none of the ecclefiaftical 
 *' writers in the fucceflion from the times of 
 " the Apoftles have vouchfafed to mention 
 ** in their writings." I may not tranfcribe, 
 but only refer to (k) Athanafius in his Feftal 
 Epiftle, to (I) Cyril of Jeriifalem, (m) Ril- 
 friy and (n) Auguflin, 
 
 However, befide obferving the teftimonie 
 of writers in former times, they criticifed the 
 books, which were propofed to them : ex- 
 amining their ftile and contents, and com- 
 paring them with thofe books, which had 
 been already received as genuine upon the 
 ground of an unanimous teftimonie, and un- 
 doubted tradition. Says honeft SerapJO?i^ 
 
 E 3 Eiftiop 
 
 (i) Vol. <viii. p. 97. 9S. See like^ife p, 99. . . . 102. 
 Ck) Vol. viii. p.2zs. (I) P. 268. 
 
 (m) Vol. AT. ^, 1 93. , (n) P. 207. 208. 
 
54 
 
 The Method Ch. IIL 
 
 Birtiop of Antiocbt in an epiftle to fome, 
 who had too much refpedl for a writing, 
 entitled t^x Gofpel of Peter : " We (o) bre- 
 *' thren, receive Peter, and the other Apof- 
 *' ties, as Chrift: but as fkilful men, we re- 
 ** jecflthofe writings, which are falily afcribed 
 " to them : well knowing, that we have re- 
 " ceived no fuch." And he adds, that upon 
 perufing that work, he had found the main 
 part of it agreeable to the right dodrine of 
 our Saviour : but there were fome other 
 things of a different kind. And Eufebe adds 
 in the^ place tranfcribed above : *' The (p) 
 '' flile alfo of thefe books is entirely diffe- 
 *' rent from that of the Apoftles. JVloreover 
 *' the fentiments and doctrine of thefe wri- 
 '' tings differ from the true orthodox Chrif- 
 *' tianity. All which things plainly (liew, 
 " that they are the forgeries of heretics." 
 
 It has been fometimes faid, that the 
 Council of Laodicea iirfl: fettled the canon of 
 the New Teftament. But it may be juftly 
 faid to have been fettled before. At icfl 
 there had been long before a general agree- 
 ment among Chriftians, what books were 
 
 cano- 
 
 (o) Vol. a. p. 558. 
 
 (pj Fo/.i/iii.p.^S. 
 
Ch. Iir. of forming the Canon of the N. T, rr 
 
 canonical, and what not : what were the 
 genuine writings of Apoflles and Evangelifts, 
 and what not. From the decree of the 
 Council itfelf it appears, that there were 
 writings already known by the title of cano- 
 nical. That Council does nothing in their 
 laft canon, but declare, " That (q) private 
 *' pfalms ought not to be read in the church, 
 " nor any books not canonical, but only 
 *' the canonical books of the Old and New 
 " Teftament." After which follows a cata- 
 logue or enumeration of fuch books. The 
 fame may be faid of the third Council of 
 Carthage, whofe 47. canon is to this pur- 
 pofe : " Moreover (r) it is ordained, that 
 ** nothing befide the Canonical Scriptures 
 " be read in the church, under the name of 
 *' Divine Scriptures." 
 
 I fhall now tranfcribe below a long and 
 fine pafTage of Mr. Le Clerc^ wherein he fays : 
 *' We (s) no where read of a Council of the 
 
 E 4 <« Apoftles, 
 
 (q) Vol. <vui. p. 291 . 292. (r) Vol. X, p. 193. 
 
 (sj Nufquam quidem legimus, Collegium Apoftolicum, 
 aut coetum ullum R.e£lorum Ecckriarum Chrifiianari;m co- 
 aftum efle, qui pro audoritate definierint hunc iiumerum 
 Evangeliorum efl'e admittendum, nou majorem, nee mino- j 
 
 rem. Sed nee opus fuit, cum omnibus conflarct, ex telti- 
 monio et confcnrw aequalium, quatuor haec Evangelia 
 
 eorum 
 

 56 The Method Ch. III. 
 
 " Apoftles, or of any affemblie of the Gover- 
 " nours of Chriflian churches, convened, to 
 *' determine by their authority, that fuch a 
 ** number of Gofpels, neither more nor few- 
 " er, (liould be received. Nor was there any 
 ** need of it, fince it is well known to all 
 ** from the concurring tefiimonie of contem- 
 poraries, that thefe four Gofpels are the ge- 
 nuine writings of thofe whofe names they 
 " bear : and fince it is alfo manifeft, that 
 '* there is in them nothing unworthie of thofe, 
 ** to whom they are afcribed, nor any thing 
 *• at all contrarie to the revelation of the Old 
 
 *' Tefta- 
 
 coram vere fui/Te, quorum nomina praeferunt : cumque ni- 
 hil in iis legatur quod fcriptoribus dignum non fit, vel re- 
 velationi Veteris Teftamenti, reftaeve rationi, vel minimum 
 adverfetur : aut quod inferius aevum, recentiorumque manus 
 ullo modo refipiat. Non opus fuit fynodo Grammaticorum, 
 qui, pro imperio, pronuhciarent ea fcripta, verbi cauffa, Ci- 
 ceronis et Virgilii, quae eorum efTe non dubitamus, re vera 
 tantorum ingeniorum foetus fuifTe, et pofteritati ea in re 
 confulerent. Omnium confenius, non quaefitus, non ro- 
 gatus, fed fponte fignificatus, prout occafio tulit, refque ipfae 
 omnibus, qui pollea vixere, dubitationem omnem anteverte- 
 runt. , . Sic et Evangeliorum audoritas merito conftituta 
 eft, et invaluit, perpetuo confenfu, fine ullo Redorum Eccle« 
 fiae decreto. 
 
 Idem dixerimus de Epiftolis Apoftolicis, quae nullius ec* 
 clefiaftici conventus judicio, fed conftanti omnium chriftia- 
 norum teftimonio, rebufque ipfis, quas compleftuntur, auc- 
 toritatem omnem fuam debent. Cleric. H, E. arm, lOO, »»». 
 i«. iv. Vid. et ann, 29. num. xcu* 
 
Ch. III. of forming the Canon of the N.. T. ^y 
 
 ** Teftament, nor to right reafon. There 
 «' was no need of a fynod of Grammarians, 
 " to declare magifterially what are the works 
 " of Cicero, or Virgil. . . In Hke manner the 
 " authority of the Gofpels has been eftabHfli- 
 " ed by general and perpetual confent, with- 
 *' cut any decree of the Governours of the 
 ** Church. We may fay the fame of the 
 " Apoftoiical Epiftles, which owe all their 
 *' authority, not to the decifions of any eccle- 
 ** fiaftical affemblie, but to the concurring 
 *' teftimonie of all Chriftians, and the things 
 " themfelves, which are contained in them." 
 Mr. 'James Bafnage (t) has feveral chap- 
 ters, fliewing how the canon of the New 
 Teftament was formed, without the authori- 
 tative decilions of Councils. I likewife refer 
 to (u) Mr. Jones upon this fubjed. I muft 
 alfo remind my readers o^ (x) Augu)iin\ ex- 
 cellent obfervations, in his arguments with 
 the ManicheanSy concerning the genuinnefle 
 and integrity of the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment. I (hall tranfcribe from him here a 
 few lines only, which are very much to the 
 prefent purpofe. *' We (y) know the wri- 
 
 " tings 
 
 (t) WJi. ie r Eglife. I 8. ch. v. vi, vl't. 
 
 (u) Neiv and/u// Method. Part. i. ch, v. vi. vit. 
 
 (x) See Vol. a-/. />. 375. . . 381. (y) P. 379. 
 
58 The Method, &c. Ch. IH. 
 
 " tings of the Apoftles, fays he, as we know 
 " the works oi Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero ^Varro, 
 <•' and others. And as we know the writ- 
 «* ings of divers ecclefiaftical authors : foraf- 
 «^ much as thev have the teftimonie of con- 
 *' temporaries, and of thofe who have lived 
 •' in iucceding ages." 
 
 Upon the vv^hole, the writings of the 
 Apoftles and Evangelifts are received, as the 
 works of other eminent men of antiquity are, 
 upon the ground of general confent and tefli- 
 monie. Nor does the canon of the fcrip- 
 tures of the New Teftament owe it's eftablifh- 
 nient to the decifions of Councils : but it is 
 the judgement of Chriftian people in general. 
 And fo far as we are able to perceive, after a 
 long and careful examination, it is a right 
 and reafonable judgement. And it may in- 
 ' duce us to believe, that if men were encou- 
 raged to think freely, in other matters alio, 
 and to judge for themfelves, according to 
 evidence, and proper affiftances were afford- 
 ed them, it would not be at all detrimental to 
 the interefts either of truth or virtue. 
 
 C H A P. 
 
59 
 
 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the T^me of writing the Gofpels, efpecially^ 
 ■ the firji three, 
 
 S E C T. I. 
 
 T^hat the Gofpeh are not mentioned^ nor refer^ 
 red to J in the Epiflles of the New Tejiameiif, 
 
 WmiW^USEBE intimates, that (a) 
 g ^ S many before him luppofed, that 
 ^ ^ when Pmil in his epiftle fpeaks 
 
 ^M^^J^ of his own gofpel, he intended 
 the Gofpel according to Luke, We will 
 therefore confider thofe texts, and fome o- 
 ther of a hke kind. 
 
 I. St. Paul fays Rom. ii. i6. . . in the day, 
 when God fiall judge the fecrets of men^ ac- 
 cording to my gofpeL The fame phrafe oc- 
 curs again ch. xvi. 25. and 2 Tim. ii. 8. Re- 
 member^ that Jefus Chrift^ of the feed of Da- 
 
 %ndy 
 
 (a) taffi cTs, ui a^cx, Tb zar avrov IvxyythiM ixi'nfj.ovivC'^ o 
 vravKtii bM^tv, oTTWr/.A cyj TTff/ ]J^i<i t/vo; kvayyiKia yp^Aipav 
 iXiyc, nctra TO ivityyi?4ov lAi. Etif. H. E. /. ^,c, ^. p. 73. 
 D, 
 
6q *The Time of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 vidy was raifedfrom the deady accordijig to ?ny 
 
 In all which places, I apprehend, it mud 
 be reafonable to underftand, not any written 
 Gofpel, or hiftorle of Jefus Chrift : but the 
 doflrine of the gofpel of Jefus Chrift, which 
 had been preached by Paul. Which is alfo 
 the opinion of learned modern interpreters in 
 general. 
 
 II. 2 Cor. viii. .18. Aiidwe have Jent with 
 him the brother, whofe praife is in the gofpel^ 
 throughout all the churches. 
 
 Many have been of opinion, that St. Luke 
 js the brother y here intended, and that*St. 
 Taul refers to Luke's, written Gofpel. This 
 (b) isfaid to be Origefi% interpretation. But 
 I do not clearly perceive it. Origen (c) fpeak- 
 ing of the four Gofpels, fays : *< The (d) 
 third is that according to Luke, the Gofpel, 
 commended by Paul." I fay, I do not per- 
 ceive it to be clear, that Origen had an eye 
 
 to 
 
 (I) " Who this brother was, is much contelled. Antiquity 
 " has carried it for St. Luke^ ^worthy of praife in all the churches 
 *' for the Gofpel, nvhich he worote. The authority of this af- 
 *' fertion feems to reft upon the words of Origen, the interpo- 
 *' lated Ignatius, and St. Jero^neJ''' So Whitby upon the Place. 
 
 (c) Kai Tfiiov TO AXTA Xaxav, to Ctto "TravXti iTTXlviixiV^ 
 ivocyyiXiav. Ap. Euf. l. 6. cap, 25. ^. 226. C. 
 
 (d) See Vol, Hi. /. 235. 
 
Ch. IV. the firjl three Gofpeh. 6 1 
 
 to 2 Cor. viii. 18. He might intend Rom. 
 ii. 16. or xvi, 25. or 2 Tim. ii. 8. How- 
 ever, whether it be Origens interpretation of 
 that text, or not, it is Jerome's : who wri- 
 ting the hiftorie of St. Luke in his book of 
 Illuftrious Men, fays : " He (e) wrote a 
 Gofpel, of which Paul makes mention, fay- 
 ing : J^nd we have fe fit with him the brother^ 
 ivhofe praife is in the Gofpel!' To the fame 
 purpofe (f) alfo in the prologue to his Com- 
 mentarie upon St. Matthew : and likewife 
 in (g) his Commentarie upon the epiftle to 
 Philemon, 
 
 Chryfojiom upon the place fpeaks after this 
 manner. " And (h) who is this brother ? 
 " Some fay, Luke : and think, that the A- 
 ** poftle refers to the hiftorie, writ by him. 
 " Others fay, Barnabas. For by gofpel he 
 « intends unwritten preaching." Theophy^ 
 la5l (i) fpeaks to the hke purpofe. Theo- 
 
 doret 
 
 (e) See Vol. x. p. 94. (/) The '/am, /. 83 . 
 
 (g) De quo [Luca] et in alio loco : Miji, jnquit, cum ilia 
 fratrem, cujus laiis eji in e'vangelio per omnes ecclejias. . . &c. 
 In Phi tern. T. 4. P. ?. p. 454. 
 
 (h) Kai tU kto; Ir/v ciS'tX(po( ; ripif fj>tv rov XHxav. Krtt 
 <pa.at, J'ta Tiju Uopiav WTiif typx'^t. T/»5! S'i tcV ^»fvajiocv. 
 Ka« yup To aypx(pov utifvy^uoi ivoiryyihm r,<t,h^. In z. ep. ad 
 Corinth, horn. 18. Tom. Xm 
 
 (i) In kc.p. 389. 
 
5 2 ^^^ Time of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 doret (k) by the brother underftood B^rjia- 
 
 bas. And therefore could not think of any 
 
 written Gofpel, no fiich work having been 
 
 afcribed to him by the ancients. Oecume- 
 
 nius\ note is to this purpofe. " Many (I) 
 
 " fay, this brother is Lake^ mentioned upon 
 
 " account of the Gofpel compofed by him. 
 
 *' Many others fuppofe him to be Barnabas. 
 
 *' For, as they fay, unwritten preaching is 
 
 *' here called gofpel. Which is the more 
 
 " hkely. For what follows is more fuitabls 
 
 " to Barnabas : ivhofe prafe is in the gofpel, 
 
 " As much as to fay : he not only preaches, 
 
 ' ** but commendably." And afterwards. 
 
 ** The meaning is, he not only evangelizeth, 
 
 *' and preacheth the gofpel admirably, and 
 
 . ** commendably, but he has been chofen to 
 
 " travel with us, with this grace aifo." Such 
 
 are the fentiments of the ancients upon this 
 
 text. 
 
 Let us now obferve the interpretations of 
 
 fome judicious moderns. 
 
 Grotius fays: *' he (tn) does not diillke 
 
 the 
 
 Thod in loc. 1. 3. p. 243. 
 
 ^l) Oecum, in loc. Tom. i. ^.663. 
 
 (m) Mihi nou diipHcet fententia illorum, qui hic Lucam 
 defignari putant : ita tamcn ut per evangelium non intelli- 
 gatur liber, qui tunc editus nondum erat, fed ipfum munus 
 
 evangeliltae. 
 
Ch. IV. the Jirjl three Gofpeh. 63 
 
 the opinion of thofe, who think Luke to be 
 here intended. But he does not think, that 
 St. Paul refers to his book of the Gofpel, 
 which was not then pubhfhed : but to the 
 office of an Evangehll:, which Luke had dif- 
 charged in feveral places, or to his preachino- - 
 the gofpel. And he fays, that i?i the gofpel 
 may be the fame as by the gofpel. So in ch. 
 X. 14. of the fame epillle." 
 
 Efius like wife fays, that (n) by gofpel Is 
 to be underftood preaching : not St. Luke^ 
 Gofpel, which we are net certain was then 
 publiflied. 
 
 Le Clerc, in his French Teftament, tranf- 
 lates in this manner : one of our brethren; who 
 is praifed on account of the gofpel in all the 
 churches. And in his notes fays, " that ee- 
 " nerally St. Luke is here fuppofed to be in- 
 " tended : though St. Faul refers rather to 
 " his preaching the gofpel, than to the book 
 " of his Gofpel." 
 
 Beaufobre 
 
 evangeliftae, quod Lucas Pauli vice multis in locis fideliter 
 obierat, five ipfa evangelii praedicatio, ut infra x, 14. h in 
 pro i'la. per. Grot, ad 2> G?r„ inii. 18. 
 
 (n) Neque enim Paulas de Evangelic fcripto loquitur, kdi 
 quo niodo paffim alibi, de evangelic praedicato. Deinde, 
 nee fatis conllat, Evangelium Lucae turn editum fuiffe, quaii- 
 do Paulus hanc epiilolarn fcripfit. EJ}. in loc. 
 
64 STZt T^me of writing Ch. IV*. 
 
 Beaufobre tranflates after this manner : 
 one of the brethren^ who has made himfelffa' 
 mous in all the churches by [preaching] the 
 gofpel. And fays in his notes : *' that though 
 " feme of the ancients have hereby under- 
 *' flood St. Luke, and his Gofpel ; he thinks, 
 *' that by the gofpel is here intended the 
 ** preaching of the gofpel. Beiides, there is 
 ** no proof, that St. Luke had as yet writ his 
 *' Gofpel. It is rather reafonable to think, 
 « he had not." 
 
 Upon the whole, though we cannot cer- 
 tainly fay, who is the brother^ whofe praife 
 was in the gofpel: whether foj Luke, or Bar- 
 nabas y or Silas y or Apollos : I prefume we are 
 fufEciently warranted to fay, that by gofpel 
 is here intended neither the gofpel accord- 
 ing to Lukcy nor any other written Gofpel 
 whatever. 
 
 III. I Tim. vi. 20. O Timothiey keep that 
 which is committed to thy triijl. 
 
 Hereby fome have been difpofed to under- 
 fland a written Gofpel. But they are not fa- 
 vored by the beft interpreters. Grotius fays, 
 that (p) this depofit, or thing committed to 
 
 Timotbie's 
 
 (o) Vid. EJ}. in 2, Cor. 'vtii. iS. ei Beaiifohr. in ver. 1 8. 
 
 et 23. 
 (p) Vocat autem depofitum facram dodrinam evangelii. 
 
Cl3.I\^. the firji three Gofpets, 65 
 
 ^Tomothie's truft, is the facred dodrine of tbd 
 gofpel. EJiius (q) fays the fame. I place 
 below likewife (r) a part of Bcza's note up- 
 on this text, Le Clerc in his notes explains 
 it thus : '' the dodlrine of the gofpel, which 
 " was a facred depofit, committed by the 
 *' Apoftles to their difciples." And Beaiifobre 
 thus: *' the dodtrine, which had been com- 
 mitted to, or entrufted with Timothies See 
 alfo, fiys he, i. Tim. i. 18. and 2. Tim. ii* 
 2. I fay no more to this text. 
 
 IV. 2. Tim. i. 13. 14. Hold fajl the fornt 
 of found words, which thou haft heard of fne» 
 . . . 'That good thing, which was committed 
 unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghoft, which dweU 
 leth in us. 
 
 Hereby fome may underfland a written 
 Gofpel, or hiftorie of Jefus Chrifl. Never- 
 thelefs, I think, I need not add much here 
 to what has been already faid of the pre- 
 
 qula et res eft alterius, nempe Chrilli, et paft.orlbus fida ejus 
 cultodia incumbit. Grot, ad i. Tim. "vi. 20. 
 
 (q) Iterum ferioet graviter admonet, ut acceptam fidel doc- 
 trlaam confervet, ne locum relinquat ulli peregrino dogmati. 
 Nomine depofiti metaphorice fignificatur doftrina fucceflbri 
 crcdita, ac per manus tradita. Eft. in loc. 
 
 (r) Depofitum proculdubio vocat fanam evangelii doflrinam, 
 et dona quaecunque ad Ecclefiae aediiicationem, veluti depo- 
 ficuni, Deus commiferat Timotheo. Bcz. in loc. 
 
 Vol. I. * F ceding 
 
56 ^^^ ^i^^^ ^J 'Writing Ch. IV, 
 
 ceding text, it being nearly parallel. The 
 meaning of both is much the fame. ^Timo- 
 ihie is here again exhorted, and required, 
 to retain with all fidelity thofe found words^ 
 that pure dodrine of the gofpel, which he 
 had been taught by the Apoftle, and had of- 
 ten heard from him. 
 
 It does not appear, then, that there are in 
 -, the apoftolical epiftles of the New Tefta- 
 ment any references to written Gofpels, or 
 hiftories of Jefus Chrift. I do not fay, this 
 is a proof, that no fuch hiflories were then 
 written. Neverthelefs, I have thought it 
 not improper to (hew, that there is no notice 
 taken of any fuch hiftories in thefe epiftles : 
 and therefore they cannot afford any evi- 
 dence of their being then writ and publifhed. 
 I think likewife, that it was not amifs to em- 
 brace this occafion to flievv the true meaning 
 of fome texts, which have been often mifm- 
 terpreted. 
 
 SECT. 
 
Ch. IV. the firji three Gofpch. 67 
 
 SECT. IL 
 
 Obfervatiojis of ancteiit Chrijiian Writers^ 
 leading to the true time^ when the Gofpels 
 were writ. 
 
 I. O AYS Irenaem^ as formerly (s) quoted, 
 k3 ** For (t) we have not received the 
 *' knowledge of the way of our falvation 
 *' from any others, than thofe, by whom the 
 *' gofpel has been brought to us. Which 
 <' gofpel they firft preached, and afterwards 
 *' by the will of God committed to writing, 
 ** that for time to come it might be the 
 <* foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor " 
 ** may any fay, that they preached, before 
 
 F 2 *' they 
 
 (s) SeeFol.i. f. 353. 
 
 (t) Non enim per alios difpofitlonem falutis noftrae cog- 
 novimus, quam per eos, per quos evangeliiim pervenk ad 
 nos : quod quidem tunc praeconaverunt, pofieavero per Dei 
 vcluntatem in fcripturis nobis tradidemnt, fundamentum & 
 coluihnam fidei nollrae futurum. Nee enim fas eft dicere, 
 quoniam ante praedicaverunt, quam perfedam haberent ag- 
 nitionem, ficut quidam audent dicere, ^loriantes, emenda- 
 tores fe effe Apoflolorum. Poftea enim quam fiirrexit Dcmi- 
 nus nollcr a mortuis, & induti funt fupervenientis Spiritus 
 Sanfti virtutcm ex alto, de omnibus adimpleti funt, & ha- 
 buerant perfe<5lam agnitionem, exierunt in fines terrae, ea 
 quae a Deo nobis bona funt evangeiizantes, & coeleftem pa* 
 cem hominibus annunciantes : qui quidem & omnet; pariter & 
 fmguli eorum habentes evangelium Dei, Iren, ath\ Haer. I. 
 3. tap. I, 
 
58 ^h^ Time of writiitg Ch. IV. 
 
 ** they had a compleat knowledge of the 
 " doctrine of the gofpel. For after 'that 
 «' our Lord rofe from the dead, and they 
 *^ [the Apoftles] were endowed from above 
 " with the power of the Holy Ghod coming 
 '* down upon them, they received a perfect 
 " knowledge of all things. They then went 
 " forth to all the ends of the earth, declar- 
 *< ing to men the bleiTing of heavenly peace, 
 " having all of them, and every one alike, 
 ** the gofpel of God." 
 
 He then proceeds to fpeak of the Gofpels 
 of the four Evangelifts feverally, and the 
 times and occafions of writing them. All 
 which will be taken down by us hereafter in 
 proper places. Here is fufficient to induce 
 us to think, that the written Gofpels, or hif- 
 tories of Jefus Chrift, were not publifhed, 
 till fome good while after our Lord's afcen- 
 fion. For the Apofiles firfl preached, he 
 fays, before they wrote. 
 
 2. Says Eufebe in a long palTage formerly 
 quoted : *' Thofe (u) admirable and truly 
 
 .*"■■ divine men, the Apoftles of Chrift,- 
 
 " neither knew, nor attempted, to deliver the 
 .** dodrine of their mafter with the artifice 
 " and eloquence of words . . . Nor were they 
 
 " greatly 
 
 (uj Vol, "jiii.p. 90. . , 92. 
 
Ch. IV. the firft three Gofpeh, 69 
 
 " greatly concerned about the writing of . 
 *' books, being engaged in a more excellent 
 " miniftrie, which is above all human power. 
 ** Infomuch that Faiil^ the moft able of all 
 " in the furniture both of words and thoughts, 
 *' has left nothing in writing, befide a few 
 " epiftles .... Nor were the reft of our Sa- 
 " viour's followers unacquainted with thefe 
 " things, as the feventy difciples, and many 
 ** others, beiide the twelve Apoftles, Ne- 
 " verthelefs of. all the difciples of our Lord, 
 " Matthew and '^ohn only have left us any 
 " memoirs : who too, as we have been in- 
 " formed, were compelled to write by a 
 " kind of neceffity." And what follows. 
 
 3. This palTage fliould be compared with 
 another of (x) Origen. And they who pleafe 
 may alfo confult our remarks (*) upon what 
 has been now tranfcribed from Eufebe. 
 Which may be of ufe to caution us, not to 
 be too precipitate in giving a very early date 
 to the Gofpels, as if they were writ imme- 
 diatly after our Lord's afcenfion : when there 
 is reafon to think, they were not writ, till af- 
 ter numerous converts had been made, who 
 expreficd their delires to have written hifto- 
 
 F 3 ries 
 
 (x) See Vol. Hi. p. 236. {*) Vol. liU. />. 1 24, . . 137. 
 
JO ' I'he Time of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 ri^s of what they had heard, for refrefliing 
 their memories. 
 
 4, Says Theodore^ Bidiop of Mopfneffia, in 
 the later part of the fourth centurie, about 
 the year 394. ** After (y) the Lord's af- 
 *' cenfion to heaven the difclples flaid a good 
 " while at ferufalem, vifiting the cities in it's 
 ** neighborhood, preaching chiefly to the 
 " Jews : until the great Faid, called by the 
 ** divine grace, was appointed to preach the 
 *' gofpel to Gentils openly. And in procefle 
 *' of time Divine Providence, not allowing 
 " them to be confined to any one part of the 
 " earth, made way for conducing them to re- 
 *' mote countreys. Feter went to Rome^ the 
 " others elfewhere. 'John^ in particular, took 
 *' up his abode at Ephejus, vifiting however 
 
 *' at feafons the feveral parts of ^fia 
 
 ' " About this time the other Evangelifts, 
 
 " Matthew, Marky and Luke, publiQied their 
 " Gofpels, which were foon fpread all over 
 *' the world, and were received by all the 
 *' faithful in general with great regard." .... 
 He proceeds to fay, ** that neverthelefs, 
 " the Chrifiians in Afiay having brought 
 " thofe Gofpels to him, earneftly entreated 
 *' him to write a farther account of fuch 
 
 *' things, 
 
 (y) ^ee Vol. ix. p. 403 . 4P4. 
 
Ch. IV. the firfl three Gofpeh, ji 
 
 " things, as were needful to be known, and 
 " had been omitted by the refl. With 
 ** which requeft he complied." 
 
 This remarkable paffage, upon which di- 
 vers oblervations were made, when it was 
 firft quoted, may difpofe us to think, that 
 all the four Gofpels were writ about the 
 fame time, and that none of them were 
 publilned till after, or about the (ixtieth year 
 of our Lord's Nativity. 
 
 5. By divers ancient Chriflian writers it is 
 faid, that (z) Marky the difciple and inter- 
 preter oi Peter, at the defire of the brethren 
 of Rome, wrote a fhort Gofpel, according to 
 what he had heard related by Peter. So Je^ 
 nome (a) befide others, as before quoted, in 
 his book of Illuftrious Men. 
 
 St. Peter, I reckon, did not come to Pome 
 before the reign of Nero^ probably, not till 
 the fecond time that Paul was in that city, 
 in the year 6^, or 64. And yet, at this 
 time, the Chriftians at Rome defired Mark to 
 give them in writing an account of Peter s 
 preaching, for refrefhing their memories 
 concerning what the Apoftle had fald of 
 Chrift, and his dodlrine. The confequence 
 
 F 4 is 
 
 (%) See Vol. i.p, 247, . . 249. U. 472. . 489. -viii. 305." 
 . . 306. xi. p' II. (a) Fol.x.p. 92. 
 
•JZ ^he lime of 'writing Ch. IV. 
 
 is manifeft. They had not then any written 
 Gofpel in their hands. Nor did they know, 
 that there was one. " The truth is, fays 
 ^' Mr. 'fones (b), if St. Mark^ or any one elfe, 
 ** had had St. Matthew's Gofpel, at Rome, 
 *' there would have been no need of St, 
 ** Mark's writing." 
 
 Thefe are general obfervations in the an-^ 
 cients, or deduced from them, which may 
 be of no fmall ufe to lead us to the true time 
 pf writing the firft three Gofpels. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 ^hat the Jirji three Gofpels were pubVified be- 
 
 ■ fore the deflruSiioji of feriifaletn^ which 
 
 happened in the year of the Chriftian epoch 
 
 Oncerning this I tranfcribe below (c) a 
 very good argument of Le Clerc from 
 liis Differtation upon the four Evangelifts. 
 
 The 
 
 # 
 
 (h) Vindication of the former •part of St. Mattheius Gofpel 
 f, 54. chap. 'vi. 
 
 (c) Quinetiam, fi ex Veterum nonnullorum teRimoniis an- 
 tea adduJlis, de re judicemus, affirmabimus, Matthaeum, 
 Marcum, et Lucam, ante ultima Neronis tempora, quibus 
 occifi funt Petrus et Paulus, Evangelia fcripftfTe. Quod non 
 kvi argumento confirmari poteft, dudto ex Matth. cap. xxiv. 
 
 Marc, 
 
Ch. IV. the firjl three Gofpeh, 73 
 
 The Jewifh war began, according (d) to 
 JojephuSy in the Month of May, in the 66. 
 year of the Chriftian epoch, and ended in 
 September, in the year 70. in the defolation 
 of the city of Jemjalem and the temple. 
 And I think, it may be (liewn to be very 
 probable, that the firfl three Gofpels were 
 writ before the year 66. when the final trou- 
 bles and calamities of the Jewiili People were 
 
 coming on. 
 
 This mufl: appear to have a great deal of 
 probability from the predidions tFferein re- 
 corded concerning the deflrudion of the 
 temple, the overthrow of the city of Jcmfa' 
 km, the ruin of the Jewifh State and People 
 in Jiideay together with divers circumftances 
 
 of 
 
 Marc. xiii. Luc. xxi. ubi narratur Jerofolyipr^e excidii prae-r 
 diftio, quafi rei etiamnum futurae, eo tempore, qCio Evangelia 
 ab iis fcribcbantur. Si enim earn pracdicationem poll even- 
 turn fcripfiflent Evangeiiilae memoiati, verbulo faltem mo- 
 nuiiTent, praedidionem fuifle eventu confirmatam. Quod tan- 
 turn abell ut faciant, ut Matthaeus et Marcus hac adnionitione, 
 AVAytVK<TKccv voevTK, qui legity intelligat, quam fubjlciunt prae- 
 lagiis Jerofolymitanae cladis, admonere videantur Chriftianos 
 in Judaea viventcs, ut diligenter futura ilia praefagia atten- 
 dant, quo poflint vitae fuae confulere. Vide Matth. xxiv. 
 15. Marc. xiii. 1 4, et ad ea loca interpretcs. Clerk. D>£'. Hi, 
 de qtiatuG-r Ei'angelus, num. I'ii. p. 5fl. 
 
 fdj Fid. Jcfeph. Ar.tiq, Jud. I. 2q, cap, xi. n. c. ^Sc. B. I. /, 
 0. cap, X, 
 
24 ^f^^ ^^f^^^ rf ivfitirig Ch. IV. 
 
 of thefe events, and many troubles and cala- 
 mities preceding them. Thefc predidions 
 are recorded in the hiftories of our Saviour's 
 miniftrie, which v/e call Gofpels, without 
 any the left hint, either exprefs and defigned, 
 or accidentally dropping from the writers, 
 that thofe predictions had been fulfilled and 
 verified, or that the things fpoken of had 
 - happened. Thofe prophecies are recorded 
 in Matth. xxiii. 34. . . 39. and xxiv. Mark 
 xiii. Luke xxi. St. Luke has alfo elfwhere 
 recorded the affedionate concern, which our 
 Lord exprefTed in the view and profpedl of 
 thofe impending evils, ch. xiii. 34. 35. and 
 xix. 41. . . 44. Thefe things are alfo re- 
 ferred to, and fpoken of, in divers other dif- 
 courfes, fome plain, fome parabolical, or 
 otherwife figurative: as Matth. xxi. 33. . . 
 46. xxii. I. . . 7. Mark xii. i. . . 12. Luke 
 xiii. I. , . 9. XX. 9. . . 20. xxi. 5. . . 13, 
 In none of all which places does there ap- 
 pear any intimation, that the things fpoken 
 of were come to pafs. And in recording 
 the prefages of this final and total overthrow 
 of the Jewifli nation the hiflorians have in- 
 ferred v/arnings and admonitions, proper to 
 excite the attention of readers, and induce 
 thofe who hved in Judea^ to take care of their 
 
 own 
 
Ch. IV. the fir ji three Gofpeh. j^ 
 
 own fafety, without delay. Matt. xxiv. 15. 
 ... 18. When ye therefore fiall fee the abomi- 
 nation of defolation, fpoken of by Daniel the 
 Prophet, [land in the holy place^ (ii'hofo read- 
 eth, let him underfiand :) then let them which 
 be in Judeafiee into the mountains. Let him 
 which is on the houfe-top not come down to take 
 any thing out of his houfe. Neither let him 
 ivhich is in the fields return back to take his 
 cloths. And what follows. And to the like 
 purpofe in Mark xiii. 14. . . 16. When 
 thefe difcourfes were recorded, the things 
 fpoken of had not yet come to pafs. There 
 were men living, to whom thefe admonitions 
 might be ufeful for fecuring their fafety. 
 
 Moreover, though thefe predidions mud 
 have been recorded, before they were accom- 
 plidied ; I think, the fulfilment was then 
 near at hand, and not far off. This feems 
 to be implied in that expreffion : Let him 
 that readeth^ underfiand. And indeed it muft 
 have been difficult and hazardous to publifh 
 fuch things in writing. How oifenfive thefe 
 fayings muft have been to the Jewifii People, 
 and perhaps to fome others likewife, is eafie 
 to conceive from the nature of the thines 
 fpoken of. And it may be confirmed by 
 divers inftances. When our Lord had fpoken 
 
 the 
 
76 The Time of UTiting Ch. IV, 
 
 the parable of the vineyard, let out to huf- 
 bandmen, recorded in Luke xx. 9. . . 18. it 
 is added by the Evangelift. ver. 19. 20. Aiid 
 the Chief Priefts, and the Scribes, the fame 
 hour fought to lay hands on him. But they 
 feared the people. For they perceived, that he 
 bad fpoken this parable againfi them. And 
 they watched him, andfent forth fpies^ which 
 - fhoidd feign themfehes juji men, that they 
 might take hold of his words, that fo they 
 might deliver him unto the power a^td autho- 
 rity of the Governcur. And among the odious 
 charges brought againft our Saviour by falfe 
 witnelTes, this was one, that he faid : I am 
 able to defiroy the temple of God, and to build 
 it in three days. Matth. xxvi. 61 . With this 
 he was reproached likewife, when hanging 
 on the crofs. xxvii. 40. The like ofienfive 
 charges were brought againfi Stephen, Ads. 
 vi. 14. IVe have heard him fay, that this 
 fepus of Nazareth fiall dejlroy this place, 
 md fiall change the cuftoms, which Mofes de- 
 livered to us. And, poflibly, he did fayfome- 
 what not very different. So likewife St. 
 Matthew, and the other Apoflles, might re- 
 peat in the hearing of many what Chriil 
 had faid to them, and in part, to others alfo, 
 concerning the overthrow. of the temple, and 
 
 the 
 
Ch. IV. the firfi three Go/pels, yy 
 
 the Jewifli (late. Yea, very probably, they 
 had often repeated thefe things to attentive 
 hearers. But fpeaking and writing are dif- 
 ferent. And I apprehend, it could not have 
 been fafe, nor prudent, to record thefe pre- 
 didtions, (many of which are very plain, and 
 all intelligible,) foon after our Lord's afcen- 
 fion. 
 
 Thefe prophecies therefore of our Lord, 
 as recorded in the firft three Gofpels, afford 
 at once an argument, that they were written 
 and published before the deltrudlion of T^- 
 rufalem : and that they were not publillied 
 many years before it, or however, not many 
 years before the commencement of the war 
 at the time above-mentioned. 
 
 S E C T. IV. 
 
 u4?i Argiime?2t, fiewtng the true Time of 
 meriting the Gofpels^ taken from the A5ls^ 
 and the begining of St. Luke's GofpeL 
 
 NONE can fuppofe, that the book of 
 the Ads of the Apofties wascompo- 
 fed before the year 62. or 63. as the hiflorie 
 is there brought down to the period of St. 
 PWs two years imprifonn^ent at Rome. 
 
 And, 
 
yg 7he T!ime of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 And, very probably, the Gofpel, to which 
 St. Luke refers at the begining of that book, 
 had not been writ long before. This I 
 fuppofe to be now the common opinion of 
 learned men. And for giving the greatefl: 
 fatisfadion to all my readers, I fhall tranf- 
 cribe below at large the fentiments of feve- 
 ral to this piirpofe, fuch as that of the 
 late (e) Mr "fones, and (j) Ejiius, (g) Mill, 
 
 (*) Bod' 
 
 (e) " Hence we fee near to what time this hiftorie of the 
 A6ls was written: viz. either in the year 62. or not long 
 after : it being altogether probable, that St. Luhe would not 
 defer writing long after his departure from St. PauL Which 
 feems to have been now, when the ApolUe was fet at liberty 
 from his confinement at Ro77ie„ . . That he wrote both the 
 » Gofpel and the AQs in the fame year, feems very probable : 
 
 as it is certain, that one of them is only to be looked upon as 
 the fecond part, or continuation of the other." Jones Neiv 
 and Full Method, l^c. Part. 4. ch. x-vi. Vol. ^.p. 158, See hi7K 
 alfo ch. xi. p. 115. 
 
 f/J Deinde, nee fatis conflat, Evangelium Lucae jam turn 
 editum fuiffe, quando Paulus hanc epillolam fcripfit. Nam 
 A£la quidem Apoflolica fcripfiffe videtur ilatim poft Evange- 
 lium, tanquam ejufdem voluminis libros primum et fecun- 
 dum. Scripfit autem Afta poft biennium Fauli Romae com- 
 morantis, id efi, multis annis poft hanc epiftolam. Quare cir- 
 ca idem tempus Evangelium ab co fcriptum fuiffe, credibile 
 eft. E^. ad 2. Cor. 'viii. 18, 
 
 (g) Voluminis hujus D. Lucae partem pofteriorem, feu 
 hoyoTi S'ivripov quod attinet, librum dico Aftuum Apoftolo- 
 rum, haud dubium eft. ... quin is fcriptus fit ftatim poft 
 hoya]^ i^pwTov, five Evangelium, Mill, Pro/, num, 121. 
 
Ch. IV. the three frft Go/pels. 79. 
 
 (*) Dodwellj and (b) Bafnage : though the 
 thing appears to me very obvious. And if 
 fo, we have gained very nearly the date of 
 one of the four Gofpels. 
 
 Grotius fuppofethj that (i) v^^hen Paul left 
 Home^ he went into Spaiit : and that at the 
 fame time Luke went into Greece, and there 
 wrote both his Gofpel and the Adls. Jerome 
 fuppofeth, that (k) the book of the A<fls 
 was writ at Rome. But that makes no dif- 
 ference in point of time : fince he allows, 
 that it reaches to the end of St. Pauh two 
 years imprifonment at Rome, 
 
 This 
 
 (*) Sunt enim Ada J^ivTipog ejufdem operis Xoyo^, cujus 
 TpeoTov X'oyov ipfe fuum agnofcit Evangeiium. Aft, i. i. 
 Dodtv. Diff. hen. i. num. xxxix. 
 
 (h) Non multum vero interjeftum fui/Te ternporis inter 
 Aciorum Apoftolicorum et Evangelii confeftionem, conjec- 
 tura ex praefatione ad Theophiium duci poteft. Prhnum qui- 
 dem Ubrum covfeci,- . . Aftuum ergo liber continatio eft, feri- 
 efque Evangelii, . . . Multum vero abiifle. ternporis antequani 
 a priore libro omnibus numcris expleto ad pofteriorem tranfi- 
 ret Lucas, nulla ratione cogimur ad credendum. Scz.Bafnag. 
 Ann. 60. nu7ii. xx'viii. 
 
 (i) Librum autem et hunc, et qui de Aftibus Apoflolo- 
 rum, fcriptum atbitror, non multo poftquam Paulus Roma 
 abiit in Hifpaniam. Nam in id tempus deflnit Aftuum liber, 
 qui fi ferius fcriptus efTet, in ulteriora etiam tempera narra- 
 tionem protenderet. Puto autem, Roma iifle Lucam in A- 
 chaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. 
 Grot. Pr. in E'vang, Lucae. 
 
 (k) See Vol. ft. p. 94. 95, 
 
So 7he Time of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 This one conlideratlon, fo far as I am able 
 to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. 
 Lukes Gofpel was writ about fifteen years 
 after our Lord's afcenfion. Yea, it evident* 
 ly fhewSj that it was not writ till the year 
 60. or afterwards. 
 
 And the begining of St. iz^;^fc''s Gofpel af- 
 fords an argument, that the other two Gof- 
 pels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, were not 
 \\r^^ writ fooner. For this Evangelift knew no- 
 JtS^J thing of them. Confequently, they were 
 V , ' not then writ, and pubHlhed : or, but lately. 
 
 Every word of his introduction (hews this. 
 
 V^\ Let us obferve it. 
 
 S^ 
 
 Forafr/iiich as mansi hane take?! in hand to 
 
 Lfet forth in order a declaration of thcfe things^ 
 which are mojl furely believed among us, . . , 
 It feemed good unto me alfo, having had per- 
 JeB underjlanding of all things from the very 
 fir ft, to write unto thee in order ^ mojl excel- 
 lent Tbeophilus : that thou migkteji know the 
 certai?2ty ofthofe things^ wherein thou haft been 
 iiijlruEled. 
 
 When St. Luke fays, that rnany had un- 
 dertaken to write hiftoriesof our Saviour, he 
 cannot 'mean Matthew alone, nor Matthew 
 and Mark only. For they are not many. 
 He mufl intend them, and others, or fome 
 
 different 
 
if 
 
 
 
 Ch . I V. the firjl three Gofpels. 8 1 
 
 different from them. Which lad will ap- 
 pear mod likely, if we conlider what there 
 follows. 
 
 Of thofe }?7a7iy he fays, they had taken in 
 hand, undertaken, or attempted. St. Luke 
 would not have fpoken thus oi Matthew, or 
 Mark, Indeed, we may fuppofe, that (I) 
 thofe narrations, to which St. Luke refers, 
 were not falfe and fabulous, nor heretical-. 
 But they were defedive. j^ 
 
 Grctius fays, the (m) word is of a midle 
 meaning. And that it does not neceiTarily 
 imply, that the writers, here intended, had 
 failed to perform what they undertook. y^* 
 
 Neverthelefs the ancient Chriftians, to fe- 
 veral of whom the Greek language was na- 
 tural, 'jnderdood the word differently. And 
 their judgements mufl be of value in this 
 
 (I) Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commode praeftitiiTe : 
 minime tamen, opinor, fabulofas, immo c tiam impias nar- 
 rationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefiae, fub Nicodcmi, .... 
 Thomae, Aegyptiorum nominibus impudeiitiflime obtrufas. 
 Nee tamen hie refte colligunt, Lucam poll Matlhaeum et 
 Marcum hanc fuam hiftoriam edidilfe. Bez. in Luc. cap. i. 
 i<er. I. 
 
 (m) 'E'Tiiyjii^Mea. pgZ'^'^IF y«'^'' Bene notavit vir erudi- 
 tiffimus, vocem effe mediam : ncque enim ex ea colligi pof- 
 fe, non praeftitum ab illis icriptoribus quod aggrelli funt. 
 Grot, in-loct 
 
 Vol. I. ' ^ G eafe. 
 
Si The Time of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 cafe. Ongc?is obfervations upon St. Luke's 
 introdudion may be feen. vol. iii. p.. 316. 
 . . 319. where he fays, " St. £7.'/(ys expref- 
 *' lion, taken in hand, implies a tacit ac- 
 " cufation of thofe^ who without the gift 
 " of the Holy Ghofl took upon them to 
 " write Gofpels. For Matthew^ and Mark^ 
 *' and hiike, and "John, did not take in hajid 
 *• to write : but being full of the Holy Ghoft 
 " wrote Gofpels." In which words, and 
 afterwards, continually, he diftinguifheth the 
 four Evangelifts from the writers, referred 
 to by St. Luke. To the like purpofe {n) 
 Ambrofe^ who either copied, or clofely imi- 
 tated Or i gen. And fays Enfebe : " Luke (0) 
 ** at the begining affigns the reafon of his 
 ** writing, declaring, that whereas many 
 *' others had rafhly undertaken to compofe 
 ** relations of the things, which were mofl: 
 " firmly believed, he therefore thought him- 
 *' felf obliged, in order to divert us from the 
 ** uncertain relations of others, to deliver in 
 ** his Gofpel a certain account of thofs things, 
 " of which he was fully allured." Which 
 
 palTage 
 
 (n) See Vol. Jx. p. 245. 
 
 S'zvxQjcoi- a'ii'iynjiy 'Tror.y^a.trbcr.t ay ivjof -arfTAHpoyopwro Acj-ft*, 
 /.. A. EuJcL /. 3. f, -24. f. 96. C. 
 
C/j . IV. the firjl three Gojpels, g j 
 
 pafTage was tranfcribed by us [p) formerly. 
 And EpipbaninSi whom {q) 1 now place 
 below, plainly affixed a difadvantageous 
 meaning to this word. 
 
 Bcaufobre readily allows, that {r) we ought 
 to follow the ancients in their interpretation 
 of this word, and to fuppofe, that St. Luke 
 here fpeaks of fome attempts, and efiays, 
 that had not been well executed. 
 
 This may be fufficient to fatisfy us, that 
 St. Luke does not fpeak of any of our Evan- 
 gelifts. Mr. (*) DoJwell wzs of the fame 
 opinion. 
 
 But we may have yet farther afTurance of 
 it by obferving what St. Luke fays of himfelf, 
 
 G 2 and 
 
 ^p) V<1. <viii.p. 95. 
 
 Taf 05AAK?. H. 51. f!Uf/i. avV, p. 428. 
 
 (rj Ce mot Grec, i'srs'xc'.;.ma.v, eft certainement tres 
 equivoque, et peut fort bien figniiier tfes tentatlues iiialheureu- 
 fes, dcs efforts qui ont mal ri:-JJi. St. Epiphane ne I'a pas en- 
 tendu autrement. Origene de meme, darxs fa preface fur S, 
 Luc. etaprcs lui la pluparc des Interpretes Grecs. Quand 
 il s'agit de la fignification des termes Grecs, et que les au- 
 teurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun interet a leur 
 donner des fens forces, ces derniers fembkntdignes de ere- 
 ance. Beauf. Rcmarques fur Luc. ch. i. p. lOO. 
 
 (*) Ut plane alios fuiffe neccfTc fit evangelicae hiftoriae 
 fcriptores a Luca vifos, a noflris, quos habemus Evangcliftis* 
 Dijf, Inn, i, mm, x.wxix. 
 
§4 ^^ 7/>^f of writing Ch. IV. 
 
 and his own defign. Which is to this pur- 
 pofe : '* That it had feemed good to. him, 
 '* to fend to Theophiliis in writing a difiindl 
 " and particular hiflorie of Jefus Chrift : 
 " that he might better know, and be more 
 ** fully confirmed in the truth of thofe things, 
 " in which he had been inftrudted by word 
 *' of mouth." 
 
 i- 
 
 In my opinion, this implies a fuppoiition, 
 that Theophilus had not yet in his hands any 
 good written hidorie of the words and works 
 of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Confequently St. Liike^t the year 62. and 
 poflibly fomewhat later, did not know of St. 
 Mattheivs and St. Mark's Gofpels. And 
 therefore we mud fuppofe, that they v/ere 
 not yet writ and publifhed, or however, but 
 lately. For if they had been publifhed feve- 
 ral years, St. Luke, who had accompanied 
 Paid ill Greece, J^fia, Paleftifie, and Rome, 
 could not have been unacquainted with 
 them. 
 
 This argument appears to me valid. At 
 left I cannot difcern, where it fails. It has 
 long feemed to me a clear and obvious ar- 
 gument, that the Gofpels of St. Mvtthew 
 and St. Mark were not writ till the year 
 
 60, 
 
Ch. IV. thefrji three Gofpeh, g^ 
 
 60. or afterwards. For if they had been 
 writ fooner, they would by this time 
 have been in the hands of St. Luke, and 
 TheopbiluSi and all the faithful in gene- 
 ral.' And St. Luke could not have ex- 
 pre/Ted himfelf, as he does in this intro- 
 dudion : nor indeed would he have writ 
 any Gofpel at all, 
 
 k M jh( 
 
 G 3 CHAP. 
 
86 
 
 
 € H A p. V. 
 
 St. Matthew, 
 
 Apoftle, and Evangelift. 
 
 I. His Hiflorie, II. Tcjllmonics of ancient 
 Writers to his Gojpel. III. Remarks upon 
 them, for difici-ning the Time of this Go f- 
 fel. IV. Characters of Time in the Gcfpel 
 itj'elf. V. The Language^ in injhich it 
 was writ, 
 
 I. WKMy\Atthew (a) called alfo (e) Le- 
 g ^^ g -j/, fon of (c) Alpheiis, was a 
 llMMj^ Publican, or (d) Toll-gatherer 
 
 under the Romans. He was, undoubtedly, 
 
 a native 
 
 • 
 
 (a) The hifiorie of our Lord's calling this difcij.le is in 
 Matth. ix. Q. . . 13. Mark ii. 13, . . 16. Luke v. 27. . . 32, 
 
 (b) This Evangelift, in his account of his being called by 
 Chrift. r.ames himfelf Mattke-uu, ch. ix. 9. But St. Mark 
 ^nd St. Luke in their accounts of it call him Le'vi. Mark 
 
Ch.V. St. Matthew. Sj 
 
 a native of Galilee, as the reft of Chrift's 
 
 Apoftles 
 
 ii. 14. Luhe v. 27. & 29. This has induced Gro//«; to ar- 
 gue, that Matthenv and Le--vi are different perfons : though he 
 cannot deny, that the circumilances of the hiftorie lead us 
 to think, one and the fame perfon to be intended. Video 
 omnes hodie ita exiltiinare, hunc eundem effe, quem Marcus 
 & Lucas Levi nominant. Et fane congruunt circumftan- 
 tiae. GroL ad Mat. ix. 9. It is obfervable, that Heracleoriy 
 the Vakntinian, as cited by Clement of J. Str. /. 4. p. 502. 
 reckons among Apoftles, who had not fufFered martyrdom, 
 Matikezv, Philip, Thomas, awA Le-vi. By ifw, probably, Ti/if- 
 racleon meant Lebheus, otherwife called Thaddeus, Vid. Fair, 
 Bib. Gr. /, 4. cap. ^, T. ^. p. 126. Coteler. Annot. in Con- 
 fiitut. I. 8. cap, 22. Dodnv. Dijf. Iren. i. n. 24. It is cer- 
 tain, that Eufebe and Jerome thought MaZ/i'^w za.^Le'vi to 
 be only two names of one and the fame perfon. See in 
 this work, vol. viii. p. 83. Vol. x. p. 83. and 89. More- 
 over, in the catalogues of the Apofiles, which are in Mark 
 iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Afts i. 13. is the nameMa/Z^^iy, It is 
 likely, that Le-Tji was the name, by which the Apoftle was 
 called in the former part of his life : and Mntthcvj the name, 
 ty which he was beft known afterwards. 
 
 (c) That is faid by St. Mark only ch. ii. 14. But we do 
 not perceive, who Alpheus was. Tilkmont obferves to this 
 purpofe. " St. Mark gives him the furname of Alpheus : t3u 
 " T» c«A9«/B. Which may have been the name of his father. 
 " This has given occafion to fome of the ancients, and to all 
 *' the modern Greeks, to fay, that ye?mes th^ (on of Jlpheus 
 " was his brother : though it be entirely deftitutc of all pro- 
 ** bability. Quoiqu'il iln'yaiten cela aucune apparence." 
 Tillem. S. Matt. init. Mem. 7. i. 
 
 Dr. Do^^W^ji?, Family Expofitor. Set^.44. Vol. i. p. z8o. 
 fays roundly, " that Mattheiv, otherwife called Zf<i;/, was the 
 " {onofAlpheui, and the brother of y«w*;, Comp. Mark iii. 
 
 G 4 " iS. 
 
g8 Sf. MattJxw. Ch. V. 
 
 Apoflles were : but of what city in that coun- 
 tixy, or which tribe of the people oLI/raely 
 is not known. 
 
 As he fat at the Receipt of Cuflcm, by the 
 Jca Jide, in the city of Capernaum, or near 
 it, Jefiis [did unto him : Follow me. And he 
 aroje, and followed him. Which needs not 
 to be underflood to imply, that Matthew 
 did not make up his accounts with thofc, 
 by whom he had been employed, and en- 
 trufled. 
 
 After- 
 
 <= 18. Luke vi. 15. A6ls i, 13.'" But I do not think, thofe 
 texts can afford fufficient proof, that Matthen.v, and James 
 the fon of Jlpheus, had the fame father, and were brothars. 
 If that had been the cafe, their relation to each other would 
 I have been hinted, or plainly declared in the Gofpels. 
 
 1 do not love bold conjedures in others, and would not 
 indulgemy-felf in them. But J fufpcd, that thefe words in 
 Mark ii. 14. fon of Alpheus, rh Te ff/is«/B, are an interpo- 
 lation, fonie how or other, undcfgnedly, and accidentally 
 inferted in that place. What is truly faid of James, has been 
 ^\{o a-pplisd to MaiiLeav, The curious may do well to con- 
 fider, whether this conjecture be not countenanced by the 
 fingularity of the thing, faid no where elfe, and by the va- 
 rious readings of that text, which may be feen in Beza, Mi//, 
 and Wetfein. 
 
 (d) " His office feems more particularly to have confifted in 
 
 'V gathering the cuftoms of commodities, that came by the fea 
 
 *' of Galilee, and the tribute, which pafTengers were to pay, 
 
 ^' that went by water." Cavers Lhes of the Jpojlks, ^. 
 
 V.h 
 
Ch. V. Sl Matthew, 89 
 
 Afterwards (e) he made an entertainment, 
 at his houfe, where Jefus v/as prefent, and 
 likewife divers of his difciples. And there 
 fat at table v</ith them many PubHcans, and 
 others, of no very reputable charader in 
 the eye of the Pharlft-es, who were ftrid: in 
 external purifications, and other like obfer- 
 vances. Matthew^ it is likely, was v^iiling 
 to take leave of his former acquaintance in 
 a civil manner. He was likewife delirous, 
 that they (hould converfe with Jefus, hop- 
 ing, that they might be taken with his dif- 
 courfe. And Jefus, with a view of doing 
 good, and to fliew, that he did not dif- 
 daln any man, made no exceptions to this 
 defign of his new difciple. Nor is it un- 
 likely, that the ends aimed at were obtained, 
 in part at left. Matthew'^ former friends did, 
 probably, dlfcern fomewhat extraordinarie in 
 
 Jefus, 
 
 (e) That this entertainment was not made by Matthew 
 (jn the very day that Chrifl called him to attend on him, is 
 argued by Mr. Jo7ies in his Vindication of the former part of 
 St.Matthe-jj's Gofpel, p.' 129. . . 137. and by Dr, Doddridge. 
 Kamily Expofitor, Vol. i. fed. LXXI. note (a), who fays ; 
 " It is certain, the feaft was after the day of his calling, pcr- 
 " haps, feme months after : when he had made up his ac- 
 " compts, and regularly paffed his bufmefs into other hands : 
 '? which, tobefure, from a principle ofjufdce, as well as 
 *' prudence, he would take care to do." 
 
go St. Matthew: Ch. V. 
 
 Jefus, (o far as to induce them to think, 
 it was not unreafonable in him to leave his 
 former employment, for the fake of the 
 companie of Jefus, and the advantages, 
 which in time he might receive from him. 
 The Pharifees made reflections. But our 
 Lord vindicated himfelf. And all the three 
 Evangelifts have recorded this inflance of our 
 Lord's amiable familiarity and condefcenfion, 
 v/hich is one of the diftindions of his fhin- 
 ino^ character. And it is a proof, that at the 
 time of their vtrriting, feverally, their Gof- 
 pels, they v;ere molded into the temper 
 and principles of him, v/hofe hiilorie they 
 wrote. . 
 
 Jefus now called Matthew to be with him, 
 to be a witneffe of his words and works, 
 and he put him into the number of his 
 Apoftles. Thenceforward he continued with 
 the Lord Jefus. And after his afcenfion, 
 he was at 'Jerufalem^ and partook of the gift 
 -of the Holy Ghod, with the other Apoflles. 
 Tcp^ether with them he bore teftimonie to 
 the refurredlion of Jefus : and, as may be 
 fuppofed, preached for fome while at ^eru- 
 fdkt?jy and in the feveral parts of Judeay 
 confiiming his dodrine v»'ith miracles, which 
 
 God 
 
Ch. V. St. Matthew. 9 1 
 
 God enabled hiin to perform in the name 
 of Jefus. 
 
 In his own catalogue of the twelve Apo- 
 ftles, ch. X. he is the eighth in order. In 
 St. Mark'^ch.^ii. and St. Lukes ch. vi. he is 
 the feventh. He is alfo named in the eighth 
 place, A(5ls i. 13. Nor is there any parti- 
 cular account in the Gofpels of the call of 
 any .of the Apoftles, except his, and four 
 other, Ajjdrew and Peter, and the two fons 
 of "Lebedee, who were called before (f). 
 
 Clejnent of Alexandria fays, that (a) the 
 Apoftle Matthew ufed a very fparing diet, 
 eating no flefli, but only vegetables. But, 
 perhaps, this is faid upon the ground only 
 of fome uncertain tradition, not well at- 
 tefled. 
 
 SocrafeSi in the fifth centurie, fays, that 
 (b) when the Apoftles went abroad to 
 
 preach 
 
 (f) St. yohn fays ch. i. 43. The day folloiutng, Jefus nuouM 
 go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and faith unto him: 
 Follotv me. If Philip was then called by our Lord to be an 
 Apoftle, he ought to be added to the others above named. 
 
 (a) MaT'd-a,7i^ iJ.h bi/ aVorcA.^ a'mt^iJ.a.rtov, )y «V,po(/*pt/- 
 (01), J^ ^ocyidveoVy uviu KfiZv y.Z.7iKa[ASoiViV. Clem. Paed. I. 2. 
 p. \\^.D. 
 
 (b) 'Uvi/.a. ot a'm'o^o'Koi KhiifKo tmv Ik Ta l-^vn ';ro^e{Ocv 
 
 ^Btt^ J'i M^ioi!ia.v, v,.}\» Socr, H, E./.i, c. 19. 
 
92 Sf. Mattheiv. Ch. V. 
 
 preach to the Gentils, Thomas took Parthia 
 for his lot, Matthew Ethiopia, and Bartho' 
 lomew India. And it is now a common opi- 
 nion, that Matthew i^c) died a Martyr in 
 Ethiopia, in a city called Nadabbar, or Nad- 
 daver : but by what kind of death, is altoge- 
 ther uncertain. However, fome others 
 fpeak of his preaching, and dying in Par- 
 thia, ox Perfia. And the diverfity of thofe 
 accounts feems to fhew, that they all are 
 ' without good foundation. 
 
 I think, it may be of ufe to take here at 
 length a paffage of Eufebe, at the begining 
 of the third book of his Ecclefiaftical hifto- 
 rie, after having ■ in the preceding book 
 fpoken of the many calamities in yudea, 
 when the war was juft breaking out. " This, 
 *' fays he, was the llate of things with the 
 " Jews. But the holy Apoilles and difciples 
 *' of our Saviour being difperfed abroad, 
 ** preached in the whole world. Tho- 
 *' mas, as we learn by tradition, had Par- 
 *' thia for his lot, Andrew Scythia^ John 
 *' yf/ia. Who having lived there a long 
 " time died at Ephefiis. Pete7\ as it feems, 
 i " preached to the difperfed Jews in Pon- 
 
 « tliS 
 
 (c) See Cai'e^s Lives of the ApJtkSi ^^ndhis Hiji. Lit, 
 
Ch.V. Sf. Matthew. 
 
 ** fus, and Galatia^ Bithyiiia^ Cappadocia^ 
 " and Afia. At length coming to RomCy he 
 *' was crucified, with his head downward, 
 " as he had defired. What need I to fpeak 
 " of FauU who fully preached the gofpel of 
 ** Chrift from 'Jeriifalem to Illyricumt and 
 ** at lafl: died a Martyr at Rome^ in the time 
 " of Nero F So fays Origen exprefsly in the 
 *' third tome of his Expofitions of the book 
 *' of Genefis." 
 
 Thus writes our Ecclefiaftical Hiflorian. 
 But, as Valefius obferves, it (d) is not eafie to 
 determine exadly, where the quotation from 
 Origen begins. 
 
 However, from this paflage, as it feems, 
 we may conclude, that at the begining of 
 the fourth centurie, there were not any cer- 
 tain and well attefted accounts of the places, 
 out oijudea^ in which many of the Apoftles 
 of Chrifl preached. For if there had, Eiifebe 
 muft have been acquainted with them. In 
 particular we may hence infer, as I appre- 
 hend, that there was no certain account, whi- 
 ther Matthew went, when he left Jiidea. For 
 
 there 
 
 (d) Cum Eufeblus hie dicat, fuperiora ex libro tertio Ex- 
 planationum Origenis.in Genefim effe defumta, dubitari me- 
 rito poteft, unde incipiaut Origenis verba, &c. Vale/. Annot. 
 3. cap. I. 
 
 91 
 
^4 ^^* Matthew. Cb. V. 
 
 'there is no notice taken of him in this 
 pal?age. Nor does "Jerome in his article of 
 St. Matthew y in his book of llluftrious Men, 
 formerly [e) tranfcribed at large, take any 
 notice of the countreys, in which he preach- 
 ed. Nor do I recolle(5l, that in any other 
 of his genuine works he has faid any thing 
 of the travels of this Apoflle. 
 
 Heracleon^ a learned 'Falentinian^ in the 
 fecond centurie, as cited by Clement oi Alex- 
 andria, reckons (f) Matthew among thofe 
 Apoftles, who did not dye by martyrdom. 
 Nor does Clement con trad id: him. 
 
 It is alfo obfervable, that {g) Chrjfofiom 
 has a commendation of Matthew, conlifting 
 of divers ai tides : his humility, merciful- 
 nelTe or liberality, piety, general benevolence, 
 "writing aGofpel, finally, fortitude, inafmuch 
 as he came from the pre fence of the Ccimcil re- 
 joyc'ivg : referring, I fuppofe, to A6ls v. 41. 
 But fays nothing of his martyrdom. Which 
 may induce us to think, that there was not 
 
 any 
 
 [e) Vol. X. p.Sg. 90. 
 
 [f) Ov yap TuMTii ot ffK?Jiij.zwt co[j.oXiyilffAV tw J^iu t«? 
 (^mni ouoXoyioiV, iy k^tiXGoV e^ eov //.ctTGosToj, (pjAc^-TO?, 
 0«^/Sf, ^ivii, J^ c?AAo/ 'TToKMi. Clem. Str. I. 4, p, 502, B. 
 
 [g) In Matth, hum. 48. al, 49. T. J.f. 491. 
 
Ch. v. ^ 5'/. Matthew. 95 
 
 ,any tradition about it among Chriftians at 
 that time, or that it was not much regarded. 
 
 II. Having thus given the hif^orie of this Tejiimonks 
 Apoftle, I proceed to the confideration of w/^^ 
 his Gofpel, one of the univerfally acknow- 
 ledged books of the New Teflament. Two 
 things principally are to be the fubjeds of 
 our inquirie, the time of writing it, and the 
 language in which it was writ. And I pro- 
 pofe to recite here briefly all, or moft of 
 the authors, that have been largely quoted in 
 the former volum.es, fo far as relates to thofe 
 two particulars. 
 
 Papias, Bp of Hierapolh^ about A. D. 
 116. by fome fuppofed to have been ac- 
 quainted with ^ohn the Apofile, by others 
 with 'John the Elder only, in his five books, 
 entitled Explications of the Oracles of the 
 Lord, which feem to have been colledUons 
 of ancient ftories and traditions, makes (h) 
 exprefs mention of Matthews Gofpel, and 
 fays, that he wrote the Divine Oracles in the 
 Hebrew tongue. 
 
 Irenaeus, Bifhop of Lyons, about the year 
 178, who was born in Afia^ and in his youth 
 was acquainted with Polycarp, difciple of 
 
 St. 
 
 {h) Seeo/thii fwork. Vol. i.p, z\z. the fecond edition. 
 
96 Sl Matthew. , Ch. V* 
 
 St. joJm, fays : " Matthew (i) then among 
 *' the Jev/s wrote a Gofpel in their own 
 " language, while Peter and P^?^/ were 
 " preaching the gofpel at Rome^ and found- 
 " ing [or eilabiifhiDg] the church there. 
 *' And after their exit, [that is, death, or de- 
 *' parture,] Mark alfo the difciple and inter- 
 ** prefer of Peter ^ delivered to us in writing, 
 " the things that had been preached by 
 " Peter. And Ltikcy the companion of 
 *' Paul^ put down in a book the gofpel 
 *' preached by him. Afterwards John^ the 
 *' difciple of the Lord, who leaned upon 
 " his bread:, likewife publilhed a Gofpel, 
 ** v/hilft he dv/elt at Ephefus^ in AfiaJ' In 
 another place he fays, *' the [k) Gofpel ac- 
 " cording to Matthew was delivered to the 
 «' Jews." 
 
 Origen^ about 230. fays, " that (/) ac- 
 " cordino; to the tradition received bv him/ 
 ** the firll Gofpel was written by Matthe-ui}^ 
 
 *' once 
 
 Haer. 1. 3. cap, i. Etap. Eujeb. /. 5. c, 8. ^««/ //; this ivork 
 Vol. i. p. 3S3- 
 
 (/f) See Vol. i. p. 356. 
 
 (/) Vgl. Hi. /. 235. 
 
Ch. V. St. Matthew, 97 
 
 " once a Publican, afterwards a Difciple of 
 ** Jefus Chrift : who delivered it to the Jew- 
 '' ifli believers, compofed in the Hebrew 
 ** language." And in another place he fays, 
 ** that (m) Matthew wrote for the Hebrews,'' 
 Says Eufebe, about 315, " Matthew (n) 
 " having firfl: preached to the Hebrews^ 
 '* when he was about to go to other people, 
 " delivered to them in their own language 
 ** the Gofpel according to him, by that 
 " writing fupplying the want of his pre- 
 *' fence with thofe whom he was leavino;." 
 Athanajiusy in his Feftal Epiftle (0) does 
 not fay, where, or in what language, Mat- 
 thew wrote. But in the Synopfis, afcribed 
 to him, it is faid, " that (p) Matthew wrote 
 '* his Gofpel in Hebrew^ and publifhed it at 
 ** yeriifalem.'* 
 
 Cyril of Jerujalefn fays, " that (q) Mat^ 
 thew wrote in Hebrew." 
 
 Epiphaniits likewife fays, ** that (r) Mat- 
 thew wrote in Hebrew,'' And afterwards. 
 
 (m) P. 278. (k) Vol. viii.p. gz. See a/Jh p. 177. 
 
 (0) Vol, "jiii. p. 227, . (p) r. 2j^g. 
 (q) P. 271. (r) P. 304. and 2)0^, 
 
 Vol. I. * H *« Matth 
 
 (Jew 
 
^8 Sf. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 *< Matthew (s) wrote firft, and Mark foon 
 " after him, being a follower of Peier, at 
 " Rome'' If iWi7r;^ did not write till after 
 Peter came to i^ow^, and Matthew but a 
 little before him ; it follows, that Matthews 
 Gofpel was not writ fo foon, as many later 
 writers have fuppofed. 
 
 Gregorie Nazianzen, in his catalogue, fays, 
 
 " that (t) Matthew w^ott for the Hebrews,'" 
 
 And Ebedjefuy "that (u) Matthew, the 
 
 firfi: Evangelift, publiilied his Gofpel in Pa- 
 
 lejltne, writ in Hebrew." 
 
 Theodore of Mopfuejlia fays, " that (x) for 
 " a good while the Apoftles preached chiefly 
 to 'Jews in Jiidea, Afterwards Providence 
 made way for conducting them to remote 
 countreys. Peter went to Rome^ the reft 
 *^ elfev/here, Johriy in particular, took up his 
 " abode at Ephefus. , . . About this time 
 " the other Evangel ifts, Matthew, Mark, 
 *« and Luke, publiihed their Gofpels, which 
 " were foon fpread all over the world." This 
 fuppofeth a late date of the Gofpels, as was 
 argued vol. ix. p. 405, that is, after the 
 
 begining 
 
 (s) V.vQvi cTs (j.era tov fJLa.7^ctiov otKoXii^oi ^•£Vo//«V3s o //ap- 
 KOi 70) ayieo ■yrirfu kv p;i//«. Citat. ib. p. 305 • 
 (t) Vol. ix. p. 133. Comp. />. I 34. 
 (uj P.. Zl6s (x)P.^O^, 
 
 a 
 tt 
 cc 
 
Ch.V. Sl Mciithew. 
 
 begining of Nerds, rfign, when Peter went 
 to Rome, and not long before the war in 
 Jiidea, which broke out in 66. about which 
 time Jofm left that countrey, and fettled at 
 Ephefus. 
 
 Says Jerome in the prologue to his Com- 
 mentarie upon St. Matthew : ** The (y) firfl: 
 *' Evangelift is Mattheisj, the Publican, fur- 
 *' named Le'vi, who wrote his Gofpel in 
 " Judedy in the Hebrew langu;^ge3 chiefly 
 ** for the fake of the jews that believed in 
 *' Jefus, and did not joyn the fliadow of 
 " the law with the truth of the gofpel.'* 
 To the like purpofe in the article of St. 
 Matthew^ in his book of EcclefiaRical Wri- 
 ters : " Matthew (z) called alfo Levi, of a 
 *' Publican made an Apoftle, firft of all wrote 
 " a Gofpel in Judea in the Hebrew language, 
 *' for the f.-ke of thofe of the circumclfion, 
 " who believed. Who afterwards tranilaced 
 *' it into Greeks is uncertain. 
 
 Chryfojlom in the introdudion to his ho- 
 milies upon this Gofpel : " Matthew (a) is 
 " faid to have writ his Gofpel at the requeft: 
 " of the Jewifh believers, who delired him 
 *' to put down in writing what he had 
 
 H 2 "taught 
 
 (y) Vol x.p. 83. 
 
 99 
 
100 ^^' Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 " taught them by word of mouth. And 
 " he is faid to have writ in Hebrew.'^ He 
 fpeaks with hefitation, and is not pofitive 
 about the occalion of writing this Gofpel, 
 or the language, in which it was writ. 
 Afterwards he fays : " In (b) what place 
 ** each one of the Evangelifts wrote, cannot 
 '^ be faid with certainty." 
 
 CofmaSf of Alexandria, about the year 
 53 5> %'^ • " Matthew (c) is the firft Evan- 
 " gelift, that wrote a Gofpel. There being 
 <* a perfecution, when Stephen was ftoned, 
 ** and he alfo being about to go from that 
 ** place, the believers entreated him to leave 
 " with them a written infirudion, with 
 " which requeft he complied." And what 
 follows. 
 
 The Author of the Imperfed Work upon 
 St. MattheWy in the fixth centurie, about the 
 year 560, obferves to this purpofe : ** The 
 " (d) occafion of Matthew's writing is faid 
 *' to be this. There being a great Perfecu- 
 " tion in Falejline, fo that there was danger, 
 ** lead: all the faithful fliould be difperfed : 
 ^ " that they might not be without teaching. 
 
 *' though 
 
 (h) P. 3 1 6. (c) Vol XI. p, 266. 
 
 ('*/;?. 327. 328. 
 
Ch. V. Sh Matthew. loi 
 
 *' though they (hould have no teachers, 
 
 " they requefted Matthew to write for them 
 
 *« a hiftorie of all Chrift's words and works, 
 
 " that wherever they fliould be, they might 
 
 *' have with them the ground of their faith." 
 
 This writer does not fay, that this was the 
 
 perfecution, that arofe about* the time of 
 
 the death of Stephefi. He feems to fpeak 
 
 of a later, and more general perfecution and 
 
 difperfion, fuch as may be well fuppofed 
 
 to have been in Jtidea, near the war, in 66. 
 
 When moft, or all the Apoftles, and many 
 
 of the Jewifh believers, removed, and were 
 
 difperfed into other countreys. 
 
 In the Pafchal Chronicle, a work com- 
 pofed in the feventh centurie, as formerly 
 cited, it is intimated, that (e) St. Matthew 
 publifhed his Gofpel in Pakjliney about 
 fifteen Years after our Lord's afcenfion, and 
 foon after the Council at Jerufalemj of which 
 an account is given A(fts xv. 
 
 And, to draw to a conclufion of this lift 
 of writers. TheophylaSf, in the eleventh cen- 
 turie, fays : *' Matthew then (f) iirft wrote a 
 
 H 3 V Gofpel 
 
 (e) See Vol. vtii, p. 178. 
 
 (f) Vol, xi.p, 419. 420. 
 
102 Si, Matthew. Ch. V, 
 
 '' Gofpel in the Hebrew language, for the 
 " fake of the Hehrew believers, eight years 
 " after our Saviour's afcenfion." 
 
 Euthvmius in the beginins: of the tv/elfth ' 
 ccnturie : " That (g) Matthew'^ Gofpel was 
 " the firil, and writ in Judea^ in Hebrew^ 
 *' for the Jewifli believers, eight years after 
 .*' our Lord's afcenHon." 
 
 Nicephoriis Cdllilti^ in the fourteenth cen- 
 turie, fays : " Matthew (h) having preached 
 • ** the faving word to the Jews, when he 
 *' was about to go abroad tp the Gentils, 
 " thought it befl: to write in his native lan- 
 *' g^^g^ ^^^ account of his preaching, to fup- 
 " ply the want of his prefence. Which he 
 ** did at about fifteen years after our Saviour's 
 " afcenfion." 
 jlemarh. ^^^' Who HOW of all thcfe wrltcrs de- 
 ferves the greateft regard ? Irenaeiis^ I think, 
 as being the moft ancient, i^nd with him 
 gorree Etiphanius, Jhecdore of MopfuejViay 
 and the Author of the Imperfedl Work, as 
 it feems. Nor is he contradided by Enfebhis 
 cf Cefarea, fo far as I can (i) perceive. He 
 
 fays, 
 
 (g) P- 435. W P- 442. 
 
 '(i) See Vol. 'viii. />. 177. . . 179. 
 
Ch. V. Sf. Matthew. 103 
 
 fays, " that when Matthew was about to 
 *' go to other people, he deHvered his Gof- 
 *' pel to the Hebrews in their own language." 
 But he does not fay in his Ecclefiaftical Hif- 
 torie, nor any where eife, when this Apoflle 
 left Judea, Some (k) may have underflood 
 him to mean about eight years after our 
 Saviour's afcenfion, and others about fifteen 
 years after it, as Nicephorus^ and perhaps 
 the Pafchal Chronicle. But himfelf has not 
 expreffly mentioned the time. And he may 
 have been undetermined in his mind about 
 the time, when Matthew left Judea. More- 
 over, he has inferted (I) in his Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorie the pafTage of Ireimem above quo- 
 ted, upon which we infift. And a late date 
 of the Gofpels is agreeable to his own, and 
 others obfervations, before taken notice of, 
 that the Apoflles of Chrifl did not write 
 many books, and were not very forward to 
 write, but as they v/ere compelled by a kind 
 of necefllty. 
 
 There are divers learned moderns of good 
 judgment in thefe matters, who pay a great 
 regard to this teftimonie of Ircnaeus^ parti- 
 al 4 cularly, 
 
 (k) $te Vol via. p. lyS.'&c. 
 (I) L. 5. cap. S.p. 172.C. 
 
104 Sl Matthew. Ch. V, 
 
 culady, (m) FahriciuSy (n) Mi'llj (o) S. Baf- 
 nage^ and before them (p) Martin Cbemni' 
 tius, 
 \r Mill fuppofed it \o be highly probable, 
 that (q) Irejiaeiis had this account from Fa- 
 pias, Le Clerc (r) likewife feems to have 
 thought, that Irenaeus found this in the five 
 books of Fapias. But that is only conjedlure. 
 Fitfebe quoting Fapias obferves, that he faid, 
 Matthew vvro'e in Hebrew. But he does not 
 fay, that Fapias mentioned the time of vitI- 
 ting his Gofpel. However, it was the opi- 
 nion of Irenaeus, And it may be reckoned 
 not improbable, that he had a tradition to 
 that purpofe, which he relied upon as right. 
 For he fpeaks of it without hefitation. It 
 
 might 
 
 (rn) De tempore, quando fcripferit, cui potius fidem ha- 
 beamus, qiiam S. Irenaeo, temporibus illjs proximo, qui 
 tradit eum edidifle Evangeiiuni,- 7» Trirfa jy rZ 'rdv\H iv 
 pa/j.^ ivayyzXi(cy.ivei>v K) ^tiuhmrcov tw iKKAmloiV. Bit;, Gr, 
 I. 4. c. 5. T. 3. p. 126. 
 
 (n ) Prolegom. num. 61. (0) A, 64. n. xii. 
 
 (p ) Ex amen Concil TrM. p. l6. 
 
 (q) Tamen Irenaeus 1. 3. c. i. exprefle dicit, ex aii6ioritate 
 Papiae, nullus dubito, qui rrocpiJ'offiV hanc a Joanne Prefby- 
 tero, Apoflolorum familiari, acceperat, Matthaeum Evan- 
 gelium fuum edidifle, cum Petrus et Paulus e'vangelizarent Rs^ 
 rnae, et fuvdarent ecckfiam. Pro/eg. num. 6l. 
 
 (r) Vid. DlJ'. de i'V, E'vang.fub init. 
 
Ch. V. Sf, Matthew, 105 
 
 mij^ht be derived from feveral, one of whom 
 was Paptas. 
 
 Ircfiaeiis fays, that " Matthew publifhed 
 his Gofpel, when Peter and Paul were 
 preaching at Rome : " that is, fays (s) Mill, 
 in the year 61. " For, adds he, I underftand 
 " him of the firft time, that Paul was at 
 " *' Rome" But if Irenaeus fays right, it muft 
 have been at the fecond time that Paul was 
 at Rome. For we have no reafon to beheve, 
 that Peter was at all in that city, when Paul 
 was fent thither by Fejlus. But, very pro- 
 bably, Peter and Paul were there together 
 afterwards, and fufFcred martyrdom there, 
 about the fame time. That is the feafon, 
 to which we fhould be led for fixins: the 
 writing of St. Matthew's Gofpel, if Ireiiaem 
 may be relied upon. Accordingly Bajnage 
 (t) in his Annals fpeaks of St. Matthew'^ 
 
 Gofpel 
 
 (s) Atque hoc ipfo quidem anno lxi, prodiifle videtur 
 Evangelium Matthaei. . . Ego quidem de priori adventu in- 
 telligendum Irenaeum omnino arbitror, lb. mtm, 6i. 6z. 
 
 (t) Quo tempore Petrus Paulufque Romae operam dabant 
 evangelio, Matthaeus, fi creditur Jrcnaeo, Evangelium ex- 
 aravit fuum. . . Annum tamcn pcrindc atque locum, ubi a 
 Matthaeo conditum eft, in incerto efle, facile patimur. . . 
 Nos nonnifi Nerone rerum domino editum fuifle, perfuafum 
 habemus, etfi de anno locove divinare non pofTumus. Nulla 
 
 tamen 
 
io6 St. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 Gofpel at the year 64. And though, as he 
 fays, he does not know the year, nor the 
 place, where St. Matthew's Golpel was pub- 
 lidied, yet he expreffeth himfelf, as if he 
 w.. s inclined to think, it was not writ, till 
 Nero's reign was fomewhat advanced, in the 
 year C4. or 65. the time of that Emperour's 
 perfecution of the Chriftians. 
 
 Other learned men are for an earlier date. 
 V/hofe opinions alfo, undoubtedly, ought to 
 be taken notice of, and confidered by us. 
 
 Cave thought, that (nj St. Matthew's Gof- 
 pel was writ about the fifteenth year after 
 our Saviour's afcenfion, in the year 48. a 
 fliort time before the council of Jeriijalem, 
 
 or foon after it. 
 
 Baronius 
 
 tamen fe magis veri fpecie commendat chronologia, quam ilia 
 Irenaei : quod nempe Paulo et Petro Romanes inftituentibus, 
 fcribendo Matchaeus operam dederit : ut Ecdefiae aliquid 
 monumenti efiet, quo ob ortum ex perfecutione Neronis do- 
 lorem leniret, fan£lorumque Apoftolornm eo flut!lu oppreflb- 
 rum faciem in Evangelio videre fibi videretur Ecclcfia. Baf/t. 
 Ann. 64. n. x'li. 
 
 (u) ScripfuTe Evangelium fuum viii. a Chrifti refurredVione 
 anno vulgo dicitur. Quod tamen ad annum a Chrilli affum- 
 *tione 15. referunt auftor Chr. A. et Nicephorus. Et fane 
 eum ante annum a paffione ChriiH 12. Apoftolis Judaeae 
 finibus egredi non licuit, vix ante ann. i 5. chr. 48. finita fy- 
 riodo Hierofolymitana, ad fuam quifque fortem abierunt, 
 adeo ut paullo ante Matthaeus Evangcliunn fuum condidiff^ 
 videtur. H. L. in Matthaio, p. 13. 
 
Ch. V. St. Matthew. 
 
 Baronius vv'as of opinion, tbat (x) this 
 Gofpel was publilhed in the year 41. foon 
 after that Peter, had begun to preach to 
 Gentils at the houfe of Cornelim in Cejarea, 
 
 Grot ins (y) and G. /. Vojfius (zj were hke- 
 wife of opinion, that St. Matthew's Gofpel 
 was writ about eight years after Chrift's af- 
 cenfion. 
 
 ^illemont argues, " That (a) St. Matthew 
 wrote his Gofpel about three years after the 
 crucifixion of Chrift. For it mud have been 
 writ before the Apoflles left 'Jzidea. The 
 time of their going abroad, as he owns, is 
 uncertain. But it mufi: have been about the 
 year 36. forafmuch as it appears, that in 
 the year 37. when Paul came to "Jcrufalem^ 
 there were no other Apofiles there, befide 
 
 Peter^ 
 
 (x) Baron. Ann. 41. ?inm, ix, xvi, 
 
 (y) Grot. Pr. ad Matth. 
 
 (x.) Si quidem Matthaeus in Paleftina feribebat, idque in- 
 tra proximum a pafTione Chrifti odennium. FoJ'. de Gen. J . 
 C. cap. 4. §. zV. ' 
 
 (a) II femble mefme nece/Taire de dire, que S. Matthieu 
 a ecrit trois ans {"eulement apres la mort de J. C. . . Le temps 
 de cette divifion des Apotres eft incertain. II femble nean- 
 moins, que 9'a ete vers Tan 36. puifqu'il paroill, qu'il n'y 
 avoit aucun Apoftre a Jerufalem, lorfque S. Paul vint en 37. 
 hors §. Pierre, et S. Jacque le mineur. S. Matthieu. Mem. 
 7, i. 
 
 107 
 
io8 St. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 Peter^ and James the Lefs." But that ar- 
 gument is of no value. For the Apoftles 
 might be all at Jernfalem, or in it's neigh- 
 borhood, though Paul favv none, befide the 
 two juft mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Jones earneftly contends, that (b) this 
 Gofpel was writ about eight years after our 
 Lord's afcenficn, in the year 41. But I 
 do not think it needful to take any farther 
 notice of his arguments, than has been done 
 (c) already. 
 
 Mr. Wetjiein has lately declared in favour of 
 the fame opinion. " And (d) hence, fays he^ 
 " we difcern the reafon, why this Evange- 
 " lift has inferted fo many difcourfes about 
 
 *' the 
 
 (b) h!en.ij and full Method, bfc. Vol. Hi. ch.ni.p. 59. . . 64. 
 
 (c) See Vol. 'vin. p. 176. . . 1 79. 
 
 (d) Magno confenfu perhibent Patres, Matthaeum in 
 gratiam credentium ex Judaeis in Palaeftina Evangelium fuum 
 eAfcripfifle, et quidem, ut multi addunt, Hierofolymis, oc- 
 tavo poft afcenfionem Chrifti anno, qui Claudii Imperatoris 
 primus fuit. Cur illorum teftimonium in dubium vocetur, 
 caufam non video : quin ilia hypothefi admiffa, plurima non 
 infeliciter exiflimo explicari poffe, quorum aliter ratio vix in- 
 venitur. Hinc enim intelligimus, cur Matthaeus primum in 
 ordine Evangeliftarum occupet locum, quia nimirum primus 
 omnium fcripfit : cur item tarn mukas de Judaeorum fuperlli- 
 tionibus referat difputationes, quibus apud alias nationes, vel 
 templo jam everfo, vel paulo poll evertendo, locus vix fuiffet, 
 Wetji. N. T. Tom. i. p. zz^. 
 
Ch.V. St. Mcittheiv. 109 
 
 *« the Jewldi fuperflitlons : which could be 
 ** of little or no ufe to other people, and 
 " among other nations, when $he temple 
 " was once deftroyed, or was near being def- 
 " troyed." But I am not able to difcern 
 any force in that way of reafoning, becaufe 
 I perceive not any fuperfluities in this, or any 
 of the Evangelids. Our Lord's reproofs of 
 Jewifh fuperftitions, his declarations of the 
 fuperiority of moral virtue, or righteoufnefie 
 and true holinefle, above the righteoufnefTe 
 of the Scribes and Pharifees, his cenfures of 
 the pride and covetoufnefie, falfe maxims, and 
 hypocritical condud of the fame men, will 
 be ufeful to all people, fo long as the world 
 ftands. As our Lord was a Jew, and his 
 miniftrie was employed among thofe people 
 mjudea; it is no wonder, that in his dif- 
 courfes, recorded by St. Matthew, whenever 
 he wrote, there fhould be frequent allufions 
 to their laws, cuftoms, and worfhip. The 
 like (e) are in the other two firft Evangeliils. 
 
 And 
 
 (e) When Mr. JVetfdn fpeaks of the many dlfcourfes about 
 ye^vijh fuperjlitions, which are in St. Mattheiv^s Gofpel : I 
 imagine, he may particularly refer to Matt, xxiii. i. . . 30. 
 Neverthelefs divers of thofe things occur alfo in the Gof- 
 pels of St. Mark and St. Luke. See Majk jdu 38. . . 40. 
 
 Luke 
 
no Sl Matthew. Cb. V; 
 
 And in St. Johfis Gofpel, the lad of the four, 
 are as long difcourfes with the cavilling Jews, 
 as in any of the reft. 
 
 I therefore readily aiTent to thofe, who 
 think, that this Gofpel was writ in the time 
 of the Emperour NerOy not till about thirty 
 years after our Saviour's afcenfion. I am 
 not able to aflign the year, in which it was 
 writ. But I am fomewhat inclined to the 
 year 63. 64. or 65. of the vulgar epoch. 
 This is agreeable not only to the teflimonie 
 of IrenaeiiSy and fome other ancients, but 
 to the circumflances of things. At the year 
 64. or thereabout, the gofpel had been 
 propagated in many Gentil countreys, the 
 times were troublefome in Judeay and the 
 war Vt/as coming on : feveral of the Apoftles 
 were dead, others of them, who furvived, 
 were gone, or going abroad, and many of 
 the Jewiili believers were about to feck 
 ihelter elfewhere. Now was a proper time, 
 to write a hiftorie of Chrifl, and his mi- 
 racles. Moreover in this Gofpel are re- 
 corded 
 
 Luke xl. 42. ; . 52. and xx. 46. 47. And both Mark viii. 
 1 4, . . zi . and Luke xii. 1.2. have recorded our Lord's injunc- 
 tions, to beivare of the lea^jen of the Pharifees, and SacUitcees, or 
 Herodians, as well as Mutthe-iv xvi. 6. . . I z. Not now to 
 mention any other like things, 
 
Ch. V. Sl Matthew. tii 
 
 corded divers plain predifllons of the ml- 
 feries and defolations of 'Jeriifalem^ and the 
 overthrow of the temple, and the Jevvifh 
 flate, beiide many other figurative intima- 
 tions of the fame things in many of our 
 Lord's difcourfes and parables. Which 
 could not be vi^ell publiihed to all the world 
 in writing, till about this time. The fuita- 
 bleneffe of St. Mattbew\ Gofpel to the flate 
 of the Chriftian Religion, and of the Jewifh 
 People, about the year 64. or 6^. leads to 
 that time. And however unwillingly, from 
 private apprehenfions and prejudices, we may 
 admit the thought of protracting fo long the 
 writing the hiftorie of our Lord's minidrie; 
 the circumftances of things will conftrain us 
 to acquiefce in this feafon, as the mod 
 li|<ely. 
 
 IV. This leads me now to obferve fome Marks of 
 charaders of time in the Gofpel itfelf. MsQqM. 
 
 It is well known, and allowed bv all, 
 that (f) for a while cur Lord's difciples 
 labored under Jewifli prejudices : and that 
 they did not fully underfland all his dif- 
 courfes, 
 
 (f) There are man/ proofs of this in the Gofpels. See 
 particularly John xvi. 7. . . 14. and likewife the hiilorie in 
 the Ads. ch. x. 
 
J 12 St. Matthew, Ch. V. 
 
 courfes, at the time when they werefpoken. 
 They did not, they could not, clearly dif- 
 ■ cern the comprehenfive defign of the evan- 
 gelical difpenfation, till after Peter had been 
 at the houfe of Cornelius^ and there received 
 into the Church Gentil converts, without 
 circumcifion : nor till after the gofpel had 
 been preached abroad in foreign countreys 
 by Paul, and other Apoftles, and minifters. 
 Let us therefore now obferve the book itfelf 
 of St. Matthew, and fee what knowledge he 
 appears to have had of the fcheme of the 
 gofpel. 
 
 1. His account of the commifTion, which 
 our Lord gave to the twelve Apoftles is in ch. 
 xxviii. 19. Go ye therejore into all the 'world, 
 and teach all nations. Matthew did not then 
 think, that the Apoftles of Jefus were to 
 teach Jews only, but that they were re- 
 quired to teach all people, and all nations in 
 general. 
 
 2. I fuppofe, that he fully underflood our 
 Lord's dodrine, when he recorded that fum- 
 marie account of it, which is in the fifth, 
 iixth, and feventh chapters of his Gofpel. 
 The beatitudes, at the begining, are a proof 
 of it. And at the conclufion, they who 
 heard and did thofe fayings, are compared 
 
 to 
 
Ch. V. St. Matthew, 113 
 
 to t? man that built his houfe upon a rock: 
 though there had been nothing faid to en- 
 force the rituals of the Mofaic laVv. 
 
 3. And that he well underPcood the fpiri- 
 tuality, and the freedom of the gofpel, ap- 
 pears from what he has recorded ch. 3^ v. 
 10. . . 20. 
 
 4. His clear difcernment of the defign of 
 the gofpel-difpenfation appears even in his 
 account of our Saviour's nativity, particularly, 
 in what he fays ch. i. 21. of the melTage of 
 the angel to Jofeph, And thoufialt call his 
 name Jefus, For hefiallfave his people J rom 
 their fins. ^ 
 
 5. If he had not known, that our Saviour 
 was defigned to be, or was already become a 
 bleffing to GentilSj he would fcarcely have 
 thought of Infertlng the hiftorie of the Ma- 
 glans coming from the Eaft to Jeriifalem, to 
 inquire after the birth of the King of the 
 Jews. Chap. ii. 
 
 6. It isalfo very likely, that he underflood 
 thofe words of John the Baptlfl:, recorded by 
 him ch. iii. 9. God is able of thefe fiones to 
 raife up children to Ah rah am. 
 
 7. St. Matthews knowledge of the calling 
 of the Gentils, and the rejedlion of the Jews, 
 may be concluded from many things re- 
 
 VoL. I. ^ I corded 
 
3 14 St, Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 corded by him. In the hlftorle of our 
 Lord's healing the Centurion's fervant at 
 Capernaum he inferts our Lord's commen- 
 dation of his faith, and that declaration : 
 
 Many jhall come from the Eaji and the Wejly 
 aiid Jit dow?i ivith Abraham^ and IfaaCj and 
 yacob, in the kingdom oj heaven : but the chil- 
 dren of the kingdem fiall be cajl out. ch. viii. 
 
 ID . . 12. 
 
 8. The admiffion of the Gentils to equal 
 privileges with the Jews muft be intimated 
 in the parable of the laborers hired into the 
 vineyard at feveral hours of the day. ch. xx. 
 I . .*i6. 
 
 9. The calling and acceptance of the 
 Gentils, and the rejedion of the Jewifh 
 People, and even their overthrow, are plain- 
 ly declared in the parable of the vineyard, 
 let out to hufbandmen, and the difcourfe, 
 which foUov/s. xxi. 33 . . 46. The fame 
 things are intimated in the parable of the 
 King that made a wedding-feafl: for his fon, 
 which is at the begining of the next chapter, 
 xxii. I . . 14. 
 
 10. I might llkewife take notice of the 
 hiilorie of our Lord's curing the daughter 
 of the woman oi Canaan, ch. xv. 21 . . 28. 
 
 11. It is alfo very likely, that St, Mat- 
 
 1 thew 
 
Ch.V. ^t. Matthew. iij 
 
 theiv had fome good knowledge, and a dif- 
 tind apprehenfion of the extent of our Lord's 
 kingdom, and the progrelTe of his dodrine, 
 when he recorded thofe parables in the thir- 
 teenth chapter of his Gofpel : where our 
 Lord has compared the kingdom of heaven^ 
 or the preaching his gofpel, to a grain of 
 muftard-feed, the left of all feeds, but be- 
 comes a tree : to leaven, by which a large 
 lump is leavened : to a net, that was caft 
 into the fea, and gathered of every kind. 
 And, explaining the parable of the tares, 
 our Lord fays, ver. 37, 38. He thut fowetb 
 the good feed is the Son of Man. The field is 
 the world. And what follows. , 
 
 12. It is probable, that this Evangeliit 
 had fome knowledge of the gofpel having 
 been preached out of Judea, when he put 
 down that declaration of our Lord concern- 
 ing the woman, that poured the rich oint- 
 ment upon his head : Wherefoevcr the gofpel 
 fhall be preached in the whole worlds there 
 fioall this alfoy that this woman has done, be 
 told for a memorial of her. ch. xxvi. i^* 
 
 13. In his account of the inftitution of 
 the eucharift. ch. xxvi. 28. our Lord fays : 
 This is my blood of the New Teftament^ which 
 is fl^edfor many^ that is, for all men, for the 
 
 I 2 remifjion 
 
n6 St. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 remijjion of their fins. And in ch. xx. 28. 
 our Lord fays : lihe fon of man came , . .to 
 give his life a ranfom for many. 
 
 14. There is alfo an expreffion ufed by him 
 once or twice, intimating, that it was fome 
 conliderable fpace, fince the time of the event 
 and his writing about it. ch. xxviii. 8. Where- 
 fore that field was called the fcld of hloiid to 
 this day. Having related the aftair of the 
 foldiers, and the directions given to them by 
 the JevviOi Council to fay, that his difciples 
 came by nighty and f ok him away^ he adds : 
 A^id this faying is commodity reported among the 
 Jews iintill this day. ver. 15. Such an ex- 
 preffion does not denote any certain period. 
 But one would think, that, in this cafe, there- 
 by muft be intended a conliderable fpace of 
 time, more than eight, or ten, or fifteeea 
 years. 
 
 15. I formerly (g) fliewcd divers advan- 
 tages of the late publication of the Gofpels. 
 The life of Jefus could not be forgotten in 
 thirty, or forty years. His life and death 
 were very public, as well as very extraordi- 
 narie. His refurredion and afcenfion were 
 mofi: publicly attefled by his Apoftles, and 
 others, as we know from the book of the 
 , Ads. 
 
 {g) See Vol, viii. p, 1 24. . . j 37. 
 
Ch. V. Si. Matthezv. 117 
 
 Ads. And from that time forward there 
 were many, who were continually fpeaking 
 of the things faid and done by him, and of 
 the evidences of his refurredtion and exalta- 
 tion. They were foon known to multitudes 
 of people, fmall and great, and men of all 
 ranks and charaders. As St. Paul fays to 
 Feftus, in a very great affemblie. Ads xxvi. 
 2,6.. For the King knoweth of thefe things, be- 
 fore whont alfo IJpeakJreely. For I am per- 
 fuaded^ that 7ione of thefe things are hidden 
 from him. For this thing was not done in a 
 corner. And was it not the cry at ^hejaloni- 
 ca f Ads xvii. 6. Thefe that have turned the 
 world upfide down^ are come hither alfo. The 
 account of St.PWs mannerof living atRome, 
 about the years 6 1. and 62. is, that he dwelled 
 two whole years in his own hired houfe^ and 
 received all that came in unto him, , . . teach' 
 ing thofe things, which concer7i the Lordfefus 
 'Chriji. Ads xxviii. 30. 31. Whilft there 
 were men, who at the hazard of their lives 
 taught, and others that embraced, the things 
 concerning the Lord Jefus, they could not 
 be forgotten. And if about thirty years after 
 our Lord's afcenfion, his hiftorie was writ by 
 eye-witneffes, or their companions, it was 
 foon enough. Yea, it was the fitted time of 
 
 I 3 all. 
 

 II 8 St. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 all. At the year fixty, of our Lord's nati- 
 vity, according to the vulgar aera, and later, 
 there certainly were enough fuch 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 tran- 
 fcribe and copy out thofe hiftories for their 
 own ufe, and for theufe and benefit of others, 
 than in any preceding time. 
 
 Jfsorighal V. It remains, that we conlider, in what 
 language this Gofpel was writ: becaufe many 
 of the ancients, whofe teftimonies have been 
 lately recited, though they allow the other 
 Gofpels to have been writ in Greeks have de- 
 livered it as their opinion, that this Gofpel 
 was writ in Hebrew, 
 
 Of this I have already fpoken feveral times, 
 particularly, in the chapter of (h) Papias, 
 and in the chapter of (i) Origen, and (k) 
 of Eiifebius of Cefarea : where alfo the opini- 
 ons of divers learned moderns were alleged, 
 who think, it was writ in Greek, To them 
 I now add (I) Le CkrCy who has an argument 
 upon this head, proper to be confulted by 
 
 ' thofe 
 
 (hj Vol. i. p. 243. 244. (i) Vol. Hi. p. 403. . . 408. 
 
 (IcJ Vol. 'viii, p. 1 84. ..189. 
 (I) ly'Jf. tit. De iv, Evargeliis, 
 
Ch . V. St, Matthew, r 1 9 
 
 thofe who have leifure, but too long to be In- 
 ferted here : and his learned fucceflbr Mr. 
 Wetjlein^ who fays : " Here (m) vjc are of 
 *' opinion, that the Fathers do not fo properly 
 ** bear teftimonie, as deliver their own con- 
 " jedure : which needs not to be admitted, 
 ** if it be not fupported by good reafons, or 
 " may be refuted by probable arguments. 
 " Suppofing, and taking it for granted, that 
 " Matthew wrote for the Jews in Judea, 
 " they concluded, that he wrote in Hebrew. 
 " But there is no weight in that reafon. The 
 *' Greek language was at that time much ufed 
 *' throughout the whole Roman Empire, 
 '* and particularly in Jtidea. Papias^ who firfl 
 
 I 4 '' ad- 
 
 (m) Neque tarn facile aflentimur fententiae eorundem Pa- 
 trum ftatuentium, Matthaeum fcripfifie Hebraice, hoc eft, 
 Syriace, five Chaldaice, qua lingua tunc temporis Judaei 
 in Palaeftina utebantur. . . Exiftimnmus enim Patres hie 
 jam non teftimonium dicere, fed conjedluram fuam in me- 
 dium proferre, non admittendam, fi aut idoneis rationibus 
 non fit fulta, aut verofimilibus argumentis refutari poflit. 
 Quod enim putant necelfe fuifle ut Hebraeis fcribens He- 
 braice fcriberet, verum non eft : cum conftet eo tempore 
 linguam Graecam per totum Imperium Romanum, et in 
 Judaea praefertim, in ufu fuifle. . . Videntur ergo vetutiflimi 
 Patres, et inter eos Papias, homo fimplex et credulu?, re 
 non explorata, inani Nazaraeorum jadlantiae fidem habuifl'e. 
 . . Nullum fane in noftro Matthaeo reperitur indicium, unde 
 colligi poffit, ex alia in aliam linguam fuiffe converfau). 
 Pluriiaa vero aliud fua^ent. Wetjlen. N. T. Tom. i. p. 224, 
 
•J20 St, Matthew, Ch. V. 
 
 *• advanced this opinion, was a weak and cre- 
 " dulous man. Nor are there in our Greek 
 *' Gofpel any marks of it's being a tranflation 
 S' from another language." 
 
 Mr. Jones (n) has a long argument, well 
 deferving to be read, fl^ewing, that this Gof- 
 pel was originally writ in Greek. 
 
 Mr. Bajnage (o) is of the fame fide, and 
 has argued exceeding well for it. I ihould 
 tranfcribe him, if I had room. As I have 
 not, I refer to him. 
 
 Says (*') Dr. Jortin : ** In the time of 
 Chrid and his Apoftles the Greek was 
 really the univerfal language. The New 
 Teftament is a proof of it, if proof were 
 wanting. And this is one rtafon amongft 
 many others, why St. Matthew probably 
 wrote his Gofpel in Greek, See JVetfteiti's 
 N. T. p. 224. St. Matthew ch. v. 47. 48. 
 fays : "On rO^ocva-t 'ovru 'ttoiho-iv, ' Earecr^i iv 
 . vf^sT^ TeXsioi . . that- js^ be not rzXuvxij but 
 TiXsioi. Videtur autem Matthaeus vocem 
 TBXssoi hie adhibuiffe, ut reXuvcag opponeret. 
 
 Wetftein. 
 
 ^n) See his Vindication of the former fart of St. Matthe-Mi 
 Go/pel ch. 17. . . ig. p. iSo. . , i86. 
 
 (0) Ann. 64. n. xiii. 
 
 (*) See his Difcourfes concerning the Chrijiian ^ligion. p. 1 76. 
 tiote (0) the third, edition. 
 
Ch. V. Sf. Matthew, I2i 
 
 Wetftein. Add to this, that rsXc^uvjg and 
 reXeiog are both derived froai the fame word, 
 rsXog, So again, ch. vi. i6. we find an an- 
 tithefis in the words, oi<pot,vi^ii(n to, TrpoVwTra, 
 'oTTug (pdvua-i. Eleganter dicitnr : Tegunt 
 JacietUy ut apparea?2t, &c. Wetftein. 
 
 And many others of the fame fentiment 
 might be mentioned, who are men of great 
 learning and good judgement. 
 
 I fiiall now propofe fome obfervations re- 
 lating to this point. 
 
 I. If St. Matthew did not write till about 
 thirty years after our Lord's afcenfion, we 
 muft be led to think, he would life the 
 Greek language. That he did not write 
 fooner, I fuppofe to have been fliewn to be 
 very probable. If indeed there were good 
 reafons to think, his Gofpel was writ within 
 the fpace of eight years after Chrift's afcen- 
 fion, we might well conclude, that he wrote 
 in Hebrew, But, to me it feems, that we 
 •may be fully fatisfied, that Matthew did not 
 write within that fpace, nor fo foon as fifteen 
 years after our Lord's afcenfion, nor till 
 fome good while afterwards. St. "James, 
 refiding at yerufalem^ writes an epifile about 
 the year of Chrift 60. as is fuppofed. It is 
 addrefi^ed to the twelve tribes fcattered abroad. 
 
 And 
 
122 St. Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 And he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, 
 then, fliould not St. Matthew ufe the fame 
 language ? 
 
 2. There was very early a Greek Gofpel 
 of St. Matthew. It is quoted, or referred to 
 by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Juf- 
 tin Martyr^ not now to mention any others : 
 none of whom intimate, that they made ufe 
 of a tranflation. 
 
 .3. Though many of the ancients fay, 
 that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew^ they 
 feem not to have fully believed it. For 
 they have fliewn very little regard to the 
 Hebrew edition of ii. This has been parti- 
 cularly fliewn in the chapters oi (p) Origen, 
 (q) Eufebius of Cefarea, and (r) Jerome, the 
 moll: likely of any of the ancients to make 
 ufe of that edition, if they had been per- 
 fuaded, that it was authentic and original. 
 
 4. There are not in our Greek Gofpel of 
 St. Matthew any marks of a tranflation. So 
 faid Mr! Wetjiein in the paffage juft tran- 
 fcribed. And this obfervation was before 
 made by us in the chapter of (s) Papias. 
 
 5. There 
 
 (p) Vol. Hi. f. 403. . . 408. 
 (q) Vol. mii.p. 185. . . 189. 
 (r)Voi. x.p. 170. . . 172. 
 (s) Vol. i. p. 244. 
 
Ch. V. SL Matthew. 1 23 
 
 5. There is no where any probable ac- 
 count, who tranllated this Gofpel inioGreek, 
 No particular tranflator was mentioned by 
 Papias, as may be concluded from the ac- 
 counts given of his books by Enfebe. Nor 
 is any tranflator of this Gofpel named by 
 Irenaeus, Eufebe, or any of the writers of 
 the firft three centuries, that are come down 
 to us. Nor is there any reafon to think, 
 that he was named in any other : forafmuch 
 as no notice is taken of him by Eufebe^ or 
 "Jerome, who faw many writings of ancients 
 now loft, both catholics and heretics. 'Je- 
 rome having faid, that Matthew wrote in 
 Hebrew, prefently adds : " Who (t) after- 
 wards tranflated him into Greek, is uncer- 
 tain.'* And all the accounts of a tranflator, 
 fince given, are too late to be credited, and 
 are likewife very improbable. In the Sy- ' 
 nopfis afcribed to Athanafms, but not writ 
 till long after his time, it is faid, ** That 
 (u) Matthew's Gofpel was tranflated into 
 Greek by James, the firft Biftiop of Jerufa* 
 lem." Which is very improbable. It would 
 be more reafonable to imagine, that he 
 tranflated it out of Greek into Hebrew^ But 
 
 as 
 
 (t) Vol. X. p. 8g. 
 (uj Vol, <viH.f. 249, 
 
124 '^^' Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 as that is not faid by the ancients, fo neither 
 have Vv'e reafon to fay it. Moreover, the 
 fame reafons, as one may think, which 
 would induce James to make a Greek tranf- 
 iation, fhould have, induced Matthew to 
 write in Greek. Neverthelefs Dr. Mill (x) 
 has pitched upon that perfon for the tranf- 
 iator, and formed an argument thereupon. 
 Which only ferves to fliew, that there is 
 nothing, for which fomething may not be 
 faid by thofc, who indulge themfelves in 
 fuppofitions, without ground. 'Theophyladi 
 informs us, that (y) in his time it was faid, 
 that John tranflated this Gofpel into Greek. 
 But it was only a common report. And 
 indeed it could be no more. However, out 
 
 of a regard to fuch reports and tefiimonies, 
 
 Mr. 
 
 (x) Quis in Graecum transfuderit, incertum eft. Papias 
 de hoc nihil ab Ariftione aut Jeanne prefbytero accepit, aut 
 tradidit. Auftor Synopfeos S. Scripturae Jacobo fratri Do- 
 mini diferte adicribit hanc verfionem. 'I heophyladlus, ex 
 fama duntaxat, Joanni Evangeliftae. Ego ad priorem illam 
 fentendam, feu magis verifimikm, accedo. Satis enim pro- 
 babile eft, Evangelium in Hebraeorum ufum lingua jpfdrum 
 patria primum exaratum, ab ipforum Epii'copo primario Ja- 
 cobo, Epifcopo Hierofolymitano, in fermonem Graecum, per 
 provincias, in quas difperfi erant ex gente ifta plurimi, Judaeis 
 pariter ac aliis in ufu familiaii, tranflatum fuiffe, &c. Prokg. 
 num. 66. 
 
 tii 7i)v gAMv/sTcc, Ki Kiywh Thecf^h, Pr, in Maitb. />. 2. D. 
 
Ch.V. Sf. Matthew. ~ ii^ 
 
 Mr. Lampe (z) has very properly reckoned a 
 tranflatlon of this Gofpel among the works 
 falfly afcribed to St. John. 
 
 6. Once more, I apprehend, we may dif- 
 cern the origin of this opinion, that St. Mat' 
 thews Gofpel was writ in Hebrew. There 
 was foon made a tranflation of his Greek 
 Gofpel into Hebrew. We have feen proofs, " ••-. 
 that (a) in very early days of Chri{l:ianity 
 there was a Hebrew Gofpel. And many, 
 not examining it particularlyj nor indeed 
 being able to do it, for want of underftand- . 
 ing the language, imagined, that it was firfl 
 writ in Hebrew. Jerome expreilly tells us, 
 that (b) by many in his time the Gofpel 
 according to the Hebrews was reckoned the 
 true and authentic Gofpel of Matthew. 
 
 To 
 
 (z) Matthael Evangelium Graece a Joanne Evangelifta 
 verfum efle, refert Eutychius Tom. i. Annalinm p. 328. et 
 Nicetas praefatione ad Catenam in Matthaeum. Lampe Pro- 
 Icgom. in "Joan. I. i. cap, 7. tium. 31. 
 
 (a) See ch. xi-v. Vol. i. p. 320. 321. 
 
 (b) In Evangello, quo utunturNazareni et Ebionltae, quod 
 nuper in Giaecum de Hebraeo fermone tranftulimus, etquod 
 vocatur a plerifque Matthaei authenticum. Hier. in Matth. 
 cap. xii. T. 4. P. i. p. 47. 
 
 In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos . . . quo utuntur ufque hodie. 
 Nazareni, fecundum'ApoHolos, five ut plerique juxta Mat- 
 thaeum. Mv. PcJag, /. 3.y«^ in T. 4. p. 533, 
 
226 Sl Matthew, Ch. V. 
 
 To this Hebrew tranflation of St.Matthe%v^ 
 Gofpel, poffibly, are owing divers 'things 
 faid by the ancients : as that Matthew pub- 
 lished his Gofpel at Jerufaleniy or in Judea^ 
 for the Jewifli believers, and at their re- 
 queft, before he went abroad to other 
 people. I fay, I do fufpedt the truth of 
 thefe, and fome other like things, faid of 
 St. Matthew, and his Gofpel. All which 
 may have had their rife from the Hebrew 
 edition of his Gofpel, which they imagined 
 to be the original. For I think, that St. 
 Matthew'^, and all the other Gofpels were 
 writ, and intended, for believers of all na- 
 tions. His Gofpel was writ for the Jews, 
 but not for them only, but for Gentils alfo : 
 as manifeftly appears from the Gofpel itfelf, 
 or the things contained in it. 
 
 I am alfo ready to fay, with (c) Mr. 
 Bafriage, that I do not know where it was 
 publiihed, whether in Judea, or fome where 
 elfe. But as I think, the Nazaren Gofpel 
 to be St. Matthew's Gofpel tranflated from 
 Greek, with (dj the addition of fome other 
 
 things, 
 
 (c) Annum tamen perinde ntque locum, ubi a Matthaeo 
 conditum eft, in incerto effe, faciles patimur. Jm. 64. 
 finm. xii. 
 
 (d) Dillinguendum enim inter hoc Evangelium, quale 
 
 initio 
 
Ch. V. St. Matthew, 
 
 things, taken from the other Gofpels, and 
 from tradition : So I reckon, that the Gofpel 
 of MattheWy writ in Greeks was the Gofpel, 
 which firfl came into their hands, and which 
 they gladly received, and made ufe of. I 
 fay again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing 
 in HebreWy probably, had it's rife from the 
 Hebrew edition of his Gofpel. For allow- 
 ing that date of his Gofpel, which to me 
 appears mod probable, I cannot conceive 
 the reafon, why Matthew fliould v/rite in 
 Hebrew any more than any of the other 
 Evangelifts. For it may be reckoned highly 
 probable, or even certain, that he under- 
 ftood Greek, before he was called by Chrifl: 
 to be an Apoftle. Whilft a Publican, he 
 would have frequent occafions both to write 
 and fpeak Greek, And could not difcharge 
 his office, without underftanding that lan- 
 guage. 
 
 This Hebrew Gofpel may likewife have 
 been the caufe, why fo many ancient Chrif- 
 tian writers fay, that Matthew wrote firll:. 
 
 This 
 
 127 
 
 
 initio fuit, et illud, quale p^lfatim fiebat, Nazaraeis varia 
 addentibus. . . Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Graeco 
 nunc legimus. . . Porro I^azafaei plufcula fuis locis inter- 
 feruerunt, quae ab Apoftolis, vel Apoftolicis viris, fando ac- 
 cepilTcnt. G. J. Vof, De Gencal, J. C. cap, ii, mm, i. 
 
128 ^t' Matthew. Ch. V. 
 
 This may be true. But I do not think, it 
 was faid upon the giound of any certain 
 knowledge, or good information. I appre- 
 hend it not to be eafie to fay, which Gof- 
 pel was firft writ. For all the firil: three 
 Gofpels were writ about the fame time. 
 And St. Luke's^ for any thing that I know, 
 may have been writ firfl. Which (e) was 
 the opinion of Mr. Baf/iage. 
 
 (e) Ann, 6o. num. 31. 
 
 F ^ -n 
 
 C H A P. 
 
129 
 
 
 C H A P. VI. 
 
 Of the Time, when the Apojiles left fudea, to 
 go and preach the Gofpel in other Coun- 
 treys, 
 
 /^)§(^^S many ancient Chrlftian writers. 
 Q A g whom we have lately quoted, fay, 
 k-MMjn^ that St. Matthew, having preach- 
 ed fome while in Judea, was deiired by the 
 believers there, to leave with them in wri- 
 ting, before he went away, a hiftorie of 
 what he had taught by word of mouth : 
 this may not be an improper place to in- 
 quire, how long it was after the afcenfion 
 of Jefus, before Matthew, and the other 
 Apoftles, left fudea, to go abroad into fo- 
 reign countreys. 
 
 Andfrfi of all, we will obferve fome re- 
 markable pafTages of ancient writers, relat- 
 ing to this matter. And then, fecondly, we 
 Vol. I. * K will 
 
J JO Of the Time, Ch. VI. 
 
 will confider what light the book of the Adls 
 may afford upon this fubjed;. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria^ about 194. quotes 
 from a work, entided the Preaching oi Peter ^ 
 this pafifage : ** Therefore (a) Peter fays, 
 " that the Lord faid to the Apoftles : If any 
 " Ifraelite will repent, and believe In God 
 " through my name, his fins fliall be for- 
 " given. After twelve years go ye out Into 
 *' the world, that none may fay : We have 
 <* not heard." 
 ^ The next paiTage is that of ApollonluSy 
 
 undoubtedly, in part contemporarle with 
 Clement^ and placed by Cave at the year 
 192. by me at 211. as near the time of his 
 v/riting againft the Montanifis. " Moreover, 
 " fays [h') Etifebe^ he relates as from tradition, 
 " that our Saviour commanded his Apoflles, 
 *' not to depart from yerufalem for the fpace 
 " of twelve years." V/hich pafTage has been 
 already cited in this {c) work. 
 
 By 
 
 (a) Ala Ta7o (piKTtv o Terpo?, lifUK'iyai rov x.vp.ov To7$ 
 tfToroAoif 'Eo'J'/uev«c rh ^ihmn tb itrpaiiA //srauoJIij-a/ [forte 
 lJ.ira.vomot.i] <^ia T» ovoiAcLToi [JM TTi^iveiV £»j TOD ^lov, a^£%- 
 eoVTOii dura a.i[j.ap7icti. Mst^ S'uHko. Itm \^iK^i7i eM y.'o<ruov, 
 u.yi rii h'TTt)' 'Ovk tn^a-eoiMV. Clem. Sir, I. 6. p. 636, Conf, 
 Cav. H. L. T. i. . 5. et Grabe Spic. 7", i, p. 67. 
 
 (h) H. E. I. 5. cap. 18. p. 136. 
 
 C^J Ch, xxxi. Vol, in. />. 16. 
 
Ch. VI. when the Apojlks left Judea. 13 1 
 
 By thefe two paflages Cave was induced 
 to think, that (d) for twelve years after 
 Chrift's afcenfion the Apoflles did not de- 
 part from the neighborhood of Jerufalem, 
 Suppoling our Saviour to have been cruci^ 
 fied, and to have afcended to heaven in the 
 year 29. of the vulgar aera, which was 
 a common opinion of the ancients, thefe 
 twelve years ended in the year 41. Sup- 
 pofing thofe great events to have happened 
 in the year 33. which is a common opinion 
 of learned moderns, thofe twelve years would 
 reach to the year 45. 
 
 Befide thofe two palTages alleged by Cave, 
 and other learned men, I (hall take notice 
 of fome others alfo. 
 
 Origen fays in general, *' That {e) when 
 the Jews did not receive the word, the 
 Apoftles went to the Gentils. 
 
 Chryfojiom in a homilie upon Ads xl. 19. 
 and what follows, fpeaks to this purpofe. 
 " They heard, that Samaria had received 
 " the word, and they fent Peter and Jolm. 
 ** They heard what had happened at Aiiti- 
 
 K 2 « ocl\ 
 
 (d) Hijl. lit. T. i.p. ^. et 1^. 
 
 (e) . . fxn 'aa.^a.S'i^dt.iJiivav hJ^diav tov hoyov, a-riXuXv^i- 
 sa,v iic ji I9vn. /« Matth. T. i. />. 225. E. Huet. 
 
3 32 Of the Time, Ch. VI. 
 
 <* ocJjj and they fent Barnabas. For (^^^ that 
 *' was at a great diftance. And it was not 
 '* fit, that the Apoftles fliould go fo far as 
 " yet, lead they fhould have been efteemed 
 " deferters, and thought to have fled from 
 ** their own people. But it then became ne- 
 " ceflarie for them to feparate, [or go froni 
 " thence] when the Jews fhewed themfeh'es 
 " to be incurable." 
 
 In the Pafchal Chronicle are thefe expref- 
 fions, fpeaking of Paul, " Afterwards {g) 
 ** he coming to 'Jeriifalem with Barnabas^ 
 " and finding there Peters and the reft of the 
 ** Apoftles, with James the Lord's brother, 
 *' the Apoftles fend an epiftle to Antioch in 
 " Syria^ eftabliftiing their church. And Paul 
 ** and Barnabas carry the epiftle to Antioch^ 
 
 "as 
 
 (f) HoKv yaf to .T/scrw/xaj ^ iic iJ^ei t«j aToroA«j jiuf 
 ')(apiarSrivat iKeihv, ha. pi voimic^mtiv eivxi (pvyaS'zu i^ rii 
 dvTcuv 7ri(p£uyivxi' rois avayKaiui "xafii^ovTOiit on hoi'jov 
 avictTO. V/eiV iJ^'oKei tu kat' dvTt?' In A£l. horn, 25. Tom, 9. 
 />. 202. 203. 
 
 (g) MiTiTretTx iXQcov hi UpocoXvux fjura ^ufVaCa, }y 
 
 TB Kv^U, ypioQvaiv eTiroAnv ot a^no^'ohQi Uf uvTio'/ei"-'^ '^'Wf 
 evpia^j 0e//.eA/BfT«f t«c avTwv \y.KKm't»Vi J^ S'lAKovufft tuv 
 ftcTifoAi/v £/s uvTiox^av dvToi •^a.vhoi Kj ^ctpvaCxi, ecg i^i)X^atv 
 dl ^pafeif. F.^ tktb J^&ixvvTa.l, on ^ rdi yaQo^iKeiT avTccv 
 ot aTt'oioXot Ton ypdifisffiv, Tifo 7xii d'io.ff'uopai a.vr'av. Chr. 
 Pafch. f.Zll. B.C, 
 
Ch. VI. when the Apoflles left Judea, 133 
 
 *' as the Ads fliew. By this it appears, that 
 " the Apoftles then wrote their catholic epi- 
 " ftles, before their difperfion." 
 
 Such are the palTages of ancient writers, 
 which muft be reckoned to be of fome 
 weight. 
 
 Let us now obferve the hiftorie in the 
 Ads. And it feems to me, there is reafoa 
 to conclude, that the Apoftles ftald injudeay 
 till after the Council at yerufalem, of which 
 an account is given in the xv. chapter of that 
 book. For St. Luke does continually fpeak 
 of the Apoftles, as being at rferujalem^ or 
 near it. Ads viii. i . And at that time, there 
 was a great perfecution againji the church, 
 which was at yerufalem. And they were all 
 fcattered abroad throughout the regions of yu^ 
 dea and Samaria y except the Apoflles. One 
 of thofe perfons, who then left yerufalejriy was 
 Philipy the Deacon and Evangelift: who 
 went to Samaria, and preached Chrift unto 
 them, and with good effed. Whereupoa 
 at ver. 14. Now when the Apoftles, which 
 were at yerufalem, heard that Samaria had 
 received the word of God, they fent unto them ^ 
 Peter a?id yohn. This needs no Comment. 
 Here is proof, that when the reft of the dif- 
 ciples were fcattered abroad, Peter and yohn, 
 
 K 3 and 
 
134 Of the Time, Ch. VI. 
 
 and the other Apoftles, were ft ill at Je- 
 rufiilem. 
 
 In Ads ix. 26. . . 30. is St. Lukes account 
 
 . oi Paul's coming to yertifalem, after his con- 
 verlion. Where he fa3'S, that the difiiples 
 were afraid of him. .... But Barnabas took 
 , him, and brought him to ' the Apojiles, St. 
 Taiil rpeaking of the fame journey, GaL i. 
 18. 19. fays; 'Then after three years I went 
 tip to ferufalem, to fee Peter, and abode ixith 
 him fifteen da'^s. But other of the Jpofles faw 
 J ?wne,fave yames the Lord's brother. Here 
 we find, that at this time, three years after 
 his converfion, Paul faw two Apoftles only, 
 Peter and James. But St. Luke's words, 
 as feems to me, imply, that all the Apodles 
 were then at Jerufalefn, though Paul i^W 
 
 * two only, the reft for fome realons declining 
 to fhew themfelves in perfon to him. Dr. 
 Doddridge has this note upon ch. ix. 27. 
 *' Paul himfelf tells us, that upon his go- 
 ?^ ing up to yerifalem, he faw no other 
 *' Apoilles, but Peter and fames. Gal. i. 19. 
 ** Bcza well obferves, v/e are quite uncertain, 
 *' on what occafion, the reft were then ab- 
 " fent from yerufalem. Had they been 
 ^' there, though Paid ftaid but about a 
 «* fortnight, he would no doubt have ken 
 
 ** them." 
 
Ch. VI. whe?2 the Jpo/ileskft Judca, i^e 
 
 " them." Neverthelefs the folution of this 
 difficulty appears to me very eafie. The 
 Apoftles were now all at yeni/akm, or near 
 it. But they lived privatly, becaufe it u^as 
 a time of perfecution. The great perfecution 
 cgainjl the churchy which began with the 
 death of Stephejiy was not yet over. The 
 Apoftles therefore could not appear abroad 
 without danger. And it was fufficient, that 
 they fpoke to PW, and received him, by 
 Peter and James. Which I take to be the 
 true import of St. Luke's expreffion. But 
 Barnabas took bimy and brought him to the 
 Apojiles, 
 
 After Peter had been at the houfe of Cor^ 
 72eIiuSy it is faid. Ads xi. i. And the Apojiles 
 and brethren that were in Judea, heard, that 
 the Gentils aljo had received the ivord. Another 
 proof, that all the Apoflles, or moft of them, 
 were flill at yernfalem. But I do not fuppofe, 
 that the Apoftles, like many other of the 
 Jewifh believers, were offended at what Peter 
 had done. Or, if they were at firft fomewhat 
 offended, they were foon, and eafily fatis- 
 fied, and were very willing to teflify their 
 approbation of Peters condudl. 
 
 From the 12. chapter of the Ads we 
 know, that James ion of Z ebed.ee , and brother 
 
 K4 of 
 
136 Of the rime, Ch. VI. 
 
 of JohUi and Peter, were at Jerufalem, in the 
 year 44. or thereabout, near the end -of the 
 reign of Herod Agrippa : the former of whom 
 was beheaded, and the other imprifoned. 
 And at ver, 17. is mention made of another 
 James, fiippofed to be the Lord's brother, 
 and always rcfident at 'Jerujakm. 
 
 From the account of the Council of 'Jeru- 
 Jalem, and of the occafion of it, all the Apo- 
 Ules appear to have been then in yudea, and 
 at Jerujakm^ or in its neighborhood. Acfls xv. 
 When therefore Paid and Barnabas had no 
 fmall dijjenfion and difputation with them, they 
 determined, that Pauly and Barjtabas^ and cer- 
 tain other of them, jhcidd go up to 'Jerufalem, 
 unto the Apojlles and "Elders about this que ft ion. 
 ver. 4. And when they were come to yerufalem, 
 they were received of the church, and or even 
 
 the Apoflles and Elder s. . . . ver. 6. And the 
 Apofiles and Elders came together, that is, 
 met in Council, ^^ to confider of this matter. 
 . . ver. 22. T^hen pleafed it the Apofiles^ and 
 Elders, with the whole church, to fend chofen 
 men of their own compaJiie, to Antioch. . . 
 ver. 23. And they wrote letters by them after 
 this manner : The Apo/iles, and Elders, and 
 Brethren fend greeting. . . ver. 33. And after 
 they had tarried there afpace, that is, at An^ 
 
 fiQcbi 
 
Ch. Vr. whefi the Apoftks left Judea. 137 
 
 ttoch, they were let go in peace from the bre- 
 thren unto the Apoftles, 
 
 In all thefe places //6^ Apoftles muft intend 
 all the Apoftles, or the Apoftles in general. 
 For how can the expreffion be underftood 
 otherwife ? 
 
 If it fhould be faid, that the Apoftles 
 might be at the Council at ferujalem^ though 
 feveral of them had been before in other 
 countreys : I think, that would be faid with- 
 out ground and reafon. It does not appear, 
 that the Apoftles were fent to, invited, or 
 called in from abroad, to attend this Coun- 
 cil. But the Chriftians at Antioch fuppofed, 
 or rather knew, that the Apoftles were at 
 Jerufalem, and therefore diredlly fent thither 
 to them. 
 
 Indeed none of the Apoftles are exprefsly 
 named as fpeakers in the debates of the Coun- 
 cil, beftde Peter and James. But all the reft 
 may have been there. So upon divers other 
 occafions in the Gofpels, and at the .begining 
 of the Acts, Peter only fpake, though all 
 the reft: were prefent. In Gal. ii. 8. 9. 10. 
 St. PW giving an account of a journey to Je- 
 rufalem^ fuppofed to be the fame with this 
 to the Council, fpeaks of conferences, which 
 he had with thr^e, namely James, Cephas, 
 
 and 
 
138 Of the Time, Ch. VI. 
 
 and John, Vihofeemed to be pillars. Here* 
 is one more mentioned as prefent at 'Jerufa- 
 lem^ beiide the two before taken notice of. 
 And there muft have been others befide 
 thefe three, who feemed to be pillars^ or were 
 the moft eminent. 
 
 The lirfl time, that we meet with the 
 mention of any one of the twelve, as being 
 out of yudea^ is that in Gal. ii. 11. afcer this 
 Council, as is geaerally allowed, when Peter 
 was at Aniioch. It is very obfervable. Ads 
 xi. 19. ... 22. when tidings came to the ears 
 of the church at Jerufakm, that many Gen- 
 tils had been converted at A/itiocb by fome 
 of thofe who were fcattered abroad by the 
 perfecution, they fent forth Barnabas^ that he 
 fioidd go as far as Antioch. None of the 
 Apoilies went, not fo much as one, to ac- 
 company him. And afterwards ch. xiii i. . . 
 3. in the account of the extraordinarie mif- 
 lion of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to 
 Cyprus^ and other parts, there is no mention 
 made of any Apoftle, as prefent at Antioch, 
 And it is plain, there was not one there. 
 
 All 
 
 * Ikeodoret has a like argument : 'E| «f pa/jflv KocTi^av. 
 fkodr.Pr. in ep. adE^h, Tom, 3. /;. 290. 
 
Cli.VI. whe?i the Apofdes left yiidea. 13^ 
 
 All thefe confiderations induce me to 
 think, that none of the twelve Apoftles left 
 yudea to teach either Jews or Gentils in other 
 Countreys, untill after this Council. 
 
 Having now, as I apprehend, {hewn this 
 to be very probable, 1 fliall mention fome 
 remarks. Whereby there may be an oppor- 
 tunity for anfwering objedions, though fe- 
 veral have been already obviated. 
 
 1 . There was a fitnefTe in it. It was very 
 proper, and even expedient, that the Apofiles 
 iliould flay a good while in yudea^ to affert 
 and confirm the truth of Chrift's refurredion 
 by teaching, and by miraculous works, and 
 do their utmoft to bring the Jewifli People 
 to faith in Jefus as the Chrift. 
 
 2. As this was fit, it is likely, that they 
 had received fome command from Chrift 
 himfelf, or fome direction from the Holy 
 Ghofi:, to flay thus long in Judea, 
 
 3. .There were confiderations, that would 
 
 incline them to it, and induce them to do 
 what was fit to be done, and was agreeable 
 to the mind of Chrifl:. One was the diffi- 
 culty of preaching the gofpel in foreign coun- 
 treys. This would induce them to flay in 
 Judea^ till the circumflances of things faci* 
 litated their farther progrefTe, xtt called them 
 
 to 
 
140 OJ the Time, Ch. VI; 
 
 to it. Another thing was their afFed:ion for 
 the Jewifh People, their countrey-men-, efpe- 
 cially thofe of Judea^ With whom they had 
 been brought up, and among whom they 
 dwelt, together with a perfuafion of the great 
 value of the bleffing of the gofpel. This laft 
 confideration, I apprehend, would induce 
 them to labor in Judea, with earned delires, 
 and fome hopes, of bringing all, or how- 
 ever, many, to faith in Jefus. This in- 
 fluenced Paul alfo to a great degree, and 
 for a good while. Nor was he without 
 hopes of perfuading his brethren and 
 countrey-men to what appeared to himfelf 
 very certain and evident. So he fays in his 
 - fpeech to the people at Jerufalem. Ads xxii, 
 17. . . 20. He alTures them, that whilfl: he 
 was worshiping at JeniJ'alemy in the temple, 
 he had a tranfe or extafie : that he there 
 
 faw Chrift, who faid to him : Make hafte, 
 and get thee quickly out of jerufalem. For 
 
 they will not receive thy tejiimonie concerning 
 
 me, Paul pleaded, that they mufl; needs pay 
 
 a regard to his teftimonie, who was well 
 
 known to have been for fome while very 
 
 zealous in oppofing his followers, and was 
 
 now convinced and perfuaded. But the 
 
 Lord faid^unto him : Depart, For I will 
 
 fend 
 
 M 
 
Ch. VI. ivhenthe y4po/llesleft Judca, 141 
 
 fend thee far hence unto the Gentils, This 
 tranfe, - or vifion, feems to have hap- 
 pened in the year 44. after that Paul had 
 preached at Antioch with great fuccefle 
 among Gentils. Neverthelels he had an 
 earneft delire to make one attempt more 
 among the Jews of Judea, where was the 
 body of that people. And if they could have 
 been perfuaded, many abroad would follow 
 their example. And it required an exprefs 
 and repeated order from Jefus Chrift, in 
 vifion, to induce him to lay afide that de- 
 fign, and to proceed to preach to Gentils in 
 remote parts. 
 
 It is a moft afFedionate concern, v/hich 
 he expreffes for the Jewifh people in divers 
 places of the epiftle to the Romans, writ fo 
 late as the year 58.ch. ix. 1....5. x. 1.2. 
 xi. 4. if by any meanSy fays he, I may provoke 
 them to emidation which are my fiefi^ and 
 might fave fome of them. Nor can it be 
 queftioned, that the like fentiments prevail- 
 ed in the other Apoftles. If it needs any 
 proof, let St. Peters difcourfes at the begin- 
 ing of the book of the Ads be confulted, 
 particularly ch. ii. 38. . . 40. iii. 22. , . 26. 
 not to refer to any other, 
 
 4. There 
 
142 Of the Time, Ch. VI. 
 
 4. There were many advantages attending 
 the ftay of the Apoftles in Judea. Many 
 more Jews were by this means converted, 
 than otherwife there would have been. St. 
 Luke fays, Ads iv. 4. that the number of 
 the men was jive thoufand. But when Faid 
 came to yerufalem fome years afterwards, 
 James fays to him, Thou feejl, brother, how. 
 many thoujands oj Jews there are which be- 
 lieve, xxi. 20. And it is very Hkely, that 
 the Jewidi believers had better, and freer 
 principles, than otherwife they would have 
 had. They were, it is true, for obferving the 
 law themfelves : ver. 20. but they agreed, 
 that the Gentils were under no fuch obli- 
 gations, ver. 25. Farther, by this means 
 every ftep taken in planting the Chriftian 
 Religion, and fpreading the gofpel in the 
 world, had the fandion of all the Apoftles, 
 and of the whole church of Jerufalem. 
 " Upon occafion of the perfecution at ^^- 
 rufalem, many v/ere fcattcred abroad^ who 
 went every where preaching the word. Then 
 Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and 
 preached Chri/i mito them. Ads viii. 45. Now 
 when the Apojlles, which were at Jerufalem, 
 heard, that Samaria had received the word of 
 Gvdy they fent unto them Teter and John, 
 
 This 
 
Ch. VI. when the Apoftles left Judea. 143 
 
 This v/as the firft ftep taken in carrying the 
 gofpel to any, befide native Jews, and pro- 
 felytes to their religion. And what had 
 been done by Philip at Samaria, was ap- 
 proved and ratified by all the Apoftles. 
 
 The next ftep was preaching to Gcntils, 
 which work was folemnly allotted to Peter, 
 And the Apo/lles and Elders that were in Ju' 
 dea, heard that the Gentih alfo had recei'ved 
 the word of God. ch. xi, i. Upon Peter'^ re- 
 hearfmg to them the whole affair, and what 
 had happened at the houfe of Corfielius at 
 Cefarea, all were fatisfied. They glorified 
 God J faying : Then hath God alfo to the Gen- 
 tils granted repentance unto life. ver. 1 8. 
 
 Soon after this, fome of thofe who were 
 fcattered abroad upon the perfecution, went 
 to Antioch, and there fpake to the Greeks^ or 
 Gentils, preaching the Lord Jefus. And a 
 great number believed, and turned to, the Lord, 
 Then tidings of thefe things came unto the ears 
 of the church, which was at Jerufalem. And 
 they fent forth Barnabas, that he fiould go as 
 far as Antioch. ver. 19 . . . . 22. This ftep 
 therefore was alfo approved and ratified by 
 the whole church oiferufakm^ including the 
 Apoftles. 
 
 And henceforward no objedions could be 
 
 made 
 
144 ^/ ^^^ ^^*^^» Ch. VI. 
 
 made by wife men againft fjreaching to Gen- 
 tils, and receiving them, but what arofe from 
 the difficulty of the work, Neverthelefs 
 fome good while after this, there was a dif- 
 pute raifed at Afttioch hy fome bigotted Jews, 
 who afTerted it to be neceffarie, that the 
 Gentil believers jhoidd be circumcifed after the 
 wanner of Mofes. This occafioned the Coun- 
 cil of Jerufalem, Where the controverlie 
 was fully determined by the Apoftles and 
 Elders. Which was a great advantage. By 
 this means the manner of receiving Gentils 
 was fixed, and fettled beyond difpute, and 
 beyond oppofition. Or, if any (hould be 
 made afterwards, it could not be fuccefsful, 
 nor very troublefome. And we may be af- 
 fured, that all the Apofiles, and their difci- 
 ples, would be harmonious, and preach the 
 fame do6lrine to Jews and Gentils, wherefo- 
 ever they went. 
 
 5. There was a neceflity of the Apoftles 
 flaying in Judea, till about this time. Other- 
 wife, they could not have fufficiently tefli- 
 iied the dodrine concerning Jefus in Judea, 
 nor have fully taught the Jewifh People, fo 
 as to render them inexcufable, if they did 
 not believe, and repent. 
 
 If we confider the flate of things in Judea, 
 
 we 
 
Ch. VI. when the JpoJIles left Judea, 145 
 
 we may difcern, that in the year 44. the 
 Apoftles had not had an opportunity to ful- 
 fill their miniftrie in that countrey. It mud 
 be evident to all from the hiftorie in the Ads, 
 that for fome while, foon after our Lord's 
 afcenfion, the Apoftles were grievoufly ha- 
 rafTed, and hardly ufed by the Jewifh Coun- 
 cil or Rulers. Which was the more fo, be- 
 caufe of the weaknefTe of Pilate'^ govern- 
 ment, for fome time before he was difmiffed 
 from the province. And afterwards, about 
 the time of his removal, Stephen was ftoned, 
 and a great perfecution began. Which, as I 
 apprehend, continued from the begining of 
 the year 36. to the begining of the year 40. 
 When the churches had reft. Of which reft 
 undoubtedly the Apoftles made good ufe. 
 St. Luke\ words are : T^hen had the churches 
 reft throughout Judea^ and Galilee^ and Sama^ 
 ria, and were edified^ and walking in the fear 
 oj the Lordy and in the comfort of the Holy 
 Ghojl^ were multiplied, ch. xi. 31. After 
 which follows an account of Peter's pafting 
 throughout all quarters, his going to Lydda^ 
 and there healing Efieas, ihoaio J cppa^ where 
 he raifed Tabitha : and from thence to Ce- 
 fareaj and there preaching to Cornelius, and 
 his companie : and of fome other matters, 
 Vol. I. ' * L reaching 
 
H6 Of the lime, Ch. VI. 
 
 reaching to cb. xi. 26. How long that reft, 
 or peace and tranquillity continued, in all it's 
 fullneffe, we cannot fay exadly. Perhaps it 
 lafted a year, or more. And it is not unlike- 
 ly, that in that fpace of time other Apoftles, 
 befide Peter ^ travelled in yudea^ and the feve- 
 ral parts of it, preaching the gofpel, and con- 
 firming the difciples. But upon Herod Jgrip- 
 pa being made King pf all Judea by Claudius 
 in the year 41. that peace would be abated, 
 if not interrupted. From the begining of his 
 reign, efpecially from his arrival in Judea, 
 and durins: the remainder of it, the difciples 
 muft have been under many difficulties and 
 difcouragements, Prince and People being of 
 one mind. And toward the end of his reign 
 he became an open and violent perfecutor, till 
 Divine Providence fmote him, that he died. 
 After his death Judea came to be in the 
 hands of Roman Procurators, Cufpius Fadm, 
 Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Fefius : 
 When, probably, the difciples of Jefus had 
 for feveral years together more liberty, than 
 they had had at any time, fince the refurrec- 
 ticn of Jefus, excepting the interval of reil 
 and tranquillity, before taken notice of. For , 
 thofe Governours, or Procurators, had no 
 4)rders from the Roman Emperour to per- 
 
 fecute 
 
Ch. VI. when the Apofilei left Judea. 14; 
 
 fecute or difturb any Jews. And that thofe 
 Governours were not dlfpofed to difturb the 
 Chriftians, may be argued from the treat- 
 ment given to Paul by Felix ^ and Fejius, and 
 the officers under them. Now therefore 
 from the year 44. to the time of the Council 
 in 49. or 50. and afterwards, the Apoftles 
 went on fulfilling their miniftrie. All of 
 them, as I apprehend, ftaid in Judea till the 
 time of the Council. Soon after which fome 
 did, probably, go abroad. However, feveral 
 of them might ftay there a good while longer, 
 and not remove, till a litde before the com-» 
 mencement of the Jewilli war in 66. 
 
 6. We may now perceive, the benefit of 
 the early choice and call of Paul to be an 
 Apoftle. Who having been feveral years 
 employed and exercifed in preaching to Jews 
 in Judea, and out of it, was ready to preach 
 to Gentils likewife, as foon as a door was 
 opened for applying to them at Antiochy and ' 
 other places ; as there w^as, after Peter had 
 received Cornelius at Cefarea : whilft it was 
 not as yet fit for any of the twelve Apoftles 
 to leave the land of IfraeL 
 
 7, We now obtain fome afTiftance for inters 
 preting thofe expreffions of Paul: Gal. ii. 7. 
 §. 9. M-'hen tkeyfaw, that the ^"fpel of the un- 
 
 L 2 circum' 
 
148 Of the Time, Ch. VL 
 
 circumcifion was committed unto me^ as the gof- 
 pel of the circumcifion was committed unto Pe- 
 ter. For he that wrought effeBually in Peter 
 to the apoflejhip of the circumcifion ^ the fame 
 ■ was mighty in me toward the Gentils. And 
 they gave unto me and Barnabas the right 
 hands offellowjhip^ that we fiould go unto the 
 Heathen, and they unto the circumcifion. And 
 Rom. xi. 13. inafmuch as lam theApojile of the 
 Gentils^ I magnify my ofice. Thofe expreffions 
 cannot be intended to fignify, that Paul was 
 Apoftle of the Gentils only, and exclufive of 
 the Jews : or that Peter and the other of 
 the twelve, were Apoftles of the circumci- 
 fion only, exclufive of the Gentils. For an 
 Apoftle is a teacher or mafter of the whole 
 world. They were appointed to be fo by 
 Chrift himfelf. Nor could their commiftion 
 be limited byany compad among themfelves. 
 Our Lord's commiffion given to his twelve 
 Apoftles, is, in Matthew, to this purpofe : 
 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, xxviii. 
 19. and in Luke : xxiv. 46. 47. hefaidto them, 
 that repe?itance and forgivenefe of fins Jhould 
 be preached in his name among all nations, 
 begining at Jerufalem. And A<5ls i. 8. And 
 Ye fiallbe witnefes unto me in Jerufalem, and 
 in all Judeaj and in Samaria ^ and unto the 
 
 uttermojl 
 
Ch. VI. when the JpoJlJes left Jiidea, 149 
 
 uttermofi part of the earth. And Mark xvi. 
 15. And he /aid unto them : Go ye into all the 
 world J and preach the gofpel to every creature. 
 And ver. 20. And they went forth and preached 
 every where. Of Faul the Lord fays in a vi- 
 lion to Ananias at Damafcus : He is a chofen 
 vejfel unto me^ to bear my name before the Gen- 
 tils, and Kings y and the children of If raeL Ads 
 ix. 5. And Faul fays to King Agrippa : I 
 was not difobedient to the heavenly vifion : but 
 Jhewedfirft unto them of Damafcus ^ and at Je- 
 rufalem^ and throughout all the coaji offudea^ 
 and then to the Gentilsy that they fiould repent, 
 and turn to God. ch. xxvi. 19. 20. Moreover 
 we know from the hiftorie of Paul's preach- 
 ing recorded in the Ad:s, that he always firft 
 addrelTed himfelf to Jews, in all the places 
 where he came, if there were any, and if they 
 had there a fynagogue. 
 
 It fhould be obferved likewife, that Peter 
 had actually preached to Gentils, in fudea, 
 and was the firft difciple of Jefus, that did 
 fo. There is a particular account of it in 
 the book of the Ads ch. x. and xi. And 
 himfelf takes notice of it in his fpeech at the 
 Council of ferufalem. ch. xv. 7. 
 
 The reafon therefore, why the gofpel of 
 the circumcifion is faid to have been com- 
 
 L 3 mitted 
 
I jo OJtheTime^ Ch. VL 
 
 mittcd unto Peter ^ and the other Apoftles 
 with him, is, that for a good while, their 
 miniftry was foly, or however very much, 
 and chiefly, employed among Jews in Ju{lea : 
 though afterwards they preached very freely 
 to Gentils, in feveral parts of the world. 
 And Pdul is called the Apoftle of the Gen- 
 tils, and the gofpel of the uncircumcifion is 
 ' faid to have been committed unto him, be- 
 caufe he got the ftart of all the reft in 
 preaching to Gentils, and had labored among 
 them for a good while in divers countreys, 
 with great fuccelTe, and had formed many 
 churches in divers places : whilft they were 
 flill in Jti^ieay teaching Jews, aud had made 
 no addrelles to Gentils abroad in other 
 countreys. 
 
 It may be alfo implied in what St. Pai/l 
 fays in the epiftle to the GalaiianSy that (b) 
 
 feveral 
 
 (h) Alterum, quod ex di6o Pauli ad Galatas colliglmus, 
 illud eft, Joannem etiam poR difceffum Pauli cum duobus col- 
 legis per aliquod temporis intervallum Hierofolymis, et in Ju- 
 daea fubflitifle. Gentium enim converfione Paulo et Bar- 
 nabae demandata, ipfi inter Judaeos fe operam porro loca- 
 turos declarant. Quae etlam caufla eft, cur Joannis et foci- 
 orum in Adis Apoftolicis vix mentio occurrat, quia poftquam 
 primordia Ecclefiae Chriilianae inter Judaeos memorata erant, 
 nihil amplius videbatur addendum, nifi iit narretur, quomodo 
 primitiae Gentium e/Tent introduftae. Lamp, Pro/eg. in Jo, /. 
 l.cap, 3. §. •vii. 
 
Ch. VI. when the Apoflles left Judea. 151 
 
 feveral of the firfl: twelve Apoftles intended 
 to flay ftill fomewhat longer in Judea. This 
 they were the more willing to do, being fully 
 fatisfied with the preaching of Paul \n foreign 
 countreys : infomuch that they encouraged 
 him to proceed, as he had begun. 
 
 8. Once more, we may now be reconciled 
 to the fuppofition of the late date of the Gof- 
 pels. For they were not to be publiflied, till 
 the do6lrine concerning Jefus had been 
 preached in divers parts, and many converts 
 had been made, to whom they would be 
 ufeful, for whom they would be needful, by 
 "whom they would be received with joy, be 
 highly valued, frequently read, and often 
 copied. Written hiftories of Jefus could 
 be litde wanted by the JewiOi believers ia 
 jfudeay whilft all the Apoftles were ftill in 
 that countrey, and there were alfo ftill living 
 among them many ftncere followers of Jefus, 
 and eye-witnefTes of his perfon and miniftrie. 
 Very probably, therefore, there was no writ- 1 
 ten gofpel, till after the Council at Jerufakm, 
 
 Still there may be objedlions, which fliould 
 be ftated and confidered. 
 
 Obj. I. It may be faid : Was not the pro- 
 grefTe of the gofpel by this means much re- 
 tarded ? I anfwer : No. And this objec- 
 
 L 4 tion, 
 
52 Of the rime, Ch. VI. 
 
 tlon, methinks, fliould be of little moment 
 now, after all that has been faid of the many 
 advantages of the Apoftles flay in Judea, 
 
 However, feme confiderations fliall be 
 here added to what has. been already faid. 
 Though the Apoftles did not leave Jiidea 
 themfelves, they encouraged thofe who did, 
 who preached the gofpel abroad, whether 
 to Jews or Geniils. Of this there is an in- 
 ftance with reg«rd to the church of Antioch^ 
 related Ads xi. 19 . . 22. And there may 
 have been feme other iilce infiances. More- 
 over the Apoftles were very ufeful by their 
 ftay in Judea^ as has been already (hewn. 
 They made many converts among the Jews. 
 During their ftay in that countrey, if there 
 was any mealure of public liberty for the 
 believers, the Apoftles would all, or moft of 
 them, be at Jerufalem^ at the great feafts, to 
 which there was a general refort of Jews 
 from all countreys. Here the inquifitive of 
 that People would have an opportunity of 
 converfing with the Apoftles. And if they 
 were convinced, and perfuaded by them, 
 they would carry the dodrine of the gofpel 
 into the places of their ufual refidence, and 
 propagate it there, 
 
 Obj. 2, 
 
Cb. VI. when the Apoflles left yudea, i^^ 
 
 Obj. 2. But, if the Apoftles had attempt- 
 ed to make a long ftay in Judea, it feems, 
 that they muft have been all deftroyed. I 
 anfwer, that doubtlefs they met with many 
 and great difficulties. What they were from 
 the time of our Lord's afceniion to the year 
 44. was briefly rehearfed juft now. After 
 that, for feveral years, as 1 apprehend, their 
 difficulties would not be fo great, as they 
 had been. Yea, during that fpace would be 
 the beft opportunity that ever they had, to 
 promote the interefts of the gofpel, as I faid 
 before. For (i) the Jewifli People had not 
 the power of life and death in their own 
 hands. And the Roman Procurators were 
 
 not 
 
 (i) Contra perfuafum habeo, hoc emblema fupponere, ■ 
 Ecclefiam jam longo admodum tempore fuifle afflidam . . . 
 Ne jam dicam, non conftare ex hiftoria Ecclefiae, quinam illi 
 ilnt Marty res, (\uor\iTn.fanguis, praeter eum Stephani, et utriuf- 
 que Jacohi, de quorum altero ex Luca, altero ex Jofepho li- 
 quet et Hegefippo, a Judaeis fufus fuerit. Judaei enim, ex- 
 cepto brevi intervallo regni Agrippae, rerum fuarum non erant 
 domini : et licet in Chriftianos pefTirae affedi fuerint, a Prae- 
 iidibus tamen Romanis prohibebantur, pro lubitu in innocuos 
 Jefu Chrifti difcipulos faevire. Quae enim junior Ananus 
 tentavit in Jacobum fratrem Domini, et Tiu«i hifin, quofdam 
 al.osy Chrillianae profeffionis homines, ut conftat ex Jofepho, 
 Fefto mortuo, et Albino adhuc in itinere agente, peraOa 
 funt. Campeg, Vitring. in Apoc, cap, <vi, ver. 12. §. xxx, 
 
 h 303- 
 
,154 OfiheT'ime.^c. Ch. VI, 
 
 not difpofed to give any men difturbance 
 upon account of difference of opinion in re- 
 ligious matters. Finally, the Apoftles of 
 Jefus Chrift, we have reafon to think, had 
 an efpecial dire(5tion, and an efpecial pro- 
 tedion. They, who were employed in 
 teaching fo important a dodrine, and were 
 enabled to work miracles upon others for 
 confirming it, may be reafonably fuppofed 
 to have been the fubjeds of fome wonderful 
 interpofitions of Providence. And it muft 
 be reckoned very probable, that affairs would 
 be fo over-ruled and influenced, as that thefe 
 chofen men (hould be upheld, and enabled 
 to fulfill their miniftrie, and bear fuch a tef- 
 timonie to Jefus, as fhould be fufficient to 
 lay a good foundation for the eftablifhment 
 of his Church in the world, and leave all 
 thofe of the Jewifh People, who did not re- 
 ceive him as the Meffiah, abfolutly inex- 
 cufable. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
^55 
 
 >cv' ^i^<s2" ^^^^^^<>^ V***v:^ lii;. >i^*^^ ^^*^ jM?»*sSi *^^^ v-p<^Jr v?<: 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 St. Mark, Evangeliff. 
 
 I. T'Z'^/ /Z;^ Evangelijl is the fame as "John 
 Mark, and nephew to Barnabas, II. His 
 Hiftorie from the New 'Tejiament. III. 
 From other Writers. IV. Tejiimonies to 
 bis Go/pel^ in a?taent Writers. V. Re^ 
 marks upon them. VI. The Time of writ- 
 ing his Go/pel, according to iheje ancient 
 Writers^ and the Sefitiments of learned 
 Moderns, VII. Chara6iers of Time in the 
 Gofpel itfelf, VIII. Obfer'uaiions upon this 
 Gofpel. 
 
 I. p'l^MM"^ T is generally, or even univer- <rheE-^m 
 
 § J B Tally, allowed, that Mark, men- g^¥ the 
 
 )^ )^ tioned i Pet. v. 13. is the E- j^ln^ 
 
 hJ^'^^j. vangelift. But it has been ^'":^' 
 
 doubted, whether he be the fame as John 
 
 Mark mentioned in the Ads, and feme of 
 
 St. Paul's epiftles. And it appears from our 
 
 coUedions out of ancient authors, that there 
 
 were 
 
 ■van- 
 
156 St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 were doubts about this in the minds of fome 
 
 in former times. 
 Divers learned moderns are perfuaded, that 
 
 they are different perfons. Of this number 
 are (a) Cave, [who neverthelefs thinks him 
 (if) the fame Mark, that is mentioned by St. 
 Paul in his fecond epiftle to Ttmothie,] (c) 
 Groiius, (d) Du Pin, and (e) Tillemont, 
 Which laft, in his Ecclefiaftical Memoirs, 
 makes two different articles for this name : 
 one entitled, St. Mark the Evangeliji, Apoflle 
 of Egypt, and Martyr : the other, St. 'John 
 Mark, dijciple and coufin of St, Barnabas, 
 On the other hand they are reckoned one 
 and the fame by (f) Jer. Jones, (g) Light- 
 foot, and (h) Wetjiein. 
 
 I fhall 
 
 ' (a) S. Marcus Evangelifta, quern cum Joanne Marco, 
 de quo Aft. xii. 1 2. male nonnuUi confundunt. H, L. T. i. 
 p. 24. 
 
 (ij Cum enim ilium epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum— 
 Romam accerfiverat Paulus — Ici. ib, 
 
 (c) Gr. Pr. in Marc. 
 
 (d) Dif. Prelim. I. 2. ch. it. §. i'V. 
 
 (e) Mem. Ec. Tom. 2. 
 
 (f) NeTo and full Method, vol. 3. ch. vi. /. 65 . . 70. 
 
 (gj Light/hot is making obfervations upon the firft epiftle 
 of St. Peter. " He fends this epiftle, fays he, by Sihanus, 
 Paur% old attendant, but now with Peter . . His naming of 
 
 Mark 
 
Ch.VII. St, Mark. \ i^y 
 
 I fliall now without delay confider the 
 reafons of thofe, who think there are two 
 Marks mentioned in the New Teftament. 
 
 I. They fay, that Mark the Evangelift 
 was converted • and baptifed by Peter, be- 
 caufe he calls him his fin. i Pet. v. 1 3 . 
 But there is no reafon to fuppofe this of 
 John Mark, 
 
 To which I anfwer. That needs not to 
 be reckoned the conftant meaning of the 
 expreflion. It may denote only great affec- 
 tion and tenderneffe, and a refped to faith- 
 ful fervices: in like manner as Paul fays 
 of Timothie, Philip, ii. 22. that as a fin 
 with the father he bad firved with him in 
 
 the 
 
 Mark with him calls our thoughts back to what has beett 
 mentioned of Mark heretofore : his being with Paul at Rome, 
 and his coming from him into the Eaft. To fuppofe two 
 Marks, one with Peter, and another with Paul, is to breed 
 confufion, where there needeth not. . . It is eafily feen, how 
 John Mark came into familiarity with Paul and Peter. And 
 other Mark we can find none in the New Teftament, unlefs 
 of our own invention. . . . He it was, that wrote the Gofpel. 
 Ughtfoot Harm, of the N. T. Vol. /. />. 336. 
 
 (h) Nihil vetat, quo minus fimplicit«r cum Viftore et 
 Theophylado hunc eundem Marcum intelligamus, quoties 
 illius nomen in AAis et ^Epillolis repcfimus, Wetji. Pr. in 
 Mate. Tom, ». ^« 55 1. 
 
Sf.MarL Ch.VII. 
 
 the go/pel. Grotim (i) and Du Pin (k) who 
 mention this reafon, feem not to have 
 judged it conclufive. Moreover, if Mark 
 was a convert of Peter, it does not follow, 
 that he was not an early believer. For he 
 might be one of that Apoftle's converts at 
 his firfl: preaching the gofpel at yerufalem, 
 Mark the Evangelift, upon that fuppofition, 
 could not be one of the feventy : but he 
 might be among the firfl believers, and the 
 fon of Marie. However, I choofe not to 
 infift upon this, but chiefly upon what was 
 before mentioned : that the appellation, my 
 Jon, needs not to be underftood rigoroufly, 
 as mSaning a convert begotten to the faith of 
 the gofpel. 
 
 2. It is faid, that (I) Mark^ the com- 
 panion of Paid, was called Jolm : but the 
 
 Evangelift 
 
 (zj Aclde, quod Joannes Marcus inter primos Chriflianos ! 
 Marcus hie, ut vidctur, Petri opera converfus. i Pet. v. 13. 
 Nam tales peculiariter filios fuos Apoftoli vocabant. i Cor. iv. 
 15, Gal. iv. 19. Gr. Pr. in Man, 
 
 (k) II y a plus d'apparence, qu'il a re9u I'evangile de S. 
 Pierre, qui I'appelle fils, peutetre parcequ'il Tavoit engendre 
 en J. C. DtJ'. Pi-el. /. 2. ch. 2. §. i'v. 
 
 (I) Joannes quoque ille Mariae filius, Barnabae con- 
 fanguineus, . . . Marcus vocabatur : quern multi hunc 
 noflrum fcriptorem puf^nt. Quibus quo minus afTentiar, 
 
 movecr 
 
Ch.VlI. St. Mark. 159 
 
 Evangelid is never fo called by the ancients, 
 who mention him. 
 
 To which I anfwer. It is true, that 
 Pauh companion is fometimes called Johriy 
 as Adls xiii. 5. and 13. But we arealfo in- 
 formed that he was furnamed Mark. Sa 
 Ad:s xii. J2. j4nd when he had conjidered the 
 things he ca7ne to the houfe of Marie, the mo- 
 ther of fohn, whofe furname was Mark. And 
 ver. 25, . . .and took with them fohn, whofe 
 furname was Mark. And he is feveral times 
 mentioned by the furname, Mark, only. 
 Ads XV. 39. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Col. iv. 10. 
 Philem. ver. 24. Secondly, fuch of the an- 
 cients, as fuppofed Mark, the Evangelift, to 
 have been the fame with him mentioned 
 in the Ads, muft alfo have fuppofed, that 
 he was called John^ as well as Mark, though 
 they have generally mentioned him by his 
 furname. 
 
 3. It is faid, that (m) John Mark wa$ 
 
 much 
 
 inoveor veterum au£toritate, qui hunc fcrlptorem Joanncra 
 nunquam, Marcum femper vocant. . . . Grot. Pr. in Marc. 
 
 L' Evangelifte n'eft appelle niille part du nom de Jean, qui 
 etoit le nom propre de celuici. Du Pin, ubi fupra. 
 
 (m) Et ita Petro addunt [Veteres] comitem, ac difci- 
 pulum, ut non tantum de Barnaba, fed et de Paulo, quem 
 
 Joannes 
 
i6o St. Mark, Ch. VIL 
 
 much with 'Paul^ Mark^ the Evangelift, with 
 Peter. So fay the ancients in general. 
 
 I anfwer ; It is not at all impoffible, but 
 that Mark might be fometimes with Paul^ 
 at other times with Peter, As may appear 
 by and by. 
 
 As thefe reafons therefore do not appear 
 to me conclulive, I rather think, that there 
 is but one Mark m the New Teftament, 
 yohn Marky the Evangelift, and fellow-la- 
 borer of Paul and Barnabas, and Peter, 
 
 Hishijbrie ^^* ' "°^ procccd to writc the hiftorie of 
 from the John Mark from the New Teftament, men- 
 tioning, as they offer, fome obfervations, 
 fliewing his acquaintance with Peter, as 
 well as with Paul. After which I fhall 
 take notice of fome other things faid of him 
 by the ancients. 
 
 He was the fon of Marie, a pious wo- 
 man at yerufalem, and an early believer, at 
 whofe houfe the difciples ufed to meet, and 
 that in troublefome and difficult times, as 
 t^'ell as at other feafons. Peter having been 
 
 de- 
 
 Joannes Marcus poft illud frigufculum feftatus eft ... . nihil 
 meminerint. Grot. ibid. 
 
 II etoit difciple de S. Pierre, et attache a lui, dans le tems 
 q^ue r autre etoit avec S. Paul, et S. Barnabe. Du Pin. Ibid. 
 
Ch. VII. Sl Mark, i6l 
 
 delivered out of prifon by an angel, came to 
 the hoiife of Marie, mother of 'John, whofe 
 furname was Mark, where many were gather^ 
 cd together praying, A(fl:s xii. 12. So. that 
 the very firfl: mention of 'John Mark allures 
 us of Peter's intimacie in that famihe. 
 
 That deliverance of St. Peter happened in 
 the year 44. about the fame time that Paul 
 and Barnabas, came to Jerufalem from Au' 
 tioch with contributions for the relief of the 
 brethren in Jiidea in the time of a famine, 
 or fcarcity. And it is faid at the end of that 
 chapter. And Barnabas and Saul returned 
 from yerufalem, when they had fulfilled their 
 miniftrie, and took with them fohn, whofe fur"' 
 name was Mark. This, with fome other 
 things to be hereafter mentioned, may dif- 
 pofe U9 to think, that this yobn Mark is the 
 fame, who in Col. iv. 10. is CdW^dJiJlersfon 
 to Barnabas. 
 
 Mark therefore went now from yerufa- 
 lem to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, 
 And, when fome fhort time afterwards, they 
 went abroad to other coujitreys, Mark ac- 
 companied them, as their minijler. Adts 
 xiii.- 5. They went to Cyprus, and preached 
 the word in that countrey. But when they 
 returned to the continent, and came on fliore 
 
 Vol. I. * M at 
 
1 62 St, Mark. Cb.VIL 
 
 at Perga in Tamphylia^ he departed from ihem^ 
 and returned to yertifalem. ver. 13. H^e there- 
 fore did not attend them in their farther pro* 
 grefle to Antioch inPifidiaJconiumy and other 
 places, but went to 'Jerufalem. 
 
 And now, very probably, he converfed a- 
 galn with Feter^ and the other Apofcles, and 
 was prefent with them at their difcourfes, 
 and their devotions. For, as I apprehend, 
 all the Apoftles were flill in Judea^ except 
 yames the fon of Zebedee^ who had been be- 
 headed by Herod Agrippa, in the begining 
 of the year 44. 
 
 Paul and Barnabas having finifhed their 
 progrelfe, returned to Antioch, and there a- 
 bode. Whilft they were there, debates arofe 
 about circumcifing Gentil converts. Which 
 determined Paul and Barnabas to go to Je^ 
 rufalem. That controverfie being decided, 
 they returned to Antioch. 
 
 Some time afterwards Paul /aid unto Bar- 
 nabas : Let us go again y ajidvijit our brethren, 
 in every city, where we have preached the 
 word, and fee how they do. And Barnabas 
 determined to take with them fohn, whofe fur^ 
 nume was Mark. But Paul thought it not 
 good to take him with them, who had depart' 
 ed from them from Pamphylia^ and went not 
 
 with 
 
Ch. VII. Sf. Marh 163 
 
 with them to the work. Barnabas, however, 
 perfifted in his refolution, and went with 
 Mark to Cyprus. And Paul chofe Silas to 
 "J accompany him. Ads xv. 36 .... 41. 
 Hereby we perceive the good temper of 
 Mark. He was now at Antioch, and was 
 willing to attend Foul and Barnabas in their 
 journeys, and actually went with Barnabas 
 to Cyprus. And though Paul would not now 
 accept of his attendance, he was afterwards 
 fully reconciled to him. Mark is mention- 
 ed in feveral of his epiftles fent from Kom€y 
 during his confinement there. I fdppofe, I 
 {hall hereafter fhew, that St. Fauf% fecond 
 epiftle to Timothie was writ in the fummer 
 of the year 6 1 . not long after Pauh arrival 
 at Rome, In that epiftle he writes to T/'- 
 mothiCy to come to him. And he defires 
 him to bring Mark with him. 2 Tim. iv. 
 1 1 . Take Marky and bring him with thee : 
 for he is profitable to me for the minijirie. 
 Where Mark then was, does not clearly ap- 
 pear. It is probable, that he was either at 
 Ephefus, or at fome other place, where Ti- 
 mothie would find him in his journey from 
 Ephefus to Rome, And, unqueftionably. Murk 
 did come with Timothie. He is mentioned 
 in two of the epiftles writ by the Apoftle at 
 
 M 2 Rome. 
 
l64 ^ St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 Rome, Phllem. ver. 24. and Col. iv. 10. 
 Ariftarchus falutes you, and Mark, 0er' s fen 
 to Barnabas J touching whom ye received com^ 
 mandments. If he come wito you^ receive him, 
 Mark is not mentioned in the epiftle to the 
 Philippiam. Perhaps he was not acquaint- 
 ed there, or upon fome occafion was abfent 
 from the Apoftle, when that epiftle was writ. 
 Or rather, he is comprehended in thofe ge- 
 neral expreffions. cb. iv. 21. The brethren that 
 are ivith me, greet yen. For in the epiftle to 
 the Fhilippians St. Faul does not mention 
 his fellow-laborer^ by name, as he does in the 
 epiftles to the Colojfians, and to Fhilemon. 
 Nor is he mentioned in the epiftle to the 
 Ephefians. To thofe who admit the tru& 
 date of that epiftle the reafon will be obvious. 
 It was writ, and fent away, before Mark 
 came to be with St. Paul at Rome, 
 
 This is all we can fay concerninor St. Mark 
 from the New Teftament. But from that 
 we can colled his excellent charader, and 
 may conclude, that after this time he no 
 longer attended on Paid. It is not impro- 
 bable, that going now into jifia, he there 
 met with St. Peter, and accompanied him, 
 till that Apoftle came to Rome, where he 
 fuffered martyrdom. Where likewife Mark 
 
 wrote. 
 
Ch. VII.^ St. Mark, 165 
 
 wrote, and publiflied the Gofpel that goes 
 by his name. 
 
 III. We will now inquire, whether there From other 
 is any thing in other writers to illuflrate' the ^^^'^^^'^ 
 hidorie of this Evangelift. 
 
 Cave fays, without hefitation, that (71) 
 Mark was a Levite. But he does not fay, 
 upon what authority. I do not remember, 
 that it is in any of the writers, of which I 
 have given a particular account, excepting (0) 
 Bede. It is alfo in a commentarie upon St. 
 Mark's Gofpel, ufually joyned with 'Jeromes 
 works, though (p) allowed not to be his. 
 That writer fays, that (q) Mark was a Le- 
 vite^ and a Prieft. It is not unlikely, that 
 this was inferred from Mark's relation to 
 Barnabas^ who was a Levite of Cyprus, 
 
 M 3 Comp. 
 
 (n) S. Marcus, Evangelifta, quern cum Johanne Marco, 
 de quo Ad, xii. 12. male nonnulli confundunt, crat Levites. 
 H.L.T. i. p. 24. 
 
 (0) Tradunt autem hunc, natione Ifraelitica, et facerdotali 
 ortum profapia, ac poll paffionem ac refurredionem Domini 
 Salvatoris, ad praedicationem Apoftolorum Evangelica fide a 
 facramentis imbutum, atque ex eorum fuifTe numero, de qui- 
 bus fcribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba facerdotum obedie- 
 bat fidei. Bed. Prol. in Marc. 
 
 (p) Vid. Benedi^lin Monitum, et Petav, Animad-v. ad Epiph. 
 H. 21. num. ■vi. p. 88, 
 
 (q) Marcus Evangelifta Dei, Petri difcipulus, Leviticus ge- 
 nere, et facerdos, in Italia hoc fcripfit Evangelium. Praef, in 
 Marc. ap. Hierom. T, v.J). 886. 
 
l66 St. Marh Ch. VII. 
 
 Comp. Ads. Iv. 36. and Col. iv. 10. But 
 then Cave fliould not have denied; as he 
 does in the fame place, that Mark the Evan- 
 gelift is the fame as John Mark^ mentioned 
 in the Ads. For that, as I apprehend, is 
 to remove out of the way the fole ground of 
 
 this opinion. 
 
 By Eiifebe we are informed, it (r) was 
 faid, that Mark going into Egypt ^ firft preach- 
 ed there the Gofpel, which he had writ, and 
 planted there many churches. And after- 
 wards, in another chapter, he fays, that (i) 
 in the eighth year of Nero^ Ant amis, the 
 firft Bifliop of Alexandria after Mark, the 
 Apoftle and Evangelift, took upon him the 
 care of that church. Of which Anianus he 
 gives a great charader, as beloved of God, 
 and a wonderful man. 
 
 Epiphafjius fays, that foon after Matthew, 
 Mark, companion of Peter, compofed his 
 Gofpel at Rome. And having (t) writ it, 
 
 he 
 
 (*■) Tbtow cTs fji.d§)(ov T^arov qieto-iv «t/ tjk diyiTna ^eiha.- 
 li.i¥ov, TO kvotyy'iAm o cTm )dj cvKyed.'^a.ro xnov^oii, iK<?\il<ria.i 
 •n '^r^arov k-n avTiii aXi^avS'^eaxii av^n<xa.aio(.i. a. A. H. £. I. 
 2. cap. 16. 
 
 (sj . . . TpaTof jU«Ta (JidfiKQV tow d'^i^oXov ty Ivotyyihis-uv^ 
 rTiq iV dhi^cLvJ'peia. TxpoiKicLi dvi'toivo^ T«y X&iTHfyiuv J'/x- 
 J'i^ira.r dyttp fieof/Jvo? ^ •TruvTct BoiViXMUoq. lb. cap. 2^. 
 
 (t) , . )y ypd'^f diio^tKKirou vtto tb uyiit 9r4Tf« «j tob 
 TftJj' diyxnniav yj>^(x.v% H, ^\. num. nii. 
 
Ch. VII. Sf. Mark. - 167 
 
 he was fent by Peter into the countrey of 
 the Egyptians. 
 
 Jerome, in his article of St. Mark, as (u) 
 before quoted, after other things, fays : 
 " Taking fxj the Gofpel, which himfelf 
 ** had compofed, he went to Egypt, and at 
 ** J[lexa7idria founded a church of great 
 ** note . . . He died in the eighth year of 
 ** NerOj and was buried at Alexandria, 
 " where he was fucceded, as Bifliop, by 
 " Anianus!' 
 
 From all thefe accounts, I think, it muft 
 appear to be probable, that if indeed Mark 
 preached at all in Egypt, and founded a 
 church at Alexandria j it muft have been 
 after he had writ his Gofpel, and after the 
 death of Eeter and Faul at Kome, Never- 
 thelefs, when prefently afterwards Edtfebe, 
 and Jerome likewife, fpeak of Mark\ con- 
 verts, and Philds Therapeuts, as all one, 
 they feem to have imagined, that Mark had 
 very early preached in Egypt. But what 
 
 M 4 they 
 
 (u) Vol. X. p. 92. 93. 
 
 (x) Affumto itaque Evangelic, quod ipfe confecerat, per- 
 rexit ad Aeguptum, et primus Alexandriae Chriftum annun- 
 tians conliituit ecclefiam . . . Denique Philo . . videns Alex^ 
 andriae primam ecclefiam adhuc judaizantem, quafi in lau- 
 dem gentis fuae, librum fuper eorum converratione confcripfit. 
 D4 y. L. cap. S. 
 
j6S ' St. Mark. Ch. VIL 
 
 they fay upon that head is exceeding ftrange 
 and unaccountable. For they both fuppofe, 
 that Mark had writ his gofprl at Ro?Jie, be- 
 fore he went into Hgyyt : and that his Gof- 
 pel was not writ before the reign of Nero. 
 if therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria^ 
 it was later, in the fame reign : and Philds 
 Therapeuts could not be Chrlftians, nor 
 MarTiz converts : but were a fort of people, 
 who had a being, and had formed their in- 
 flitution, before the gofpel could bepublifli- 
 ed in Egypt^ and before the rife of the Chrif- 
 tlan Religion. 
 
 By Baronim (y) and many others, it is 
 faid, that St. Mark died a Martyr. This is 
 admitted by (z) Cave, and the (aj late Mr. 
 Wetjkin. But it is difputed by (h) S. Baf- 
 nage : and as feems to me, with good reafon. 
 For St. Mark is not fpoken of as a Martyr 
 by Eiijehe^ or other more ancient writers. 
 
 And 
 
 (y) An. 64. §. i. ii. 
 - (zj Alexandriae primus Epifcopus fadus Martyn'um ibi 
 fubiit : quo vejro anno, mihi hadenus incompertum. H. L. 
 f. 24. 
 
 (a) Tandem vero in Aegyptum concefliire, atque Alexan- 
 drlae fanguine ftfo dodlrinam Chrifti confirmafre, hifloria ecr 
 clefiaftica teftatur. J. J. Wetjlat, N. T. 'Tom, i.p. 551, 
 
 (b) Ann. 66, pum. xix. .xx. 
 
Ch. VII. Si. Mark, 169 
 
 And Jerome, as before quoted, fays, St. Mark 
 died in the eighth year of NerOy and was 
 buried at Alexandria. Pie does not fay, that 
 he was crowned with martyrdom : as he 
 would have done, if he had known of it. 
 And his exprefiions feems to imply a natural • 
 death. Fabricius (c) in his account of St. 
 Mark, fays nothing of his having been a 
 Martyr. 
 
 IV. Having thus writ th^ hiftorie of St. 'lepmomtt 
 Mark^ I (liall now recollect the teftimonies p^i^ 
 to his Gofpel, which we have feen in ancient 
 writers, particularly, with a view of afcer- 
 taining the time of it : obferving likewife 
 whatever may farther lead us into the know- 
 ledge of his ftation and charader^ and whe- 
 ther he was one of Chrift's feventy difciples, 
 or not. 
 
 The firft v/riter to be here taken notice 
 of IS P apt as, about A. D. 116. He fays, 
 " That (d) the Elder, from whom he had 
 " divers informations, faid : Mark, being the 
 " interpreter of Peter, wrote what he re- 
 ** membred : but not in the order, in which 
 " things were fpoken and done by Chrift. 
 
 For 
 
 (c) Vid. Fair. Bib. Gr, /, 4. cap. 'V. ». Hi. Tom. 3. /. 1 30. 
 , .. 132. 
 
 (d) Vol. i.p. 241. 
 
170 St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 " For he was not a hearer of the Lord, but 
 " afterwards followed Peter." 
 
 Irenaeusy as before (e) cited, about 178. 
 fays : " After the death of Peter and Paul, 
 " Marky the difciple and interpreter oi Peter, 
 *' delivered to us in writing the things that 
 " had been preached by Peter." In another 
 place (f) he calls Mark " the interpreter 
 *• and follower of Peter." 
 
 Clement, of Alexandria^ about the year of 
 Chrift 194. fays : " That (g) Peters hearers 
 ** at Romey not content with a lingle hear- 
 *' ing, nor with an unwritten inftru6lion in 
 ** the divine doftrine, entreated Marky the 
 " follower of Peter, that he would leave 
 *' with them in writing a memorial of the 
 " dodrine, which had been delivered to 
 " them by word of mouth. Nor did they 
 " defift, untill they had prevailed with him. 
 ♦' Thus they were the means of writing the 
 ** Gofpel, which is called according to Mark, 
 
 It is faid, that when the Apoftle knew 
 
 what had been done, he was pleafed with 
 ** the zeal of the men, and authorifed that 
 ** fcripture to be read in the churches/* 
 
 That 
 
 (e) Vol. i, p. 354. (f) p. 357. 
 
 (g) Vol. H, 472. 
 
 
Ch. VII. St. Mark, 
 
 That puflage is cited from Eufebes Ecclefiaf- 
 tical Hiftorie. 
 
 Again, Eufebe fays : " Clement (h) informs 
 ** us, that the occafion of writing the Gof- 
 " pel according to Mark was this. Peter, 
 " having publicly preached the word at Rome, 
 <' and having fpoken the gofpel by the Spirit, 
 " many who were there, entreated Mark to 
 *' write the things that had been fpoken, he 
 " having long accompanied Peter, and re- 
 " taining what he had faid: and that when 
 " he had compofed the Gofpel, he delivered 
 " it to them, who had alked it of him. 
 " Which when Peter knew, he neither for- 
 *' bid it, nor encouraged it." 
 
 Many remarks were (/) formerly made 
 upon thefe accounts of Clement, which can- 
 not now be repeated. But it may be need- 
 ful to fay fomething here for reconciling 
 Irejtaeus and him. Irenaeiis faid, that Mark 
 publifhed his Gofpel after the death of Peter 
 and Paul : whereas Clement fuppofes Peter 
 to have been ftill living, and that this Gof- 
 pel was fhewn to Peter, who did not difap- 
 prove of it. But the difference is not great. 
 
 Clement 
 
 (h) p. 475. 
 
 (ij Vol. i. />. 245. , . 249. Fe/. it. p, 476. , . 493. 
 
 171 
 
172 aSV. Mark, Ch. VI I. 
 
 Clement fays, that Mark's, Gofpel was writ 
 at Rome at the requeft of the CKriftians 
 there, who were hearers of Peter. If fo, it 
 could not be compofed long before Peters 
 death. For I take it to be certain, that 
 Peter did not come to Rome, until 1 the reign 
 of Nero was far advanced, nor very long 
 before his own death. So that it may be 
 reckoned not improbable, that Mark\ Gof- 
 pel was not publifhed, or did not become ge- 
 nerally known, till after the death of Peter 
 and Paiil^ as lre7iaeus fays. 
 
 ^ertullian, about the year 200. fpeaks of 
 Mark as (k) an apoftolical man, or com- 
 panion of Apofiles : and fays, ** That (I) 
 " the Gofpel, publifhed by Mark^ may be 
 " reckoned Peter %y whofe interpreter he 
 «' was." 
 
 Says Ortgen^ about 230. *' The (m) fe- 
 «' cond Gofpel is that according to Marky 
 " who wrote it as Peter didated it to him. 
 *' Who therefore calls him his fon in his ca- 
 " tholic epiftle." See i Peter v. 13. 
 
 Eufebe, about 315. may be fuppofed to 
 agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus^ 
 
 whofe 
 
 (k) See Vol. a. p. 576. . . 58S. (I) p. 581. 
 
 (fn) Vol.'viii.p. 235. 
 
Ch. VIT. Sf, Mark, 173 
 
 whofe paflages he has tranfcrlbed, and in- 
 ferted in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. And in 
 a long palTage of his Evangelical Demon- 
 llration, formerly {ii) tranfcribed by us, he 
 fays : " Peter out of abundance of modeftie 
 " thought not himfelf worthie to write a 
 ** Gofpel. But Markj who was his friend 
 *' and difciple, is faid to have recorded 
 " Peters relations of the adts of Jefus." 
 At the end of which palTage he fays : " And 
 " foj Peter teflifies thefe things of himfelf, 
 ** For all things in Mark are faid to be me- 
 ** mohs of Peter s difcourfes." He likewife 
 fays, " that (p) Mark was not prefent to hear 
 " what Jefus faid." Nor (q) does it appear, 
 that he thought the writer of the Gofpel to be 
 yofmj furnamed Markj nephew to Barnabas, 
 But unqueftionably he fuppofed him to be 
 the fame that is mentioned i Pet, v. 13, 
 
 Mark is mentioned among the other 
 Evangelids by (r) Athanafiiis^ without other 
 particularities. But in the Synopfis, afcribed 
 to him, and by many fuppofed to be writ 
 by another Athanafim^ Bifliop of Alexandria^ 
 near the end of the fifth centurie, it is faid, 
 
 That 
 
 (n)Vol.'vm. 86... 88. 
 
 (o)P.%^. (pJP.86. (9)P-H3' 
 
 (r) Vol, 'viii. /). 227, 
 
i74 
 
 Sf. Mark, Ch. VIL 
 
 *' That (s) the Gofpel according to Mark 
 " was didated by Peter at Roffh% ahd pub- 
 «* liflied by Mark^ and preached by him in 
 ** Alexandria^ and Egypt, and Tentapolis, 
 ** and Lybia.'' 
 
 The author of the Dialogue againft the 
 Mardonites, about 330. fays, that (^) ili^r/^ 
 was one of Chrift's feventy difciples. 
 
 Epiphaniits, about 368. fays : " Matthw 
 " {u) wrote firft, and Mark foon after him, 
 ** being a companion of Peter at Rome." 
 Afterwards he fays, ** That (x) Mark was 
 " one of Chrift's feventy difciples, and like- 
 " wife one of thofe who were offended at 
 *' the words of Chrift, recorded John vi. 44. 
 ** and then forfook him : but he was after- 
 " wards recovered by Peter, and being filled 
 ** with the Spirit wrote a GofpeL" 
 
 Upon the laft paffage of Epiphanius Pe- 
 tavius fays : " Mark (y) might, poffibly, 
 
 have 
 
 (s) Vol. miii. p. 250. (fj ^- 255. 
 
 (u) P. 305. {xj P. 306. 
 
 (y) Diffentit Papias apud Eufebium. . . . Quod autem 
 aflerunt nonnulli, Marcum ron vidifle Dominum, viderit 
 necne non affirmo. Videre quidem potuifle, temporum 
 ipfa ratio perfuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii 
 fententia, dum ilium e lxxii difcipulorum numero fuifie tra- 
 dat, etfi contrarium alii patres tradant. Peiaa.: ad kc. Jni- 
 mad-v, /I. 88. 
 
Ch. VII. Sf. Mark. , 175 
 
 have feen Clirifl:, and have been one of the 
 feventy : but it is faid by very few ancient 
 v^^riters of the Church." 
 
 In the Conftitutions Mark (z) is reckoned 
 with Luke a fellov^^- laborer of Paul. Which 
 may induce us to think, that the author fup- 
 pofed Marky the Evangel ift, to be John 
 Mark, mentioned in the Ads, and fome of 
 St. Paul's epiftles. 
 
 Gregorie Nazianzen fays, ** That {a) Mark ^ 
 
 wrote his Gofpel for the Italians,'' or in 
 Italie, 
 
 Ebedjefu fays, " The {b) fecond Evan- 
 " gelift is Marky who preached [or wrote] 
 *' in Latin, in the famous city of Rome'' 
 
 Jerome'^ article of this Evangelifl, in his 
 book of illuftrious Men, is to this purpofe : 
 '* Mark [c) the difciple and interpreter of 
 " Peter, at the defire of the brethren at 
 ** Rome, wrote a (hort Gofpel, according to 
 ** what he had heard related by Peter. 
 ** Which when Peter knew, he approved 
 " of it, and authorifed it to be read in the 
 ** churches : as Clement writes in the fixth 
 *' book of his Inftitutions, and alfo Papias, 
 
 *' Bifhop 
 
 (z) Vol. 'viti. p, 393. {a) Vol. ix.p. 1 3 3. 
 
 {b) P, 216. (f) Vol. X. p, 92. 93. 
 
176 St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 " BKhop of Hierapolis. Peter alfo makes 
 *' mention of this Mark in his epiflle writ 
 '' at Rome, which he figuratively calls Ba- 
 " byloji. . . Taking the Gofpel, which him- 
 *' felf had compofed, he went to Egypt, and 
 " at Alexandria founded a church of great 
 " note. ... He died in the eighth year of 
 " Nero, and was buried at Alexandria : where 
 " he was fucceded, as Bifhop, by AnianusJ* 
 
 In the prologue to his Commentarie upon 
 St. Matthew, Jerome fays : " The {c) fecond 
 '* Evangelift is Mark, interpreter of the 
 « Apoflle Peter, and the firil: Biihop of 
 " Alexandria : who never faw the Lord 
 *' himfelf, but related things as he had them 
 *' from his mafter, very truly, but not ex- 
 ** adly in the order, in which they were 
 «' done." 
 
 In his Commentarie upon Philem. ver. 24. 
 he fays : " He {d) thinks, that Mark there 
 " mentioned is the writer of the Gofpel." 
 That Mark may be well fuppofed to be Joh?i 
 Markj mentioned in the Ad;s, and in Col. 
 iv. 10. where he is filled nepheiv to Barnabas, 
 Whether that Mark was the Evangelift, was 
 doubted of by fome. Nor was Jerome pofi- 
 
 tive. 
 
 (r) P. 83. {d) P. 93. 
 
Ch. VJI. St. Mark. 177 
 
 tive. But he was inclined to think him the 
 fame. 
 
 Augufiin [e) calls Mark and Luke difci' 
 pies of Apoftles: and fays, that (f) Mark 
 follows Matthew^ as his abridger. Upon 
 v/hich fome remarks were {£) made. 
 
 By Chryfoftom (h) Mark is faid to have 
 writ his Golpel in Egypt^ at the requeil of 
 the believers there. However, at the end ■ 
 of that paffags he fays : " In (/) what place 
 each one of the Evangelifts wrote, cannot be 
 faid with certainty." He likewife (k) calls 
 Mark difciplc o^ Peter, and Peter his mafler. 
 
 He mud have fuppofed him the fame, ihat 
 is mentioned i Pet. v. 13. But I do not re- 
 colled: him to have any where faid, that he 
 was the fame as John Mark. 
 
 Vi5icr, v/riter of a Commentarie upon St* 
 iWjr^''s Gofpel, about the year 401. fays: 
 '* He (I) was alf3 called ^ohn : that he 
 *' wrote a Gofpel after Matthew, and was 
 " the fon of Marie, mentioned A(fls xii. 
 " For a while he accompanied Paid, and his 
 " relation Barnabas. But when he came 
 
 (e) P. 228. Cf) P' 229. 
 
 (g) P. 233 zy,. (h)P. 315. 
 
 (i) P. 316. ..;i8. ^^;p. 318. 319.322. 
 
 (I) Vol. xi. f. 30. 3 ! . 
 
 Vol. I. •* N " to 
 
(f 
 
 cc 
 
 178 St. Mark. CI1. VII. 
 
 to Rome^ he joyned Peters and accom- 
 =' panied him. For which reafdn he is 
 
 mentioned i Pet. v. 13. Mark is alfo 
 " mentioned by Paul, Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. 
 '* iv. II. ... When he was obliged to go 
 *' from Rome, and was earneftly defired by 
 *' the believers there to write a hiftorie of 
 -" the preaching of the heavenly dodrine, 
 *^ he readily complied. This, as he adds, 
 " is faid to have been the occafion of writing 
 ** the Gofpel according to Mark." 
 
 CofTnas^<ii Alexandria i about 535. fays: 
 «' Mark (m)i the fecond Evangelift, wrote 
 " a Gofpel at Romey by the diredion of 
 <* Peter:' 
 
 By Ifidore, of Seville, about 596. Mark (n) 
 is faid to have writ his Gofpel in Ifalie, 
 Afterwards, he feems to fay, it (0) was writ 
 at Alxeandria. But perhaps no more is 
 meant, thao that Mark preached at AlexaU' 
 dria the Goipel, which he had writ. 
 
 Oecumejiiiis, about 950. upon Ads xiii. 
 13, fays: *^ This (p) 'John, who is alfo 
 *' called Mark, nephew to Barnabas^ wrote 
 «' the Gofpel according to him, and was 
 " alfo dilciple of Peter ^ of whom he fays 
 
 « in 
 
 (m) P. 267, (n) P. 367. 
 
 ("J P' 37S- (PJ ^' 413. 
 
cc 
 « 
 <c 
 
 Ch. VIL St, Mark 
 
 " in his firfl epidle : Mark^ my fin ^ Jalutcth 
 *' you:' 
 
 'ThcophylaSi flourifhed about 1070. His 
 preface to St. Ma?^k is to this purpofe: " The 
 *' (q) Gofpel according to Mark was writ 
 at Rome ten years after Chrift's afcenfion, 
 at the requeft of the believers there. For 
 this Mark was a difciple of Peter, v/hom 
 he calls his fon fpiritually. His name was 
 ** yohn. He was nephew to Barnabas, and 
 " was alfo a companion of Faul^ 
 
 EutbymhiSy about 1 1 ;o. fays :' 'VThe (r) 
 " Gofpel of Mark was writ about ten years 
 ** after our Lord's afcenfion, at Rome, as fome 
 " fay, or in Egypt, according to others. 
 " He fays, that at firil: Mark was much 
 " with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul, Af^ 
 " terwards he was v/ith Peter at Rome, as 
 " the firft epiftle of the Apoftle {hews, whorn 
 " he there calls his fon. From whom alfo 
 " he received the whole hiftorie of the Gof- 
 «* pel." 
 
 Nicephorus CalUfti, about 1325. fays: 
 ** Two (s) only of the twelve, Matthew and 
 " John, have left memoirs of our Lord s 
 " life on earth : and two of the feventy, 
 •* Mark and Luke'' And fomewhat lower : 
 
 N 2 " After 
 
 (i)p.^2u (r)p.i,i6. r^;p. 442. 
 
 179 
 
iSo St. Mart Ch. VII. 
 
 ♦' After this Mark and Luke publiflied their 
 ** Gofpels by the dire£]:ion of Peter and 
 " Paul:' 
 
 I add here one author more, not particu- 
 larly mentioned in the preceding part of this 
 work, Eiitychius, Patriarch of Alexandria^ in 
 the tenth centurie : who fays, " that (t) in 
 " the time of the Emperour Nero^ Peter the 
 " prince of the Apoflles, making ufe of the 
 *' pen of JVf^r/^, wrote a Gofpel at Pome^ in 
 " the Roman language. And he publifhed 
 *' it under Marli% name." By the Romany 
 probably, meaning the Greek language, 
 which then very much prevailed in the Ro- 
 man Empire, as (u) Selden has obferved. 
 ne7narh V. Let US HOW briefly recoiled: what has 
 palTed before us, in feveral articles. 
 
 I. All the ancient writers in general fup- 
 pofe, the Evangelift Mark to have been a 
 companion of Peter in the later part of his 
 life, and to have had great advantages from 
 that Apoftle's preaching for compofing a 
 Gofpel. 
 
 2. Though 
 
 (t) Et tempore Neronis Caefaris Tcnpfit Petrus, Apoftolo- 
 ■ rum princeps, Evangelium Marci, didlante Marco, lingua 
 Romana, in urbe Romae. Sed adtrlbuit illud Marco. £«- 
 tjch. Ann.f, 335. Conf. ejujd. Origines. ^.35. 
 (ti) Vid, Selden in Eutych. Origin, not, 28. />, 152, 
 
 upon them. 
 
Ch. VII. , ^t.Marh i8i 
 
 2. Though fome have doubted, who Mark 
 was, many have been of opinion, that he was 
 ^ohn Mark, fon of Marie, a pious Jevvifli 
 woman, and an early believer, of yerufalemy 
 and nephew to Barnabas, 
 
 3. \i Mark, the Evangelift, be 'John Mark^ 
 as feems to me very probable, he was well 
 acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and 
 other Apoftles, and difciples, eye-witnefles of 
 Jefus, befide Peter. 
 
 4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, 
 thought Mark to have been one of Chrift's 
 feventy difciples. Which, I apprehend can- 
 not be either affirmed, or denied with cer- 
 tainty. But, if he was not one of them, he 
 was an early believer, and an early difciple 
 and companion of Apoftles, and intimatly 
 converfant with them. Whereby, and by 
 hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other pla- 
 ces, and laftly at Rome, he w^as well qualifi- 
 ed to write a Gofpel. 
 
 ^.Bafnage has fome obfervations upon this 
 point, which deferves to be taken notice of, 
 « Epiphanius (x) and the Author of the Dla- 
 
 N 3 ^' logue 
 
 (x) Marcum deLXX difcipulis unum fuifTe, credidit Epi- 
 phanius Nobis tamea non arridet ea fententia cum in- 
 
 Cfcdibile fit, PetrUi-n Marco Jilli nomen addidilTe, fi de fep. 
 
 tuaginw 
 
.c 
 
 182 Sf. Marh Ch, VII. 
 
 *' logue again ft the Marcionifcs, fuppofe, 
 ^* Mark to have been one of Chrift's'feventy 
 " difciples. But that opinion, fays he, does 
 not appear to me well grounded. It feems 
 incredible, that Peter (hould call Mark, his 
 ^^ Jbuy if he was one of the feventy, who had 
 " a commiflion from Chrifl; himfelf, and 
 ** were almpft equal to Apoftles. That an- 
 " cient writer, P^ipias^ excludes him from 
 <* that number, faying, that Mark was not a 
 *' hearer or follower of the Lord. . . . And 
 ** TertuUian calls Mark Peter's interpreter^ 
 " which ofHce would be belov/ the charader 
 " of one of the feventy. . . . Nor does Origen 
 «* make him one of the feventy, whofe autho- 
 *' rity muft be of great weight. . . . However, 
 " it fcems to me very probable, that Mark 
 <« was one of the five hundred brethren, who 
 *' faw Chrift after his refurredtion. And 
 
 " having 
 
 tuaginta difcipnlis unus fuiflet, quos Chriftus ipfe legaverat, 
 ijuique ab omni fere parte aequales erant Apoftolis. Papias 
 quoque vetullus ille audor LXX difcipulis Marcum eximit. . . 
 Ex Tertulliano quoque fcimus, Marcum intcrpretis officio 
 fundum fuifle, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit. . . . Neque 
 LXX difcipulis eum appofuit Origenes, cujus non minimi 
 pnnderis eft teftimonium. . . Nobis tamen eft admodum pro- 
 babile, Marcum unum fuifle quingentorum fratrum, qui 
 Chriftum a morte revocatum contemplati funt. Cuique, ut 
 telH oculato, commifta eft fcribendi Evangelii provincia. 
 J^nftt. Ann, 66, nufn. x-vii. 
 
(5h. VII. Si. Mark. 183 
 
 " having been an eye-witneffe of that, he 
 ** was qualified to write a Gofpel." 
 
 Upon which I obferve : The fuppofition, 
 that Mark might be one of the five hundred, 
 fpoken of by St. Paul i. Cor. xv. 6. is a 
 mere conjedure, without any authority, either 
 in Scripture, or antiquity. But I would add 
 a thought or two for ftrengthening the argu* 
 ment, that Mark was not one of the feventy 
 difciples. Eufebe (y) in his Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorie, has a chapter concerning the Difci- 
 ples of our Saviour. But Mark is not there 
 [ named, as one of them. Nor does Jerome 
 fay any thing of it in his book of Illuftrious 
 Men : nor elfewhere, that I remember. The 
 filence of Origen^ Eiijebe, and Jerome^ upon 
 this head, muft amount to an argument of no 
 fmall weight, that there was not in their 
 times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was 
 one of the feventy. It may be alfo reckoned 
 an argument, that he was not of that number, 
 in that he has not ^in his Gofpel taken any 
 notice of them, or of the commifTion given 
 to them. Which is in St. huke only. ch. x. 
 I. . . 17. 
 
 I therefore conclude with faying, that 
 Mvrk was an early believer, and an early 
 
 N 4 dif- 
 
 (y) H. E.l. I. cap. xii. 
 
184 St. Mark, Ch. VIL 
 
 difciple and fellow-laborer of Apoftles. But 
 that he ever faw, or heard the Lord Jefus, is 
 not certain. 
 
 5. The general account of the above named 
 writers is, that Mark wrote his Gofpel at 
 Rome. In this there is a remarkable agree- 
 ment, with a very few exceptions. Chryfof^ 
 torn indeed fpeaks of it's being writ in Egypt. 
 But he is almofl lingular. That it was writ 
 at Rome, or in Italic, is faid not only by Epi- 
 phanius, Jerome , Gregcrie Nazianze?!, Vi5for, 
 and divers others : but the Egyptian writers 
 Jikewife all along fay the fame thing : that it 
 was writ by Mark at Rojne, in the companie 
 of the Apoftle Peter. So fay Clement , of A' 
 lexandria, Athanajtiis, the fuppofed author of 
 the Synopds of Scripture, Cofmas, and Eu- 
 tychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjeju likevi'ife, 
 in his catalogue of Syrian writings, fays, that 
 Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin au^ 
 thor of the commentarie upon St. Mark's 
 Gofpel, quoted fome while ago, fays, that it 
 was writ in Italie. 
 
 6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark'% 
 Gofpel was not writ before the year 63. or 
 64. For we cannot perceive any good reafon 
 to think, that St. Feter was 2XRome, till about 
 |hat time. And this date is fupported by the 
 
 tefti- 
 
Ch. VII. St. Mark, 185 
 
 teftimonie of that ancient writer, Irenaeus, 
 \h-iX Mark publidied his Gofpel ajter the de- 
 ceaje of Peter and Paul, 
 
 VI. Thefe are obfervations, which the TheTimti 
 above cited teilimonies fetm naturally to goj^I 
 afford. But before we proceed any farther, 
 it will be fit for us to take notice of the 
 fentiments of learned moderns concerning 
 the time of St. Mark\ writing his Gofpel. 
 
 Cave fuppofes St. Mark to have publiihed 
 his Gofpel at Rome^ in the year of Chrift 65. 
 His argument for it 1 place (z) below. 
 
 Mr. Jojtess opinion was, that (a) this 
 Gofpel was publiflied betv^een the year 64, 
 
 and 
 
 (z) Rogp.tus Roinae a fratribus, fcripfit Evangelium, a Petro 
 approbatum, idque Graeco fermone Romanis fatis famiiiari. 
 Factum id circa ann. 65. Petro et Paulo jam morte fublatis. 
 Cum enim ilium epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum non longe 
 ante martyrium fcripta, Romam accerfiverat Paulus, proba- 
 blle eft, Marcum vel eodem, vel faltem fequenti anno illuc 
 venifie, ibique Evangelium vel primum condidifTe, vel prius 
 conditum in publicum edidifie. Certe Irenaeus, 1. 3. cap. i. 
 et apud Eufebium, 1. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum ueja t)jv r/.jav 
 'ic^oS'ov Evangelium fuum confcripfifTe difcrte tradit. Cav. H, 
 L, T. i. p. 24. 
 
 (a) Mr. Jonesh words are thefe : " Thefe, with fome other 
 *' reafons, make it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at 
 *' Roifie, till the year of Chrift 63. or 64. and confeqiient- 
 " ly, that the Gofpel of St. May-k was not written before 
 " this time, but between that and the martyrdom of this 
 " Apoftle and St. Paul, in the year of Chriil 67. or 68.'^. 
 JVfiy and full Method. Vol, 3, p. 88, 
 
86 Sf. Mark, Ch. VII. 
 
 and Sy. or 68. when, according to his com- 
 putation, Peter and PWfuffered martyrdom. 
 
 y Jl. Fabricius (b) was for the year of 
 Chrid 63. the ninth of Nero. 
 
 Mill fays, that (c). St. Mark published his 
 Gofpel at Rome in the year of Chrift 63. 
 after that the Apoftles Feter and Faul had 
 been gone from thence, as Irenaeus fays. 
 
 But here 1 beg leave to obferve, that, pro- 
 bably, Irenaeus does not fpeak of thefe two 
 Apoftles removal from Rome, but of their 
 deceafe. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reafoii 
 to fuppofe, that Peter was at Rome, during 
 the time of Patirs two years imprifonment 
 there, efpecially at the period of it. But 
 there is a great deal of reafon to think 
 otherwife. For we have feveral epiftles of 
 St. Paul, writ near the end of that confine- 
 ment, in which no notice is taken of Peter. 
 
 Bafnage, 
 
 (b) Biv. Gr. I. \..cap. i', Tom. 3. ^. 124. et 131. 
 
 (c) Poft Pauli ac Petri l^oS'ov, feu difceflum ab urbe 
 Roma. . . . Marcus dijdpulus et hiterpres Petri, el ipfe quae 
 a Petro annuntiata erant, perfcripta nobis tradidit. Inquit 
 Irenaeus . . . Scripfit igitur Marcus Evangelium, juxta 
 Irenaeum, paullo pofc horum duorum Apollclorum difceflum 
 a Roma, qui accidifle videtur anno aerae vulgaris Lxiii. Mill. 
 Proles, man. lOi. 
 
Ch.VII. St. Mark. 187 
 
 Bafncfge (d) clofely following Irenaeus^ 
 fays, Mark'?, Gofpel was publifhed in the 
 year 66. after the deccafe of P^/^r and Paid: 
 whofe martyrdoms, according to him, hap- 
 pened in (e) the year 65. 
 
 So that it has been of late the opinion of 
 many learned men, of the heft judgement 
 in thefe matters, that St, Marlz% Gofpel vvas 
 not publiflied, till after the year of Chrift 
 60. I readily affent to them fo far. And 
 as I am difpofed to place the martyrdoms of 
 thefe two great Apoftles at Kome^ in the 
 later part of the year 64. or in 6^. it feems 
 to me probable, that St. Mark\ Gofpel was 
 compofed in the year 64. or 65. and made 
 public by him the firft fair opportunity, 
 fyon afterwards, before the end of the year 
 65. That I mention as the lateft date. I 
 do not prefume to fay the time exad:Iy. 
 For it might be finidied, and publid^.ed in 
 the year 64. 
 
 I hoped to have had afliftance from Mr. 
 Wetjlein in this difquifition. But have been 
 
 fome- 
 
 (d) De Marci Evangelio legimus apud Irenaeum . . . 
 Poji tvero horurn excejfum .... Quae traditio magis apud nos 
 valet, quam alia quaelibet de tempore editi a Marco Evan- 
 gelii chronologia. Ba/n. ann. 66, n, xii. 
 
 (e) Vid. ann. 6^, nnm, ix. 
 
1 88 Sf. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 fomcwhat difappointed. In his preface to 
 St. Mark's Gofpel he concludes from Col. 
 iv. lo. and Philem. ver. 23. that CfJ St. 
 Mark had been with the Apoftle Paul at 
 Romey in the time of his confinement there : 
 that from thence he went to Colojjey and after- 
 wards returned to Rome, where he is faid to 
 have writ his Gofpel. Accordingly, as one 
 would think, St. Mark's Gofpel could not 
 be publifiied before the year 64. or 65. 
 But in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel the 
 fame learned writer expreffeth himfelf to 
 this purpofe. *' According (g) to fome ec- 
 clefiaftical writers Luke publidied his Gof- 
 pel fifteen, according to others two and 
 twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion .... 
 *' That he tranfcribed many things from 
 ** Matthew, and yet more from Mark, is 
 *' manifeft." 
 
 But 
 
 (f) Inde Romam veiiit, Paulumque captivum invifit. Col. 
 iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad ColofTenfes abiit, a quibus ro- 
 gatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2 Tim. iv. 11. ubi Evangelium 
 confcripfiffe .... dicitur. Wetfien. N. T. Tom. i. p. SS^- 
 
 (g) Evangelium autem edidit xv, aut feciindum alios 
 
 xxii. pofl Chrifti adfcenfionem annis Lucam multa ex 
 
 Matthaeo, ex Marco pliira defcripiiffe, ex collatione patet. 
 Jb. f. 643. 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 
Ch.VII. St, Mark. 189 
 
 But if St. Luke wrote within two and 
 twenty years after Chrift's afcendon, and 
 tranfcribed a great deal from St. Mark ; St. 
 Mar1i% Gofpel muft have been firft publifh- 
 ed, ard very early. If St. Mark\ Gofpel 
 was not publifhed, till the year 64. and St. 
 L'ike tranfcribed from him ; St. hiike could 
 iiot write, till a good while after two and 
 twenty years from Chrili's afceniion. I do 
 not perceive therefore, that Mr. Wetjlein had 
 any determined opinion concerning the date 
 of thefe two Gofpels. Nor can I, as yet, 
 perfuade myfelf, that any of the Evangelifts 
 tranfcribed each other. 
 
 VII. I will now obferve fome charaders Marks of 
 of time in the Gofpel itfelf, like thofe before c^rpeTit- 
 taken notice of in St. Matthew. filf^ 
 
 1. From ch. vii. 14 . . 23. it appears, that 
 St. Mark fully underftood the fpirituality of 
 the dodrine of Chrifl:, recommending righ- 
 teoufnelle and true holinefle, without an ob- 
 ligation to JewiOi ritual ordinances and ap- 
 pointments. 
 
 2. His hiftorie of the Greek or Gentil 
 woman, in the fame chap. vii. 24 . . 30. who 
 befought Jefus to heal her daughter, and ob- 
 tained her requeft, dcferves notice here. 
 
 3. The 
 
^90 St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 3. The call of the Gentils, and the rejec- 
 tion of the Jews, as a People, are intimated 
 in ch. xii. i . . 12. in the parable there re- 
 corded, of the Houfeholder, who planted a 
 vineyard, and let it out to huibandmen : to 
 whom after a while he fent fervants, and 
 then his fon, to receive from them the fruit 
 of the vineyard. But they abufed the fer- 
 vants, and killed the fon. It is added : 
 What therefore will the lord of the 'vineyard 
 do ? He will defl'^oy the hujhandmeriy and will 
 let out the 'vineyard unto others. And what 
 follows. 
 
 4. In ch. xiii, are predidions concerning 
 the de{lru6lion of the temple, and the de- 
 folations of the Jevvifh People. And, par- 
 ticularly, at ver. 14 . . 16. are remarkable 
 expreliioos, intimating the near approach of 
 thofe calamities, and fuited to excite the at- 
 tention of iuch as were in danger of being 
 involved in theoi. 
 
 5. Ill his account of the inditULion of the 
 eucharift our Lord fays : ch, xiv. 24. ^Im is 
 my bloud of the New Teftamejit, which is fied 
 for mmiy : that is, for all men, not for Jews 
 onlv, but for Gentils alfo. 
 
 6. In ch. iv. 30 . . 32. is the parable of 
 X\\Q grain of miiflardfeed^ the lefl of all feeds ^ 
 
 which 
 
Ch. VIT. Sf. Mark, 191 
 
 which become th greater than all herbs : repre- 
 fenting the fwift and wonderful progrefTe of 
 the gofpel in the world. Of which it is very 
 likely, St. Mark, at the time of writing, had 
 fome knowledge. 
 
 7. It is manifeO, that he well underflood 
 the extent of our Saviour's commiflion to 
 the twelve Apoiiles. For he has recorded 
 it in thefe words, ch. xvi. 15. Go ye there- 
 fore into all the world, aJtd preach the gofpel 
 
 to e'uery creature : or the whole creation, that 
 is, Jews and Gentils, all mankind of every 
 denomination. 
 
 8. Yea, it appears from the conclulion of 
 his hiftorie, that before he wrote, the Apof- 
 les (at left divers of them,) had left fudea^ 
 and had preached in many places, ver. 20. 
 And they went forth, and preached e^cery where , 
 the Lord working with them, aud confirming 
 the word with figm following. 
 
 9. Ch. xvi. 18. ^hey fijall take up ferpents. 
 Some may think, that here is a reference to 
 the hiftorie, which we have in Ad:s xxviii. 
 3 . . 6. I do not fay, there is. But allow- 
 ing it, I (hould not reckon it an objection to 
 the genuinnefle of this part of that chapter. 
 It would only be an argument for the late 
 date of this Gofpel. And it has been fo un- 
 
 derftood 
 
192 -S"/. Marh Ch. VII. 
 
 derilood by (h) fome. For my own part^ 
 1 cannot fay, that St. Mark has referred to it. 
 But I make no queftlon, tliat he was ac- 
 quainted with the event there related, when 
 he wrote his Gofpel, 
 Ohfernia- Vlli. I lliali coHclude this chapter with 
 
 ThhGoJ^el. ^^^^ obfervations upon St. Mark'^ Gofpel. 
 
 I. It confirms the accounts given by the 
 ancients, that it is the fubftance of Peter's 
 preaching. 
 
 This was taken notice of jufi: now in our 
 recollection. But I choofe to enlarge upon 
 it here, and (Lew, that the Gofpel itfelf af- 
 fords evidences of it's being writ according 
 to that Apoftle's difcourfes, or according to 
 informations and diredioris given by him to 
 this Evan!?elili. 
 
 I.) In the firft place I would here remind 
 my readers of a long paffage of Eiifebius, the 
 
 learned 
 
 (h) Poftremo, iti ipfis Evangeliis quaedam exilare videntur 
 criteria, ex quibus caTero efle confcripta colligi potelt, Phra- 
 fis uiyN 7>K ffii y-iooVf ^f^ite ad hunc diem. Mat. xxviii. 15. 
 juflum fpatium inter Chrifti refurredionem et Evangelium 
 exaratum poftulare videtur. Ita quae Marcus cap xvi. 18. 
 de ferpeKtibus a ChrilH difcipulis fine damno tollendis habet, 
 ad Paulum, Rornam tendentem, et quod ei in itinere in in- 
 fiila Milcto contigit, refpicere videntur. Herman. Venema 
 DiJJ', fecund, de titulo ep. ad Ephef. Cap* v. num. iv. 
 
Ch. VIL Sf. Mark 
 
 learned Bifhop of Cefarea, formerly tfan- 
 fcribed, of which I take here a very fmall 
 part only. 
 
 Having obferved feveral things very ho- 
 norable to Peier, related in the other Gof- 
 pels, he adds : " Though (i) fuch things 
 " were fald to Peter by Jefus, Mark has 
 " taken no notice of them : becaufe, as is 
 ** probable, Peter did not relate them in 
 *' his fermons. For he did not think fit 
 " to bear teftimonie to himfelf by relating 
 ** what Jefus faid to him, or of him. There- 
 ** fore Mark has omitted them. But what 
 " concerned his denial of Jefus, he preached 
 ** to all men, becaufe he wept bitterly. . . . 
 *' For all things in Mark are faid to be me- 
 ** moirs of Peter's difcourfes." 
 
 2.) And (k) Chryfojiom, reconciling Mat- 
 thew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's de- 
 nying Chrift, fays : " Thefe things Mark 
 " had from his mafter. For he was a dif- 
 " ciple of Peter. And what is very re- 
 " markable, though he was a difciple of 
 *' Peter, he relates his fall more particularly, 
 " than any of the reft." 
 
 (i) Vol. njiii. p. 86. ... 88. 
 (k)Vol.x.p.-^\2. 
 
 Vol. I. * O 3.) The 
 
 193 
 
^94 
 
 St. Mark, Ch. VII. 
 
 3.) The (I) fame great preacher explaining 
 the hiftorie of our Lord's paying the didrachm 
 or tribute-money to the temple, which is in 
 Matth. xvii. 24. . . 27. and particularly thofe 
 words : That take^ and give unto them for me 
 and thee ^ fays, " Mark, who was a difciple of 
 *' Peter, omits this, becaufe it was honorable 
 " to that Apoftle. But he relates the hiftorie 
 <* of his denial of Chrift. And perhaps his 
 *' mafter forbid him to infert fuch things, as 
 " tended to aggrandife him." 
 
 4.) No one has more largely treated this 
 point, than Mr. Jones, who has (m) a cata- 
 logue of feveral places in the Gofpels, con- 
 taining things tending to Peter's honour, 
 which are not mentioned in St. Mark's Gofpel. 
 
 (i.) The account of Chrift's pronouncing 
 Peter bleffed, when he had confeffed him : 
 Chrift's declaring, that he had his faith and 
 knowledge from God : the promife of the 
 keys, and of that large power, which is made 
 to him : are omitted by St. Mark, though the 
 former and the fucceding parts of this dif- 
 -courfe are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 
 16. . . 20. compared with Mark viii. 29. 30. 
 
 r (2.) The 
 
 (m) See wxv md full Method, Part 3. />. 79. . . 8u. 
 
Cb. VII. St. Mark, 195 
 
 (2.) The relation of St. Peters being 
 commiiTioned by Chrift to work the mi- 
 racle, by getting money out of the filh's 
 mouth, to pay the tribute-money, is told 
 by St. Matthew, ch. xvii. 24. . . 28. but 
 omitted by St. Mark : though the preced- 
 ing and fubfequent ftories are the very fame 
 as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30. . . 33. 
 
 (3.) Chrift's particular expreffions of love 
 and favour to St. Peter^ in telling him of 
 his danger, and that he prayed particularly 
 for him, that his faith might not fail, is 
 omitted by St. Mark^ but related Luke xxii. 
 
 {4.) St. Peter's remarkable humility above 
 the reft of the Apoftles exprefted in an un- 
 willingnefle, that Chrift (hould wa(h his feet, 
 which none of the reft did exprefs, with 
 Chrift's particular difcourfe to him. John xiii. 
 6. 6cc. is omitted by Mark. 
 
 (5.) The inftance of St. Peter's very great 
 zeal for Chrift, when he was taken, in cut- . 
 ting off the High-Prieft's fervant's ear. John 
 xviii. 10. is not mentioned by Mark in par- 
 ticular, but only told in general, of a certain 
 'perfon that ftood by. Mark xiv. 47. 
 
 (6.) St. Peter's faith in cafting himfelf into 
 O 2 the 
 
196 St. Mark. Ch.VII. 
 
 the Tea, to go to Chrift. John xxi. 7. is not 
 mentioned by St. Mark, (a) 
 
 (7.) Chrift's difcourfe with Peter concern- 
 ing his love to him, and his particular re- 
 peated charge to him, to feed his flieep. John 
 xxi. 15. is omitted by St. Mark. 
 
 (8.) Our Saviour's prediding to Peter his 
 martyrdom, and the manner of it. John xxi. 
 "'18. 19. is not related by St. Mark. 
 
 " Thefe, adds that diligent author, are 
 fome inftances of things, tending to St. Peters 
 honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, 
 none of which are fo much as hinted by St. 
 Mark. . . . All which cannot be accounted 
 for any way more probable, than fuppofing, 
 that this Apofile did not publifli thofe cir- 
 cumftances, which were fo much to his 
 honour.'* 
 
 Indeed, I think, they do confirm the ac- 
 counts given of this Gofpel by the ancients. 
 For thefe omiffions cannot be fo well afcribed 
 to any thing, as to St. Peters modeftie and 
 refervednefTe, who had not mentioned fuch 
 things in his preaching, and difcouraged the 
 putting them down in writing : infomuch, 
 
 that 
 
 (a) There Is a like thing, and more extraordinarie, related 
 by Matthenv only. ch. xiv. 28. , . 31, I do not know, why 
 Mr. Jones omitted it. 
 
Ch. VII. St. Mark. igy 
 
 that as TerttilUan fays, the (n) Gofpel pub- 
 liflied by Mark^ may be faid to be Peter' 5. 
 
 5.) Neverthelefs I muft acknowledge, that 
 there are fome things in St. Mark\ Gofpel 
 honorable to Peter ^ which are not in any- 
 other. I fliall mention two or three. 
 
 Says St. Mark ch. i. 36. ylfid Simon, and 
 they that were with him, followed after him. 
 If thereby be intended the whole companie 
 of the Apoftles, that way of defcribing them 
 is very honorable to Peter, But fome may 
 fuppofe, none to be intended, befide thofe 
 mentioned ver. 29. If fo, it refembles Luke 
 ix. 32. But Peter, and they that were with 
 him : meaning John and James, and refer- 
 ring to ver. 28. 
 
 In Mark xiv. 3, Peter is mentioned, as one 
 of the four Apoftles, to whom our Lord ad- 
 drelTed himfelf, when he foretold the de- 
 flrudion of the temple, and the calamities 
 attending it. V/hich is a pafTage peculiar to 
 St. Mark. 
 
 And Ch.xvi. 7. The meffage, which the 
 angels fent to the difciples by the women at 
 the fepulchre, is thus expreiled : But go your 
 way. 'Tell his difciples, and PetiT, that he 
 goes before you into Galilee, Peter is not men- 
 
 O 3 tioncd, 
 
 (n) See Vol, it, p, 581. 
 
jpS ' Sf. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 tloned, upon this occafion, by Matthew xxviii. 
 7. nor by any other of the EvangeUfts. 
 
 Upon this text JVhitby fays very well : 
 " Feter is here named, not as Prince of the 
 ** Apoftles, but, as the Fathers fay, for his 
 *' confolation, and to take off the fcruple, 
 *• which might be upon his fpirit : whether 
 *' by his threefold denial of his mafter, he 
 *' had not forfeited his right to be one of 
 " Chrift's difciples.'* 
 
 I now proceed to another obfervation. 
 
 2. St. Marli^ Gofpel, as is evident to all, is 
 the fhorteft of the four. 'Jerome^ as before 
 cited, fays, Mark (0) wrote a (hort Gofpel. 
 And Chryfoftom obferved, that (p) Mark had 
 the concifeneffe of Peter^ following hig 
 mafter. 
 
 3. Neverthelefs there are in St. Mark many 
 things peculiar to himfelf, not mentioned by 
 any other Evangelift. 
 
 I fhall here put down feveral fuch things, 
 and not thofe, which are omitted by Matthew 
 only, but fuch things, as are in Marky and in 
 no other of the Evan<2;elifts. 
 
 I .) In the account of our Saviour's tempta- 
 tion in the wilderneffe, St. Mark fays, ch. i, 
 1 3 . and was with the wild beajfs : not mien- 
 
 tioned 
 
 (oj See here. p. 175. (p) See Volume x, p. 322. 
 
Ch. VII. Sl Mark. 
 
 tioned by any other Evangelifl:, and yet very 
 proper to Qiew the hardfliips, which our Lord 
 underwent at that feafon. 
 
 2.) Ch, i. 20. In the account of the call of 
 
 jfames and yohi, the fons oi ZebedeCj he fays, 
 
 they left their father ifi the Jhip, with the hired 
 
 ferva?2ts. A circumftance not mentioned by 
 
 any other. 
 
 3.) Ch. i. 29. And forthwith, when they 
 were come out of the Jynagogue, they entred 
 into the houfe of Simon, a?id Andrew, with 
 yames and John. In Matt. viii. 14. it is only, 
 come into Peter's houfe. In Luke iv. 38. and 
 entred into Simo7is houfe. 
 
 4.) Ch. i. 33. And all the city was gathered 
 together at the door. Not in any other Evan- 
 gelift. Compare Matt. viii. 16. Luke iv. 
 40. 41. 
 
 5.) Ch. i. 35. And in the morning rifing up 
 a great while bejore day, he went out, and de^ 
 parted into a folitarie place, and there prayed, 
 36. And Simo7i, and they that were with him^ 
 followed after him. 37. And when they had 
 found him, they faid unto him : All 7nen feek 
 thee. This is not at all in Matthew^ and is 
 here much fuller, and with more particulars, 
 than in Luke iv. 42. 
 
 O 4 6.) Ch. 
 
 / 
 
 199 
 
200 Sl Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 6.) Ch. i. 45. Of the leper, cured by our 
 Saviour, he fays : But be wejit outy and began 
 to publifi it miichy and to blaze abroad the mat- 
 ter: Not particularly mentioned by the other 
 Evangelifls. Compare Matth. viii. 4. Luke 
 V. 14. 15. 
 
 7.) In the cure of the paralytic, ch. ii. 2. 
 And /Iraitway many were gathered together y 
 infomuch that there was no room to receive 
 the mi not fo much as about the door. 3 . And they 
 come unto him^ briiiging one fick of the palfiet 
 which was born of Jour. 4. And they un- 
 covered the roof. . . No other Evangelifl: has fo 
 particularly defcribed the croud. In Mark 
 only is it faid, that this lick man was born of 
 four. He likewife more particularly defcribes 
 the uncovering the roof. Compare Matt, ix, 
 I. 2. Luke V. 18. 19. 
 
 8.) In the hiftorie of the man with a wi- 
 thered hand^ cured in the fynagogue, on a fab- 
 bath. ch. iii, 5. Aiid when he had looked round 
 about on them with anger ^ being grieved for the 
 hardnejje of their hearts^ he faith unto the man : 
 Stretch forth thy hand. Not fo full in any- 
 other Evangelift. Compare Matt. xii. 9. . . 
 13. Luke vi. 6. . . 11. 
 
 9.) Ch. iii. ver. 6. And the F bar i fees went 
 forthy and Jhaitway took counfel with the He- 
 
 rodians 
 
Ch. VII. St, Mark, ^ 201 
 
 rodians againft kim. Matt. xii. 14. mentions 
 Pharifees only. Luke vi. 11. mentions no 
 perfons by name. 
 
 10.) Ch. iii. 17. And James the fin of Ze' 
 be dee, and John the brother of James. And he 
 named them Boanerges, Not in any other 
 Evangelift. 
 
 II.) Ch. iii. 19. . . And they went into the 
 boufe, 20. And the multitude cometh together 
 again, fo that they could not fo much as eat 
 bread, 21. And when his friends heard of ity 
 they went out to lay hold of him. For they f aid : 
 He is bejide himfelf Whether that expreilion 
 he is befide himfelf, is to be underftood of 
 Chrift, or of the multitude, this pafTage is pe- 
 cuHar to '^t.Mark, 
 
 12.) Ch. iv. 26. Ajid he faid : So is thekijjg- 
 domo/God, as if a man JJjould caf his feed in- 
 to the ground, 2 7 . andfmuldfeep, and rife night 
 and day, and the feed foidd fpring and grow up, 
 he knoweth not how. 28. For the earth bringeth 
 forth fruit of itfelffrfi the blade, then the ear^ 
 after that the full corn in the ear. 29. But 
 when the fruit is ripe, immediatly he putteth 
 in the fickle, becaife the harveji is come. This 
 parable is peculiar to St. Mark, See Whitby 
 upon the place, and likewife (q) Grotius, 
 
 (q) Haec parabola, aliis omiiTaj cum fuam hie explic.^tio- 
 
 nem 
 
202 Si. Mark. Ch. VIJ. 
 
 1 3.) After the parable of the grain of muf- 
 tard'feed, befide other things common to him 
 and Matthew^ be adds. ch. iv. 24. And when 
 they were alone, he expounded all things to his 
 dijciples. Compare Matt. xiii. 31. . . 34^ 
 This particular leads us mightily, to thirtk, 
 that either Mark was an eye-witneffe, or had 
 the beft and fulleft information of things. 
 
 14.) Mark iv. 36. And when they had fent 
 away the multitude, they took him even as he 
 was in the Jl:ip. This cir,cumftance, pecu- 
 liar to St. Mark^ enables us to account for 
 our Lord's faft fleep in his paiTage to the 
 countrey of the Gadarens. We perceive from 
 St. Mark, that this voyage was undertaken in 
 the evening, after the fatigue of long dif- 
 courfes in public, and without any refresh- 
 ment. Our Lord's fleep in the midfl: of a 
 ilorm is mentioned by all three Evangelifts. 
 Matt. viii. 24. . . 26. Mark iv. 37. 38. Luke 
 viii. 23. 24. But this Evangelift alone leads 
 ' us to difcern the occalion of it. 
 
 15.) Farther, in the fame ver. 36. of ch. 
 
 iv. And there were alfo with him Jeveral other 
 
 little jlnps. A particular, peculiar to St. 
 
 - Mark. 
 
 16.) Ch. 
 
 nem non habeat, ^xplicari debet ex fimili comparatione; quae 
 eii apud Match, xiii. 24. Grot, ad Marc, i'v. 26. 
 
Ch. VII. ' SL Mark. 203 
 
 16.) And in the account of this voyage 
 crofs the Tea, he fays ver. 38. that our Lord 
 was in the hinder part of the Jhip, ajleep on a 
 pillow : two circumftances, wanting in the 
 other Evangelifts. 
 
 17.) Certainly, thefc, and other things, are 
 fufficient to aiTure us, that either Mark was 
 an eye-witnelTe : or, that he wrote things, 
 as related to him by an eye-witnelTe, even 
 Peter himfelf, as all the ancients fay. 
 
 18.) In Matt. viii. 28. . . 34. Mark v. i. .. 
 19. Luke viii. 26. . . 39. are the feveral ac- 
 counts of our Lord's healing the demoniac. 
 Of demoniacs, in the countrey of the Gada- 
 rem. For Matthew fpeaks of two, Mark 
 and Luke of one only. In St. Mark's hiftorie 
 are divers things, not in the other Gofpels. 
 In him alone it is faid, that the man was aU 
 ways night and day in the mountains^ and in 
 the tombs^ crying, and cutting bimjelf with 
 jlones. And he only mentions the number 
 of fwine, that perished in the fea, faying, 
 they were about two thoiijand. 
 
 19.) All the iirft three Evangelifts have 
 given a hiftorie of our Lo.d's railing the 
 daughter of yairus, and healing the woman 
 with an iflue of bloud, both in connexion. 
 Matt. ix. 18. . . 26. Mark v. 22. . . 43. 
 
 Luke 
 
204 St. Mark. Ch. VIL 
 
 Luke viil. 41. . . 56. St. Mark has feveral 
 things, which are in neither of the other. 
 Of the woman he fays ver. it.jljehadjuffered 
 much of many Thjficiam . . . and was noihifig 
 bettered^ but rather grew imrfe. At ver. 29. 
 And fie felt in her body, that fie was healed 
 of that plague. At ver. 41. he inferts the very 
 words, which Jefiis fpake, when he raifed 
 the daughter of Jairus : Talitha Kumi. I 
 have omitted fome other things, peculiar to 
 ^t.Mark in the account of thefe two miracles. 
 
 20.) Ch. vi. 13. In the account of the 
 commiffion given to the twelve by Chrift 
 in his life- time, he fays : they anointed many 
 with oyly and healed them. Which is men- 
 tioned by no other Evangelift, as was ob- 
 ferved of old by (r) ViBor. 
 
 21.) Mark vii. 2. 3. 4. What is there 
 faid of the Jews wafhing themfelves, when 
 they come from the market, before they eat : 
 and of their cleanfing cups^ pots^ hrafen vejfelsy 
 end tablesy is peculiar to St. Mark. Comp. 
 Matt. XV. 1.2. 
 
 22.) Ch. vii. 21. 22. Are the things, that 
 defile men. St. Matthew, ch. xv. 19. men- 
 tions feven things only. St. Mark has thir- 
 teen. 
 
 (r^ See Vol. XI. p. 34. 
 
Ch. VII. St. Mark, 205 
 
 teen. And two of them, an evil eye, and 
 fooliJJmeJfei are very fingular. 
 
 23.) Ch. vii. 31. . . 37. Our Lord be- 
 flows hearing and fpeech upon a deaf and 
 
 dumb man. 
 
 24.) Ch. viii. 22. . . 26. Our Lord cures 
 a blind man at Bethfaida. 
 
 Thefe two miracles are peculiar to St. 
 Mark, being related by no other Evangelifl. 
 25.) Ch. X. 46. . . 52. is the account of 
 the miracle on the blind man near Jericho, 
 St. Mark, ver. 46. calls him blind Bartimeus, 
 [on ofTimaeiis. Not mentioned by the other 
 Evangelifts. See Matt. xx. 29. . , 34. Luke 
 xviii. 35. . . 43. And at ver, 50. he cajling 
 away his garment , rofe, and came to Jefus, 
 A circumftance peculiar to St. Mark, Which 
 {hews his exad knowledge of the hiftorie, as 
 did likewife his calling the man by his name. 
 26.) Ch. xi. 1 3. Tor the time of figs was not 
 yet : that is, the time of gathering was not yet 
 come. A moft ufeful obfervation peculiar to 
 this Evangclift, fhewing, that as there were 
 leaves, it was reafonable to exped fruit on 
 this fig-tree, if it was not barren. Upon this 
 text might be confulted (s) Bifhop Kidder 
 and {t) Mr. Hallet, 
 
 27.) Ch. 
 
 (s) Demonjlration of the MeJJiah. Part z, ch. it. /•• 38. 39. 
 (t) Notes and Difcour/es. Vol. 2. p. 114. . . i Z5. 
 
2o6 St. Mark. Ch. VII. 
 
 27.) Ch. xiil. 3. 4. And as he fat upon 
 the mount of Olives^ over againfi the temple^ 
 Peter^ and James, and John, and Andrew, 
 ajked him privatly . . . When fJdall thefe things 
 be ? No other Evangelifl: has mentioned the 
 names of the difciples, who put this quefiion 
 to our Saviour. Comp. Matt. xxiv. i. , . 3. 
 Luke xxi. 5. 
 
 28.) In Mark xii. 41. . , 44. and Luke 
 xxi. I. . . 4. is the account of the people 
 cafting their gifts into the chefts of the trea- 
 furie, in the temple. St. Mark fays : And 
 Jefus fat over againjl the treafiirie. In which 
 cxpreffion there is great propriety. And he 
 alone mentions the value of the poor widow's 
 two mites, faying : Which make a farthing. 
 
 29.) Ch. xiv. 51. And there followed hi?n 
 a certain young man, having a linen cloth cajl 
 ' - about his naked body. And the young men 
 [the guards] laid hold on him. 52. And he 
 left the linen cloih\ and fled from them naked, 
 A particular, in no other Evangelifl:, yet 
 very fitly taken notice of, as intimating the 
 ufual noife and difl:urbance, when a man is 
 taken up in the night-time, as a malefadtor, 
 and is carried before a magiftrate. By (u) 
 
 the 
 
 (u) Non de ApoHoIorum grege ... fed ex villa aliqua horto 
 
 proxima. 
 
Ch. VII. St. MarL 207 
 
 the noife of the people pafling along that 
 
 young perfon was excited to come haftily 
 
 out of the houfe, where he was, to inquire, 
 
 what was the matter. Mr. Le Cierc, in his 
 
 French Teftament, has an ufeful note upon 
 
 this place. He obferves the natural fimpli- 
 
 city of the Evangelifts narration. Which, , 
 
 as he juftly fays, confirms the truth of their 
 
 hiftorie, 
 
 30.) Ch. XV. 21. j^iid ihey compel! one 
 Simony a Cyrenian^ who pajpd by, coming out 
 of the count rey, the father of Alexander and 
 RuJuSy to bear his crojje. That particular, 
 the father of Alexander and Rufus^ is in no 
 other Evangelift. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 32. 
 and Luke xxiii. 26. 
 
 31.) Ch. xvi. 3. 4. And they faid among 
 themfelves : Who fdall roll us away the /lone 
 from the door ofthefepulchre. For it was very 
 great. In no other Evangehft. 
 
 32.) Ch. xvi. 7. But go your way. Tell 
 his difciplesy and Peter, that he goes before you 
 into Galilee. The mention oi Peter is pe- 
 culiar to St. Mark. For in Matt, xxviii. 7. it 
 is : Go quickly, and tell his difciples, St. Luke 
 has not recorded that meilage. 
 
 33-) I 
 
 proxima, ftrepitu militum excitatus, ct fubito accurrens, ut 
 confpiceret, quid ageretur. Grot, ad Marc. xi. 51. - 
 
2o8 ' S^. Mark. Ch. VIL 
 
 33.) I add nothing more of this kind. I 
 have omitted many things, which are in this 
 Gofpel, and no other, being apprehenfive, 
 that if I enlarged farther, I fhould be charged 
 with prolixity. 
 
 34.) The particulars that have been al- 
 leged, are fufficient to aflure us, that St. 
 Mark is not an.epitomifer of another au- 
 thor : and that he v^as vi^ell acquainted with 
 the things, of which he undertook to write a 
 hiftorie. He writes as an eye-witnefle, or 
 as one, who had full and authentic infor- 
 mation at the firft hand. In a word, St. 
 Mark's Gofpel, though fliort, is a very 
 valuable, and mafterly performance. 
 
 4. It may be proper for me to add one 
 thing more : That I fuppofe the twelve 
 verfes at the end of the fixteenth chapter to 
 be a genuine part of this Gofpel. ]f any 
 doubt of it, I would refer them for their 
 fatisfadion to Dr. Mill, and to the obfer- 
 vations of Grotius at the begining of that 
 chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verfe. 
 And for explaining thofe twelve verfes, and' 
 reconciling them with the other Evangelifts, 
 I refer to Grotius j and other Commentators. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
209 
 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 St. Luke, Evangelift. 
 
 I. His Hiflorie from the N. T. II, 'Teftimo* 
 iiies of ancient Chriftian Writers to St. Liike^ 
 and his two Books, his Go/pel^ and the 
 ABs. III. Remarks upon thofe T^eflimonies. 
 IV. l^he Time of luriting his Gofpel and the 
 ABs. ijV. Internal CharaBers of Time in 
 the Gofpel. VI. The Place, where it was 
 
 writ. VII. A general recolleBion of St. 
 Luke's CharaBer. VIII. Obfervations upon 
 his Gofpel. IX. Obfervations upon the Book 
 of the ABs. 
 
 I. F^)^"^H E firft time that we find any Hhrnprit 
 8 T ^ mention of St. Luke in the books ^'"V^'' 
 k_)S^^j«( of the New Teftament is in 
 
 his (a) own hiflorie. Ads xvi. lo. 1 1. 
 
 Whereby 
 
 (a) From fome words in the Cambridge manuicript Bp. 
 Vol. I. * P P ear/on 
 
210 St. Luke. Ch.VIII. 
 
 Whereby it appears, that he was in PauFs 
 companie at Troas, before the Apoftle took 
 
 fhip- 
 
 Pear/on has argued, that Luhe was in PauPs companie from 
 the year 4^. Dein paragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, 
 et per Myfiam venit Troadem, ubi fe illi comitem adjunx- 
 iffe indicat Lucas xvi. i o. Qui antea etiam Antiochiae cum 
 Paulo fuit, et jam eum Troade afTecutus ell: : ut colligere li- 
 cet ex Ad. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, cwi^^oc^iAvuv 
 cTe Mjw&i'. Ab anno igitur43. per oftennium difcipulus fue- 
 rat Antiochiae. Annal. Paulin, p. 10. But it is not fafe 
 to relye upon one manufcript only, difi'erent from all others, 
 and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemorit took notice of 
 .. this obfervation of Pear/on, I tranfcribe his thoughts about 
 it. Selon le manufcrit de Cambrige S. Luc dit qu'il eftoit 
 avec S. Paul a Antioche, des V an 43. ce que Pearfon a receu. 
 Mais il ne feroit pas feur de fier a on manufcrit different de 
 reus les autres. Et quand cela fe pourroit en quelques occa- 
 fions, ce ne feroit pas a I'egard du manufcrit de Cambrige, 
 qui eft plein d'additions et alterations contraires au veritable 
 texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec, T. 2. 5. Luc. note Hi. Some may- 
 argue from thefe words, that Luke was a Gentil, converted by 
 PaitlzX. Antioch. And others might argue, that he is the fame 
 as Lucius^ mentioned Ads xiii. i . But I fhould think it beil 
 for neither fide to form an argument from this reading. Mr. 
 V/etflein has referred us to a place of St. Augiifi'my where this 
 text is (Quoted very agreeably to the Cctmbt-idge manufcript. 
 In illis autem diebus defcenderunt ab Jerofolymis Prophetae 
 Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, furgens unus ex 
 illis, nomine Agabus. &c. T>e Serm. Dom. I. z.c. 17. But 
 it is obfervable, that Irenaeus /. 3. c. 14. imt. a more ancient 
 writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's compa- 
 nie, begins at Troas. Ads xvi. 8. ... 10. I prcfume, it 
 muft be beft to relye upon him, and the general confent of all 
 manufcripts, except one, in the common reading. 
 
 i 
 
Ch. VIIL St. Luke. ' 211 
 
 fl:iippinp^ to g-o into Macedonia : in which 
 voyage St. Luke was one of the companie. 
 ver. 8. And they pqffiug by MyJIa, came to 
 Troas. 9. And a vijion appeared to Faulin 
 the night. There Jiood a man of Macedonia ^ 
 and prayed him^ faying : Come over into Ma-- 
 cedonia^ and help us. 1 o. And when he had 
 feen the vifion^ immediatly we endeavored to 
 go into Macedonia^ affuredly gathering, that 
 the Lord had called us to preach the go/pel to 
 them. 1 1 . Therefore loofing from Trcas^ we 
 came with a fir ait courfe to Samothracia. 
 
 In that journey St. Paul went from Samo- 
 thracia to Neapclis, and thence to Fhilippi. 
 1 1. . . 17. So far St. Luke fpeaks in the firft 
 perfon plural. But having finiihed his ac- 
 count of the tranfadlions at Philippic which - 
 reaches to ver. 40. the laft of that chapter : 
 at the beginingof the next ch. xvii. i. he (b) 
 changeth the perfon, and i^ays : Now when 
 they had pa fed through Amphipolis^ and Apol' 
 
 P 2 lonia^ 
 
 (b) Neverthelefs it is f.ippofed by many, that Luke con- 
 tinued with Paul. Irenaevs calls him PauPs infeparable com- 
 panion, after his coming to be with the Apollle at Troas. Ad-v. 
 H. I. 3. c. 1 4. So llkewife Ci^'^, Cujus perinde fedlator crat, 
 et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L, T. i, p. 25. See alfo 
 lilUm, St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. 
 
212 St. Luke, Ch. VIIL 
 
 Ionia, they came to Thejfahiica, where was a 
 Synagogue of the yews. 
 
 Nor does he any more expreflly fpeak of 
 himfelf, untill Paul was a fecond time in 
 Greece, and was fetting out for 'Jeriifalem with 
 the colledlions, which had been made for the 
 poor faints in yWd'^, A(fts xx. i. . . 6. And 
 cfter the uproar [at Ephefus,] was ceafed, 
 Paul called unto him the difciples, and embraced 
 them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. 
 And when he had gone over thofe farts, and 
 had given them much exhortation, he came into 
 Greece^ and there abode three months. And 
 when the fews laid wait for him, as he was 
 about to fail into Syria, he purpofd to return 
 through Macedonia. And there accompanied^ 
 hi?n into AJia Sopater, of Berea. . . Thefe go- 
 ing before, tarried for us at Troas, And we 
 failed away from Philippi . . . and came unto 
 them at Troas in five days, where we abode fe- 
 ven days. So that Luke accompanied Paul, 
 at that time, from Greece through Macedonia 
 to Philippi, and alfo went with him from 
 thence to Troas. 
 
 And it appears from the fequel of the hi- 
 ftorie in the Ads, that Luke was one of thofe, 
 who accompanied the Apoftle to yerufalem, 
 and ftaid with him there. And when the 
 
 ' ApoRle 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 2r3 
 
 Apoftle was fent a prifoner from Cefarea to 
 Rome^ he was in the fame fhip with him, and 
 flaid with nim at Rome during the whole 
 time of his two years imprifonment there, 
 with which the hiftorie of the Ads con- 
 cludes. 
 
 From St. Pauh epiftles writ at Rome, in 
 the time of that confinement, we have proofs 
 oi Luke's, being with him. He is mentioned 
 as with the Apoftle. 2 Tim. iv. 1 1, an epiftle 
 writ, as I fuppofe, in the fummer, after the 
 Apoftle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. 
 he is one of thofe, who fend falutations to 
 Philemon, and is mentioned by the Apoftle, 
 as one of his fellow-laborers. And, \{ Luke 
 the beloved Phyfician, mentioned Col. iv. 14. 
 be the Evangelift, that is another proof of 
 his being then with the Apoftle. 
 
 St. Luke is alfo fuppofed by fome to be the 
 brother, "johofe praife is in the Go/pel throughout 
 all the churches, 2 Cor. viii. 18. But that is 
 not certain. 
 
 As I think, that all St. PauF^ epidles, which 
 we have, were writ, before he left Rome and 
 Italie, when he had been fent thither by Fef- 
 tus J I mufl be of opinion, that the New Tef- 
 tament affords us not any materials for the 
 hiftorie of St. Luke, lower than his own book 
 
 P 3 °/ 
 
thors. 
 
 214 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 cf the x'^ds, which brings us down to the 
 end of that period. 
 Froman- I'- ^ i^ow therefore proceed without far- 
 
 ther delay, to obferve what hght may be ob- 
 tained from ancient Chriftian Vv^riters. And 
 as St. Lukes two books, his Gofpel and the 
 Ads, were all along univerfally received ; I 
 intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, 
 chiefly, fuch pafiages only, as contain fome- 
 thing, relating to the hiftorie and character 
 of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two 
 above-named works. 
 
 IrenaeuSy as before quoted : " And (a) 
 *' Luke, the companion of Paul^ put down 
 *' in a book the Gofpel preached by him." 
 And the coherence feems to imply, that this 
 was done after the writing of St. Mark's Gof- 
 pel, and after the death of Peter and PauL 
 In a pafTage formerly cited (b) at length, Ire- 
 naein {hews from the Ads, as we did juft 
 now, that Luke attended Paul in feveral of 
 his journeys and voyages, and was his fellow- 
 laborer in the gofpel. He likewife fays : 
 *' that [c) Luke was not only a companion, but 
 " alfo a fellow-laborer of the Apodles, efpe- 
 "cially of Pauiy Again, he calls him 
 
 (a) Vol. i. p. 354. (b) P. 361. . . 363. 
 
 r^;^. 363. 
 
Ch. VIII. Si. Luke. 2fS 
 
 '^ a (d) difciple and follower of the Apoftles." 
 *' The fe) Apoftles, he fays, envying none 
 *' plainly delivered to all the things which 
 ** they had learned from the Lord. Solike- 
 ** wife Luke, envying no man, has delivered 
 '' to us what he learned from them, as he 
 " fays : Eve?i as they delivered them unto us, 
 " who from the begining uere eye-ivitiiejfes and 
 " min'ijiers of the wordy 
 
 By all which it Teems, that Irenaeus reckon- 
 ed Luke to have been a difciple of the Apo- 
 illes, not a hearer of Jefus Chrift himfelf. 
 
 Clement oi Mexandria has bore a large tef- 
 timonie to this Gofpel, and the Ads, as well 
 as to the other books of the New Teftament. 
 And as we learn from Eufebe, *' in (f) his 
 *' Inftitutions, he mentions a tradition con- 
 *' cerning the order of the Gofpels, which he 
 " had received from Prefbyters of more an- 
 " cient times, and which is to this purpofe. 
 *' He fays, that the Gofpels containing the ge^ 
 P 4 nealogies 
 
 (d) P. 361. 
 
 (ej Sic Apoiloli fimpHciter nemini invjdentes quae didice- 
 rant ipfi a Domino haec omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et 
 Lucas nemini invidens, ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradididit 
 nobis, ficut ipfe teftatur dicens : Quemadmodum tradiderunt 
 nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et miniflri fuerunt verbi. 
 j4ii-v. H. /.J. cap. 14. n, 2. 
 
 {/J Fo/.ii. p.^jS- 
 
2J6 Sl Luke, Ch. VIII. 
 
 *' nealogies were writ fird : " According to 
 that tradition therefore St. Matthew^ and St. 
 Luke's Gofpels were writ before St. Mark's. 
 Which, according to the fame Clement^ and 
 the tradition received by him, was writ at 
 Rome, at the requefl of St. Peters hearers, or 
 the Chriftians in that city. 
 
 I'ertullian fg) fpeaks oi Matthew and jfobfiy 
 as difciples of Chrift, of Mark and Luke, as 
 difciples of Apofiles. Therefore, 1 think, 
 he did not reckon thefe to have been of the 
 feventy, or hearers of Chrift. However, he 
 afcribes a hke authority to thefe, and fays : 
 ** that (hj the Gofpel, which Mark pubHfli- 
 ** ed, may be faid to be Peter s, whofe inter- 
 " preter Mark was. For Lzike's Digeft alfo 
 " is often afcribed to Paul. And indeed it 
 ** is eafie to take that for the mafters, which 
 «' the difciples publiflied." Again : *' more- 
 " over (ij Luke was not an Apoftle, but apof- 
 *' tolical : not a mafter, but a difciple : cer- 
 *' tainly lefs than his mafter, certainly fo much 
 «' later, as he is a follower of Paul, the lafl: of 
 ** the Apoflles." This likewife fhews Ter- 
 , tullians notion of St. Luke's charader. 
 
 Orige^ 
 
 fg) Vol. a. p. 587. 588. (h) p. 581, 
 (-/;?. 587. 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 217 
 
 Origen mentions the Gofpels in the order 
 now generally received. *' The (k) third, 
 " fays he, is that according to Luke, the Gof- 
 " pel commended by PW, publillied for the 
 " fake of the Gentil converts." In his Com- 
 mentarie upon the epiftle to the Romans, 
 which we now have in a Latin verfion only, 
 he fays, upon ch. xvi. 21. " Some (I) fay, 
 *' Lucius is Lucas the Evangelift, as indeed it 
 " is not uncommon to write names fome- 
 " times according to the original form, fome- 
 " times according to the Greek or Roman 
 " termination." Lucius, mentioned in that 
 text of the epiftle to the Romans, muft have 
 been a Jew. Neverthelefs, as Origen affures 
 us, fome thought him to be Luke the Evan- 
 gelift. The fame obfervation we faw in (m) 
 Sedulius, who wrote a Commentarie upon St. 
 Paul's epiftles, collected out of Origen, and 
 others. 
 
 Eujebius of Cefarea, as tranfcribed former- 
 ly, fpeaking of St. Pauh fellow-laborers, 
 
 fays : 
 
 (k) Vol. Hi. p. 235. 
 
 (I) Sed et Lucium quidam perhlbent efle Lucam Evan- 
 geliftam, qui Evangelium fcripfit, pro eo quod foleant nomina 
 interdum fecundum patriam declinationem, interdum Grae- 
 cam Romanamque proferri. In Rom. 1. 2. /. 632. Baftl. 
 
 ^m) Vol.xi.p. 182, 
 
2i8 Sf. Luke. Ch. VJII. 
 
 fays : " And (n) Luke, who was of Antiocb, 
 *' and by profeffion a Phyfician, for the moft 
 *' part a companion of Paul, who had like- 
 " wife more than a flight acquaintance with 
 *' the rell: of the Appilles, has left us in two 
 " books, divinely infpired, evidences of the 
 *' art of healing fouls, which he had learned 
 *• from them. One of thefe is the Gofpel, 
 *' which he profelTeth to have writ, as they 
 " delivered it to him, who from the begining 
 ii filler e eye-witnejjes and minijiers of the word: 
 " with all whom, he fays likewife, he had 
 *' been perfeBly acquainted f-om the vetyfr/i, 
 •* The other is the Ad's of the Apoftles, 
 " which he compofed now, not from what 
 *' he had received by the report of others, 
 " but from what he had feen with his own 
 *' eyes." 
 
 And in another place, cited (o) alfo for- 
 merly, he obferves, " that (p) Luke had de- 
 *' livered in his Gofpel a certain account of 
 " fuch things, as he had been well aflured of 
 *' by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity 
 
 «' with 
 
 (n) Vol, 'vi'ti.f. 103. 104. (0) P. 95. 
 
 (p) • . . lilv d<}^a7.n A&'j/ov c-i'i avrU h'.Mai rnt aAw9«aP 
 y.ofrei7\\i(pei, kx. T»i a[j.ei •no.xjha ffvvovaioi<; n Jt) J'la.T^iCui, '-ij 
 
 ir tikis' uy.a iunyyiT^'m. H. E. L 3. c. 24. p. 96. c. 
 
Ch. VIIT. Sf. Luke. 
 
 " with Pmil, and his converfation with the 
 «' other Aooftles." 
 
 From all which, I think, it appears, that 
 Eitfcbe did not take Luke for a difciple of 
 Chrift, but of Apoftles only. 
 
 In the Synopfis afcribed to Athanafius it is 
 faid, *' that (q) the Gofpel of £/?//t was dic- 
 " tated by the Apoftle Faid, and writ and 
 ** pubiiflied by the blefled Apoftle and Phy^ 
 " fician Luke" 
 
 The author of the Dialogue againft the 
 Marcionites fays, " that (r) Mark and Luke 
 were difciples of Chriil, and of the number 
 of the Seventy." 
 
 Epipha72ius (s) fpeaks to the like purpofe. 
 , Gregcrie Nazianzen fays, *' that (t) Luke 
 wrote for the Greeks," or in Achala. 
 
 Gregorie Nyjjen fays, " that (u) Luke was 
 as much a Phyfician for the foul, as for the 
 body : " taking him to be the fame, that is 
 mentioned Col. iv. 14. 
 
 In the catalogue of Ebedjcfu it is faid, 
 ** that (x) Luke taught and wrote at Alex^ 
 
 " andria^ in the Greek language." 
 
 The 
 
 (q) Vol. ruiii. p. 250, (rj P. 255. 
 
 (sj P. 306. ft) Vol. ix. p. 133. 
 
 (h)P.1^6, (x)P.2lJ. 
 
 219 
 
220 Sf. Luke. Ch. Vlir. 
 
 The Author of the Commentarie upon St. 
 Paul's thirteen epiftles feems to have 'doubt- 
 ed, v/hether (y) the EvangeHft Luke be the 
 perfon intended Col. iv. 14. 
 
 yerome agrees very much with Eufebey al- 
 ready tranfcribed. Neverthelefs I lliall put 
 down here fomewhat largely what he fays. 
 " Luke (z) a Phyfician oi Antioch^ not un- 
 *' fkilfull in the Greek language, a difciple of 
 " the Apoftle Vauly and the conftant compa- 
 *' nion of his travels, wrote a Gofpel, — and 
 *' another excellent volume, entitled the Ads 
 *' of the Apoflles. ... It is fuppofed, \hz\.Luke 
 " did not learn his Gofpel from the Apoftle 
 " Paul only J who had not converfed with the 
 *' Lord in the fle(h, but alfo from other A- 
 *' pofiles. Which likewife he owns at the 
 *' begining of his volume, faying : Even as 
 
 they delivered them unto us^ who jrom the 
 
 begining were eye-witnejjes a7id minijlers of 
 *' the word. Therefore he wrote the Gofpel 
 " from the information of others. But the 
 " Ads he compofed from his own know- 
 *' ledge." 
 
 So writes Jerome in his book of Illuftrious 
 
 Men, 
 
 In 
 
 (y) Vol ix. /. 367. 368. (z) Vol. X. p. 94. . . 96. 
 
 (C 
 (C 
 
Ch. VIII. Sf, Luke. 221 
 
 In the prologue to his Comnientarie upon 
 St. Matthew he fays : '* The (aj third Evan- 
 '' gelift is Luke, the Phyfician, a Syrian of 
 " Antiochj who was a difciple of the Apoftle 
 *' Paul, and publiOied his Gofpel in the coun- 
 " treys of Achaia and Baeotia." 
 
 He obferves elfewhere, " that (b) fome 
 faid, jLz//('^ had been a profelyte to Judaifm, 
 before his converlion to Chriftianity." He 
 fpeaks of St. Luke in many other places, 
 which I need not now take notice of. 
 
 Augiijiin fays, "that (c)X.'^o of the Evan- 
 gelifts, Matthew and 'John^ were Apoftles. . . 
 Mark and Luke difciples of Apoftles." 
 
 Chryfoftom in the Synopfis, probably his, 
 fays : " Two (d) of the Gofpels were writ 
 " by John and Matthew, Chrift's difciples, 
 «' the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom 
 " one was difciple of Peter, the other of 
 *' Paul, The former converfed vvith Chrifi, 
 " and were eye-witneffes of what they wrote. 
 *' The other two wrote what they had re- 
 " ceived from eye-witneffes." And to the 
 like purpofe in (ej his firft homilie upon St. 
 Matthew, Again, he fays : " Luke (f) had 
 
 "the 
 
 (a) P. 83. 84. CIJ P. 97. (c) P. 227. 228. 
 
 (dj /'. 3 1 2. ('f; P. 3 1 4. . . 3 1 6. Jfi^/ei p. 3 25. 
 
 (/)P.IZ2, 
 
222 St, Luke. Ch Viir. 
 
 '' the fluence of PW, Mark the conciie- 
 " neffe of Fetei\ both learning of their maf- 
 " ters." And upon Col. iv. 14. he fays: 
 This (g) is the Evangehft. 
 
 Upon Col. iv. 14. T'heodoret fays, *' this (h) 
 perfon wrote the divine Gofpel, and the hif- 
 torie of the Ads." He fays the fame upon 
 (I) 2 Tim. iv. 1 1. 
 
 Pmdinus (m) celebrates Luke^ as having 
 been firft a Phyficlan of the body, then of 
 the foul. 
 
 Here I would refer to the Author of Quaef- 
 tiones et Refponfiones, probably writ in the 
 iifth centurie, who (n) reckons both the E- 
 vangelifts, writers of the genealogies, that is, 
 Matthew and Liike, to have been Hebrews. 
 
 According to Eiithalius (0) Luke was a dif- 
 ciple of Faul^ and a Phyficlan of Antiocb. 
 
 Jfuhre of Se*viHey fays : ''of (p) the four 
 ** Evangeliils, the hrft and laft relate what 
 *' they had heard Chrift fay, or had feen him 
 " perform. The other two, placed between 
 " them, relate thofe things, which they had 
 " learned from Apoftles. Matthew wrote 
 
 *' his 
 
 (g) 'Ovroi er/y o ivctyyiKKiti;. In Col. horn. 1 2. T. xt. p. 41 2. 
 (h) See Vol. xi. no'te (A). (I) In z Tim. T. 3.^, 505. 
 
 (m) Vol. xi.p. 44. (n) See Vol. i. p. 263. 
 
 (0) Vol, xi, p. Zl I, (tJ^-3^7' 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 223 
 
 " his Gofpel firft in Judea. Then Mark In 
 •* Italie, Luke, the third, in y^cbaia, John, 
 " the laft, In Afia.'' In another place he 
 fays : " Of fq) all the Evangelifts Luke, the 
 ^' third in order, is reckoned to have been the 
 " moft IkilfuU in the Greek tongue. For he 
 *' was a Phyfician, and wrote his Gofpel in 
 " Greece." 
 
 In TheDphyla5i are thefe things. In his ' 
 preface to St. Matthew's Gofpel he fays, 
 " that (r) there are four Evangelifts, two of 
 " which, Matthew and Johny were of the 
 *' choir of the twelve Apoftles : the other 
 *' two, Mark and Luke^ were of the number 
 " of the Seventy. Mark was a difciple and 
 *' companion of Peter, Luke of Paul. . . . 
 *' Luke wrote fifteen years after Chrift's af- 
 *' cenfion.'* In the preface to his Commen- 
 tarie upon St. Luke he fays, " that (s) from 
 *' that introduction it appears, Luke was not 
 " from the begining a difciple, but only af- 
 ** terwards. For others were difciples from 
 ** the begining, as Peter ^ and the fons of Ze- 
 *' bedee, who delivered to him the things 
 *^ which they had feen or heard." Upon 
 which fome remarks were made by us in the 
 place referred to. In his comment upon 
 
 the 
 
 (q)P.^12. (r) P, ^ig.^20. (s) P. 4^22. 
 
224 S^' ^^^^^' ' Ch. VIII. 
 
 the hiftoiie of the two difciples, whom Jefus 
 met in the way to EmmauSj one of-whom 
 is faid to be Ckopbas. Luke xxiv. i8. TheO" 
 phylaSl fays : " Some (t) have thought the 
 " other to be Luke the Evangel ill, who out 
 ** of modeftie dedined to mention himfelf." 
 In his preface to the Ads TheophylaB fays : 
 " The (u) writer is Luke, native oi Antioch, 
 ** by profeffion a Phyfician." 
 
 Euthymiii^ fays : " Luke (x) was a native 
 " of Antioch, and a Phyfician. He was a 
 *' hearer of Chrifl, and, as fome fay, one of 
 *' his feventy difciples, as well as Mark, 
 " He was afterwards very intimate with 
 " Faul. He wrote his Gofpel, with Paul's 
 '' permiffion, fifteen yeais after our Lord's 
 " afcenfion." 
 
 So Euthymius. But I fliould think, that 
 very few, who fuppofed Luke to have been 
 a native of Antioch, could likewife reckon 
 him a hearer of Jefus ChriH:. But Eutby- 
 mius, as it feems, puts together every thing 
 he had heard or read, without judgement 
 or difcrimination. 
 
 What Nicepboriis Caliijli fays, is, briefly, 
 to this purpofe. " Two (y) only of the 
 
 *^ Twelve, 
 
 (t) P. 423. (u) p. 426. (x) P. 437. (y) p. 442. 
 
Ch. VIIL 5/. Luh, 225 
 
 " Twelve, Matthew and "John left memoirs 
 " of our Lord's life on earth : and two of 
 " the Seventy, Mark and hiike , . Matthew 
 *' wrote about fifteen years after our Savi- 
 •' our's afcenfion. Long after that Mark 
 **■ and Luke publifhed their Gofpels by the 
 '' diredion of Feter and Paul, The fame 
 " Luke compofed alfo the book of the Ads 
 " of the Apcftles." 
 
 To thefe authors I now add EutychiuSi Pa- 
 triarch of Alexandria^ in the tenth centurie, 
 who fays : " In (z) the time of the fame Em« 
 *^ perour, (that is, Nero^) Luke wrote his Gof- 
 *' pel in Greek to a noble and wife man of 
 *' the Romans, whofe name was Theophihts : 
 *' to whom alfo he wrote the Adls, or the 
 " hiftorie of the Difciples. The Evangelift 
 " Luke W2LS a companion of the Apoftle 
 " PaiJy going with him where-ever he went. 
 " For which reafon the Apodle Paul in one 
 
 fz) Etiam tempore hujus Imperatoris fcripfit Lucas Evan- 
 gelium fuum Graece, ad virum nobilem ex fapientibus Ro- 
 nianis, cui nomen Theophilus, ad quern item fcripfit Ada 
 feu Difcipulorum hilloriam, Erat autem Lucas Evangelifta 
 comes Pauli Apoftoli, quocumque per aliquod tempus manfit. 
 Unde eft, quod Paulus Apoftolus in quadam epiftola fua dicit. 
 Lucas Medicus vosfalutat. Eutych. Annal. p, 335. 336. 
 
 Vol. L * Q^ '.' of 
 
226 !Sl Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 bi 
 
 " of his epiftles fays : Luke, the Fhyfictan^ 
 ^^falutes you'* 
 Remarks. III. Having thus recited the teflimonies 
 of all thefe writers concerning the Evangelift 
 Luke, 1 fliall now make fome remarks. 
 
 I. We hence perceive, that the notion, 
 that St. Luke was a Painter, is without foun- 
 dation, no notice having been taken of it in 
 thefe ancient writers. Indeed this is faid by 
 one of our (a) authors, Nicephorus CalUJii, in 
 the fourteenth centurie, from whom a paf- 
 fage was quoted in the way of a fummarie 
 concluiion. But we do not relye upon him 
 for any thing not confirmed by other writers, 
 more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is 
 this account received by (b) T^illeinont^ or (c) 
 Du Pin, but rejected by them, as ahogether 
 fabulous, efpecially the later : though our Dr. 
 Cave (d) was fomewhat inclined to admit 
 
 one 
 
 L 2. cap. 43. T. i. p. 210. 
 
 (bj Saint Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. 
 
 (c) Nicephore et les nouveaux Grecs le font Peintre. Et 
 il y a en differens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on 
 donne pour I'cuvrage de S. Luc. Ce font des fidlions, qui 
 n'ont ni verite ni apparence. Du Pin Dijf. I. 2, ch. 2. §. 5. 
 
 (d) Of more authority with me would be an ancient in- 
 icrlptionj found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in 
 
 via 
 
Ch. VITI. Sf. Luke. 227 
 
 one teAimonie to this affair, whild herqcd- 
 ed the reft. For a farther account of St. Lukes 
 pretended pidiires of the Virgin Marie 1 re- 
 fer to (e) Mr. Bower, 
 
 2. We karn alfo, what judgement o«ght 
 to be formed of the account given of St. Luke 
 by (f) Hugo Grotius^ and (g) J, J, Wefftein : 
 
 0^2 which 
 
 via lata at Rome, fuppofed to be the place, where S. Paul 
 dwelt : wherein mention is made of a piflure of the B. 
 Virgin. Una ex vii. a B. Luca depidlis : One of the feven 
 painted by St. Luke. Ca'ves Liues of the Jj>oJlles, in Englipy 
 ■p. 222. 
 
 (e) See his Lives of the Popes. Vol. 3. p. 20,. 206. 
 
 (f) Noftro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuifTe arbi- 
 tror, fed aliquanto longius. . , . Quare et Lucas, fi quid vi- 
 deo, contradum eft €X Romano nomine, quod fufpiccr fuifTe 
 Lucillium. Nam ea gens turn R.omae florebat. . , Erat nof- 
 tor hie Syrus, ut veteres confentiunt, et medicinam fecit. . , 
 Syria autem multos Romanis fervos exhibebat. Et medici- 
 na, ut ex Plinio atque aliis difcimus, munus erat fcn-ile, 
 Manumiffi autem nomen patroni induebant, ut Coinaedia- 
 rum fcriptor, Afer cum effet, didlus ell: a patrono Terentio 
 Terentius. . . . Ita hie a Lucillio Lucillius, et contrafte Lu- 
 cas. Credibile eft, cum Romae medicinam faftitaffet ali- 
 quamdiu, accepta libertate, rediifle in patriam. &c. Grot, 
 Pr. in S. Lucam. 
 
 (g) Exercuiffe medicinam Paulus ad CololTenfes tcftatur, 
 Eufebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuifle natione Sy- 
 rum Antiochcnum. . . . Interpretes porro conjedura pro- 
 babili, turn ex nomine, turn ex arte quam profitebatur, col- 
 ligunt, fuifle fervum manumiffum, Obfervant enim primo, 
 nomen ejus in compendium fuifie redaftum, ut pro Lucillio 
 
 vel 
 
22.8 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 which is, that he was a Syriarij and a flave, 
 either at Rome^, or in Greece : and that having 
 obtained his freedom, he returned to his na- 
 tive place, Antioch : where he became a Jew- 
 i£h Profelyte, and then a Chriftian. Which 
 thofe learned interpreters endeavor to make 
 out in a fomewhat different manner. But 
 neither has alleged any ancient writer, faying, 
 that the Evangeliil Luke was once a Have, 
 and afterwards became a free-man. .Some 
 flaves indeed were Ikilful in the art of medi- 
 cine, and pradifed it in the families of their 
 Roman maflers. But does it follow, that 
 becaufe Luke was a Phyfician, that he was 
 alfo a flave ? This therefore being entirely 
 defiitute of foundation in antiquity muft be 
 efteemed the fidion of fome learned critic, 
 who was much delighted with his own in- 
 genious fpeculations. 
 
 3. The account given of this Evangelift by 
 
 Eujeife, and Jerome after him, that he was a 
 
 Syrian, 
 
 vel Lucano vocaretur Lucas. . . . Obfervant fecundo, fervos 
 et praecipue Syros medicinam fadlitafle. . . . Quod vero qui- 
 dam exiilimant, eum Romae rerviiiTej et a domino, qui ipfum 
 manumiferit, nomine Lucam appellatum fuifie, non fatis cer- 
 ium videtur. Nam praeter familiam Lucilliam, quae Ro- 
 mana fuit, etiam Graecis illud nomen fuit impofitum, ut ex 
 Anthologla couftat. Wetjl, Pr, ad Luc. T, i. />. 643. 
 
Ch. VJir. St. Luke, 
 
 Syrian, and native of ^filiocby may be juftly 
 fufpecfled. 
 
 We do not find it in Irenaeus, nor Clement 
 of Alexa7jdria,x\QV TertuUian^ novOrigen^ nor 
 in any other writer before Eujebe. Probably, 
 therefore, it is not founded in any general, or 
 well attefted tradition : but was the inven- 
 tion of fome conjedural critic, who having 
 firrt imagined, out of his own head, that 
 Luke was originally a Gentil, at length deter- 
 mined, that he was converted by Paul^X An- 
 iicch. But all this was taken up without any 
 good ground, or fufficlent authority. And 
 Ltike may have been a believer, before either 
 Paul or Barnabas went' to Ai^tioch, The 
 fame Account is in Jercine. But he only 
 follows Eiifebe. He does not feem to have 
 had any information about it from any others. 
 Which is an argument, that there was not 
 any early tradition to this purpofe. 
 
 This ftorie, I fay, is in Eujebe, and yerome, 
 and fome others, after them, but not in all 
 fucceding writers. Some of the ancients, as 
 Epiphanius, and others, fuppofed Luke to 
 have been one of Chrift's feventy difciples. 
 Which is inconfiftent with his being a native 
 of Antioch. \f any did not fee this inconfif- 
 tence, and allowed both, it muft have been 
 
 CL 3 owing 
 
 229 
 
230 
 
 St. Liihe. Ch. VIIL 
 
 owing to want of due attention and confider- 
 ation. And the fuppofition, made by fome, 
 that huke was one of the Seventy, (liews, 
 that there was no prevailing, and well attef- 
 ted tradition, that he was a native ol Antioch. 
 For if there had been any fuch tradition, it 
 is not eafie to conceive, how any (liould have 
 held the opinion, that he was one of the Se- 
 venty. 
 
 It was formerly obferved, that (h) Chryfof- 
 torn no where fays in his remaining Vt^orks, 
 that Luke was of Antkch. Indeed, we (i) 
 have loft one of his homilies upon the title 
 and beginingof the Adlsof the Apoftles. Ne- 
 verthelefs it feems, that in fome of his many 
 homilies, ftill remaining upon that book, 
 or elfewhere, we fliould have feen this par- 
 ticular, if it had been known to him. He 
 takes notice, that (k) there might be feen in 
 his time the houfe, in which Faul dwelled at 
 Antioch, And he often fpeaks of the prero- 
 gatives of that city, in his homilies preached 
 there. Methinks, this alfo fliould have been 
 mentioned as one : that Luke^ whom, (as is 
 well known,) he often celebrates, was a na- 
 tive of that city. If this had been then 
 
 known, 
 
 (h) Vol. X. p. 328. (i) P. 323. 
 
 (kJP.zju 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 231 
 
 known, or generally believed, it is reafonable 
 to exped:, that it fhould have been frequently 
 mentioned by Chryjbflom. a native and Prelby- 
 ter of Antiocb^ who fhined there as a Preacher 
 twelve years. This has difpofed me to think, 
 that in his time there was not 2itAntioch any 
 prevailing tradition to this purpofe. 
 
 Cave fays, it (I) is likely, that Luke was 
 converted by Paul at Antioch. Mill (m) fays 
 the fame, rather more pofitively. Which 
 may now be the opinion of many. I have 
 guelied, that it might be the opinion of the 
 perfon, who firft gave rife to the account, that 
 Luke was a Syrian^ of Antioch, mentioned in 
 Eufebe. But I do not remember, that this 
 is expreiHy faid by any of the ancient writers, 
 out of whom I have made fo large coUedlions 
 in the preceding volumes. And the thing is 
 altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gen- 
 til, converted by Paul, he would have been 
 always uncircumcifed, and unfit to accom- 
 pany Pauij as he did. For the Apoftle would 
 
 0^4 not 
 
 (/) . . . a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiae ageret, (uti verifimile 
 eft) converfus. Hi/i. Lit. T. i. p. 25. 
 
 (mj Scriptor opei i huic fufcipiendo, fi quis unquam, fumme 
 idoneus : utpots qui ab ipfo tempore converfionis, quae con- 
 tigit circa annum aerae vulgaris XLI. Ipfum enim j^^Anc/raTf 
 illis, qui magno numero Antiochiae converfi funt, [A(^, xi, 
 20.] omnino adnumerarim. Pro/, n. \\z. 
 
232 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentlls, of 
 jintiochy or any other place, to receive that 
 rite. Nor are there in the Ads, or Paul's 
 epiflleSj any hints, that Luke was his convert. 
 Whereas, if he had been fo, there (c) would 
 have appeared fome tokens of it in the af- 
 fedtionate expreffions oi Paul toward him, on 
 the one hand, or in the refpedful and grate- 
 ful expreffions of Luke toward Paul, on the 
 other hand. 
 
 4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers 
 learned men, whether the Evangelift Luke 
 . was a Phyfician. 
 
 This particular is different from the fore- 
 going. Nor has it any connexion with it. 
 Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a 
 Phyfician. He may have been a Phyfician, 
 and not of Antioch. The queftion is, whe- 
 ther Luke, the beloved Phyjician, mentioned 
 
 by 
 
 (c) This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who in his pre- 
 face to St. Luke's Gofpel fpeaks to this puVpofe : " We are 
 *' told, that Luke was converted by Paul at Thebes. Anfwer. 
 *' But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it is the lefs 
 *' credible, not only becaufe it comes to us fo late : but alfo be- 
 •' caufe it appears not from any credible author, that St. Paul 
 ♦* ever was there. It is more probable from the filence of St. 
 ♦' Luke, and St. Paul, who never calleth him his fon, that he 
 ** was a Chriftian, or a believer, long before." 
 
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke. 233 
 
 by St. Paul Co\. iv. 14. be the EvangellO:. 
 Divers of the ancients, as we have feen, have 
 fuppofed him there intended. Chryfojiom's 
 expreffions are thefe : " This (72) is the E- 
 " vansjehft. But he does not diminifli him 
 ** by naming him fo late. He extols him, 
 " as he does Epaphras, It is likely, that 
 <* there were others called by that name." 
 This laft particular, perhaps, may deferve to 
 be taken notice of. He affirms, that this is 
 the Evangelift. But he fuppofeth, that there 
 were others of the fame name. 
 
 That diftinguifhing charader, beloved Thy- 
 futan, not given to the Apoftle's companion, 
 and fellow laborer, in any other epiftle, has 
 induced divers learned and inquifitive mo- 
 derns, to doubt, whether one and the fame 
 perfon is intended. Among thefe are (<?) Ccl~ 
 
 760 ovof/.ctTi T^rv- Chry. in Col. ini. horn. \z.T . xi.p. 412. 
 
 (0) Non afientior iis, qui Lucam Evangcliftam intelligunt. 
 Nam et notiorem fuiffe judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali in- 
 dicatione, et fplendidiore elogio fuillet inflgnitus. Certe 
 coadjutorem fuum, aut fidum faltem comitein, et certami- 
 num participem vocafTet. Potius conjicio, hunc abfuiffe, 
 et alterum niedici epitheto ab illo difccrni. Qiiamquam non 
 contendo, ut de re certa, fed tamen conjeduras afTero. Cal- 
 <vin, in CqL iv. 1 4. 
 
^34 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 'uin, (p) Sam. Bafijage, (q) Dr. Beumami, 
 whofeobfervations and arguments Itranfcribe 
 below. On the other hand (r) Efliiis, and 
 (j) Mr. 'jones, ftrongly argue, that the fame 
 Luke is here intended, who is mentioned by 
 St, I* aid in fome other cpidles, even our E- 
 
 vangehft. 
 
 Upon 
 
 (p) Sunt tamen in Scriptnra, Lucam Evangelifiam a Luca 
 Medico diftingucndi cauflhe. &c. Bafnag. Ann. 60. n. xxxiii, 
 (q) Lucam Evangelillam fuifl'c Medicum, Hieronymus 
 aliique probari pofl'e credunt ex Col. iv. 14. Sed ex hoc 
 ipfo loco confirmari poffe puto contrarium. Si cnim iflo loco 
 Paulus innuiffct comitem iuum ojnnibus notum, Lucam E- 
 van'^diilam, ilmplicitcr vocaflet Lucam, uti fecit. 2 Tim. 
 iv. II. At ut fignificaret, fe de alio luca loqui, difcriminis 
 caufTa addit /aTpo?. C. A. Heiman. Ep. Mifc. T. z. p. 518, 
 (r) Sunt qui in dubium revocent, num de Luca Evange- 
 lifta loquatur Apollolus. Hunc enim dicunt notiorem fuiffe, 
 quamutartis nomine eum dcfignaret, Ac faltcm, inquiunt, 
 cum coadjutorcm fuum, aut fidclem comitem vocaiTet. Ve- 
 rum, ut vetus et communis, ita probatiflima fententia eft. 
 , . Lucam Evangelifiam, Medicum fuifTe, et eum ipfum, cu- 
 jus hie mentio eft: (neque enim alium Lucam Paulo fami- 
 liarem ulla prodit hiftoria :) Qiiod vero tacuit hoc loco ad- 
 jutorem, id diferte exprefilt ad Philemonem fcribens, Demas 
 et Lucas adjutorcs 7nci. Ncn enim putavit Apoilolus rem fatis 
 notam ubique inculcandam efle. Ubi illud obfervandum eft, 
 Apoftolum aflidue Lucam cum Dema nominare, tarn hoc loco, 
 et ad Philemonem, quam ctiam in fecunda ad Tim. ep. cap. 
 iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium efle Lucam cum 
 codcm Dema nominatum ? Co;;/, in Col. i-v. 14. 
 
 (s) Hce Mr. Joneis-Ncvj ami Full Method. Vol. 3. p, 103. 
 
 104. 
 
 I 
 
Ch.VIII. St, Luke, 235 
 
 Upon the whole, it muft be acknowledged, • 
 that this ditlinguilhingcharadler, beloved Phy- 
 faian^ has occafioned a difficulty. Neverthe- 
 lefs, I would hope, that it is not infuperable. 
 It is allowed, that in all other places of St. 
 Taui'^ epiftles by Luke is intended the Evan- 
 gelift. We know from the book of the Ads, 
 that Luke, the v/ritcr of it, went with Faul 
 to Rome^ and ftaid with him to the end of his 
 captivity there. Nor is there any reafon to 
 furmife, that at the time of writing this epiftie 
 he might be abfent from the Apoftle upon 
 fome fpecial occafion. For he joyns in 
 the falutations in the epiftie to Philemon^ 
 of Coloffey fent at the fame time with 
 this epiflle to the Coloffians. Where alfo he 
 is ftiled a felloW'laborer. Philem. ver. 24. 
 So that I cannot but think it probable, that 
 Luke, the Evangelift, was by profeffion a 
 Phyfician. 
 
 5. St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at left by 
 religion. 
 
 None of the writers, out of whom we 
 have made colled:ions, call him a Gcntil. 
 Some, in Jerome's time, whofe names we do 
 not know, faid, Lukeh2i(\ been a Jewifli Pro- 
 felyte, that is, had been converted from Gen- 
 tilifm to Judaifm, and afterwards became a 
 
 Chriftian. 
 
236 Sl Luke. Ch VIII. 
 
 ChriAian. But none, that I remember, ex- 
 prefHy fay, that he was converted from G&n- 
 tilifm to Chridianity. Unlefs we fhould 
 make an exception for Nicephorus Callijii^ 
 who in one place fays fo. But he is too late, 
 and of too little credit, to be much regarded : 
 efpecially, if he is lingular. All our writers, 
 who fpeak of Luke^ as a companion and dif- 
 ciple of Apoftles, mufl: have fuppofed him 
 to be a Jew. And fome have faid, that he 
 was one of the Seventy, as we have feen. 
 
 That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at left 
 by religion, may be argued from his being a 
 conftant companion oi Paul in many places, 
 particularly, at "Jerufalem. l^ Luke had been 
 an uncircumcifed Gentil, fome exceptions 
 would have been made to him. Neverthe- 
 lefs nothing of that kind appears either in St. 
 pmih Epiftles, or in the Adis. Another 
 thing leading to this fuppofition is his (t) 
 following the Jewifh computations of times : 
 fuch as the PafTover, Pentecoft, the Fafte. 
 
 Of 
 
 (0 Qy'^^ ^^^° ^""^ ^^^^ Tpecie aliqua Lucam Evangeliftam 
 iinum ex judaeis fuifle neget r Lucam qui in defignandis tem- 
 poribus fudaeorum difciplinam adhibet, Pentecofieni fcilicet, 
 Jejunium, tertiam noflis vigiliam. Quae omnia ex Judaico 
 more petuntur. Bajhag, An, 60. n, xxxiii.' 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 
 
 Of all which inftances may be feen In Ads 
 xii. 3. XX. 6. and 16. xxvii. 9. 
 
 Here it will be objeded, that Lzike the 
 Thyfician^ mentioned Col. iv. 14. muft have 
 been a Gentil, becaufe at ver. 10. 11. the 
 Apoftle had mentioned all thofe of the cir- 
 cumcijion^ who were his fellow-worker 5 y and 
 had been a comfort to him. To which I an- 
 fwer. It is not certain, that Luke^ the E- 
 vangelifl:, is the beloved Phyfician^ there fpo- 
 ken of. We juft now faw the reafons of 
 doubting about it. But there is another fo- 
 lution. St. Paul (u) needs not to be under- 
 ftood to fpeak abfolutly. There might be 
 feveral exceptions to that propofition. T/- 
 mothie was one, who joyns with the Apofile 
 in fending the epiftle. But he and Luke 
 were fo well known to all, as faithful to the 
 Apoftle, that they needed not to be there 
 mentioned. And Luke and Demas follow 
 afterwards, fomewhat lower, nearer the end 
 of the epiftle, very properly, ver. 14. Luke, 
 the beloved Phyfician^ and Defnas greet you. 
 And I Ihould be unwilling from this text, and 
 
 the 
 
 (a) Adde, quod ifte fermo, hi foUy non eft ita rigide acci- 
 piendus, ut abfolute excludat omnes alios, fed benignofenfu : 
 Hi fere foli funt adjutorcs, Eji. adi-v. Col. 1 1 . 
 
 ^Zj 
 
238 St. Luke. Ch.Vill. 
 
 the cohd'ence, to conclude, that Demas was 
 a Gentll. Says the Apoflle : Philem. ver. 
 24. There falute thee Marcus^ Arijlarchus, 
 Demas^ Lucas, my J ellow- laborers. Th-e two 
 firil named were certainly Jews. 1 fuppofe, 
 the other two were fo likewife. Salutations 
 from believers, of the Jewiih People, would 
 •be very acceptable and encouraging to Gentii 
 converts. 
 
 St. Luke fays A6ls i. 19. infomuch as that 
 field was called iii their proper tongue Aceldama. 
 Whence fome may argue, that he was not a 
 Jew. But it might be obferved, that none 
 of the Evangelifts, Vvhen they ipeak of the 
 Jews, fay any thing, to denote they were of 
 that people. Says St. Matthew ch. xxviii. 15. 
 And this faying is commonly reported among the 
 yews untill this day. Mark vii. 3. Fcr /',6^ 
 Pharifees^ and all the jews, except they wafl? 
 their hands, eat net. John i. 19. The je-^s 
 fe?it Priefis and Levi tes from Jerufalem. ch. 
 V. J . After this there w^s ajeafi of the yews. 
 See alio ch. xix. 40. — 42. And does not St. 
 Paul hy I TheiT. ii. 14. 15. Te became fol- 
 lowers of the churches of God in Judea. For 
 ye alfo have fuffered like things of your own 
 countrey-inen, even as they of the yews : who 
 both killed the Lord fcfus, and their own Pro- 
 phets* 
 
Ch. VIII. St, Luke. 
 
 phets. It might be not amifs to obferve alfo 
 Ad^sxxviii. 17. . . 19. And I might refer to 
 other places. 
 
 That this Evangelift was a Jew, is the 
 opinion of many learned and judicious mo- 
 derns : particularly, Mr. S. Bafnage^ whom 
 I have cited at note (t) and y. A. Fabricius^ 
 who (x) likewife is clearly of the fame opi- 
 nion. Indeed, I think, it ought not to be 
 queftioned. 
 
 6. Luke^ the EvangeliH:, was, probably, aix 
 early Jewifti believer, foon after ChriR's af- 
 cenfion, if not a hearer of Chrift, and one of 
 the feventy difciples. 
 
 Our moft ancient writers, as we have feen, 
 fpeak oi Luke as a difciple of the Apoftles. 
 Some have reckoned him one of the Seventy, 
 others have thought him to be Lucius, men- 
 tioned by St. Faul in the epiftle to the Ro- 
 mans J and others have fuppofed, that he was 
 
 one 
 
 (x) Lucas, five Lucius, . . . incertum, num Idem cum Luca 
 Medico Col. iv. 1 4. quin Judaeus fuerit, at antequam Chrifto 
 nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, praccipue fi verum eft 
 quod legas in Origenis five Adamantii cujufdam dialogis, 
 adverfus Marcionitas, ct Epiphanii LL IL eum fuiffe e 
 numero LXX. difcipulorum. Bib, Gr. I. 4, c. v. T. 3. 
 f. 132. 
 
 239 
 
240 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 one of the two difciples that met Jefus in the 
 way to Emmaus. 
 
 The large accounts, which Luke has given 
 in the book of the A6ts of feveral, below 
 the rank of Apoftles, has made me think, 
 that he was one of the fame rank, and pof- 
 fibly one of them. There are three inftances 
 of this kind. The firft is Stephe?!^ one of 
 the feven Deacons, who, as we learn, iz-as 
 Jull of faith and poiver^ and did great wonders 
 and miracles among the people : again ft whom 
 there arofe a ftrong oppoiition, fo that he was 
 the very firfc Martyr for Chrift and his doc- 
 trine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a 
 long difcourfe before the Jewiili Council, ch. 
 vii. The fecond is Philips another of the 
 Seven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he firft 
 preached Chrifi to the Samaritans, ch. viii. 
 5. ... 8. fo that the people with one accord gave 
 heed to thofe things, "xhich Philip [pake ^ hearitjg^ 
 and feeing the ?m racks which he did, and what 
 follows. The fame Philip afterwards, having 
 firft explained the fcriptures to him, and 
 brought him to fincere faith in Jefus as the 
 Chrift, baptized the Chamberlain and Trea- 
 furer of the Queen oi Ethiopia, a Jewilh pro- 
 felyte, and a man of great diftindion. ver. 
 26. . . 40. The third inftance of this kind 
 
 is 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 241 
 
 is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene^ who 
 travelled as far as Fhenice^ Cyprus^ and An- 
 tiochy preaching the word to Jews only. Who 
 foon after their coming to Antioch,Jpake unto 
 the Greeks y preaching the Lord Jejus, And the 
 hand of the Lord was with them. And a great 
 number believed^ and turned unto the Lord. ch. 
 xi. 19. . . 21. Thefe were the men, who 
 firft preached to Gentils out of fudea : as 
 Peter was the firfl, who preached to Gentils 
 at the houfe oi Cornelius in Cefarea. ch. x. and 
 not long before them. We have, as it feems, 
 the names of three of thofe men. ch xiii. i. 
 Simeon^ called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and 
 Manaen, The fecond perfon, here named, 
 may be our Evangelifl:. 
 
 A like argument may be formed in favour- 
 of St. ZfZ^Zv^s having been one of Chrid's fe- 
 venty difciples, in that he, and he only of all 
 the Evangehds, has inferted in his Gofpel an 
 account of the commifiion, which Chrifl 
 gave unto them. ch. x. i. . . . 20. 
 
 And indeed fome learned m.en of later 
 times, as well as formerly, have been of opi- 
 nion, that Luke was one of the Seventy. 
 Among thefe is our Dr. Whitby, \n\\o (b) 
 
 (b) See his Preface to St. Luke's Gof[>el. 
 
 Vol; I. * R reckoned 
 
42 St. Luke. Ch. Vm. 
 
 reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been 
 of that number. 
 
 y. A. Fabricius (c) was inclined to be of 
 the fame opinion. And in favour of it refers 
 to the paffages oi Adamantius and Epipha- 
 niiis, before taken notice of by us. This 
 likewife was the fentiment of (d) Mr. Baf- 
 iiage. 
 
 Dr. C. A. Heiimann has lately publlfhed a 
 dilTertation concerning Chrift's Seventy Dif- 
 ciples, containing many curious obfervations. 
 And he fuppofeth, that (*) thefe feveral fol- 
 lowing were of that number. Matthias, 
 chofen in the room of the traitor, Jofephy 
 called BarfabaSj furnamed yujlus^ and pro- 
 bably, the feven Deacons, or however, fome 
 of them, and the four teachers and Prophets 
 of Antiochj Barnabas^ Simeon called Niger, 
 
 Lu' 
 
 (c) . . . praecipue, fi verum eft, quod legas in Origenis feu 
 Adamantii cujufdam Dialogis adverfus Marcionitas, et Bpi- 
 phanii K. LL n. xi. Ncque adeo repugnat et Lucam et 
 Marcum ex illis fuifle, licet Vcteres miro confenfu, ut Mar- 
 cum Petri, ita Lucam tradunt Pauli fuifTe interpretem et fec- 
 tatorem. Haud dubie enim Apoftolorum etiam prae LXX 
 illis magna praerogativa erat. hz. Bib. Gr, I. iv. cap. v. T. 
 
 (iij j^nti. 60. mtffi. xxnjiii. 
 
 (*) Dijfertatio de Septuaginta Chrifii Legatis, ap, Nov, Sjt/og, 
 DiJ'ertat.Part.i.p. 120. ... 154. 
 
Cb. VMT. S/. LuJ^e. 243 
 
 Lnciits of CyrenCy whom he thinks to be our 
 Luke the Evangelili, and Matiacn. Ads 
 
 xiii, I, 
 
 His argument is to this purpofe. We 
 have not in the Gofpels the names of thofe 
 Difciples. Nor did Chrift form a college or 
 companie of them, as he did of the Twelve, 
 becaufe it was a temporarie office, which 
 fubiifted for a fhort time only. They were 
 but once fent forth. And when they were 
 returned, their commiflion v/as at an end. 
 Neverthelefs they hereby became qualified 
 for public fervice. And it may be reckoned 
 •very probable, that if an opportunity was af- 
 forded, they would be very v/illing, after 
 Chrift's afcenfion, to exert themfelves in his 
 caufe. And it is very likely, that fome of 
 thefe Seventy were chofen, and employed by 
 the Apoflles, as men, who had been already 
 exercifed in the fervice of the gofpel, and 
 were thereby fitted for farther ufefulnefTe. 
 
 So that learned writer. And it mufi: be 
 acknowledged, that this is a fpecious argu- 
 ment. But it is rather founded in afi inge- 
 nious fpeculation, than in the authority of 
 teftimonie. Which, in this cafe, would be 
 more valuable. 
 
 R 2 Indeed 
 
244 St. Luke, Ch. VIII. 
 
 Indeed EpiphaniuSy befide the places (e) 
 formerly alleged, where he fays, Mark and 
 Luke were of the Seventy, has another : 
 where (f) he mentions a great many, who 
 were faid to be of that number : as the feven 
 deacons, all whom he mentions by name, 
 and alfo Matthias, Mark, Luke, JuftuSy Bar' 
 nabas, Apelles, Rufus^ Niger. And there- 
 fore, we cannot deny, that in the time of 
 Epiphanius there were fome, who entertain- 
 ed an opinion, that all thefe were of Chrift's 
 feventy Difciples. Neverthejefs we do not 
 find it in Irenaeus, or Clement cj Alexandria^ 
 or Origen, or any others of the higheft an- 
 tiquity, and beft credit : nor in Eiifebe^ °^ J^' 
 rome, that I remember, who were acquainted 
 with the writings of thofe ancient authors, 
 and many others, which are not come to us. 
 Eujebe has a chapter concerning the Difciples 
 of our Saviour. He fays, the names of Chrift's 
 twelve Apoftles were well known ; but {g) 
 there was no where any catalogue of the Se- 
 venty. However, he mentions Barnabas, 
 Matthias, and the difciple put up wiih him, 
 
 and 
 
 (e) Haer. LI. num. 'vi. xi. (f) H. 20. fium. I'v. 
 
 ii<Psiy.ii ifi^cTOii. H, E. L i. c. 12. 
 
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke. 245 
 
 and one or two more, v/ho were faid to be 
 of the Seventy. But he takes not here any 
 notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the fe 
 ven Deacons. 
 
 Matthias and Barfabas certainly were fuch 
 men, as are defcribed Ads i. 21. 22. And 
 they may have been of the Seventy. But we 
 cannot be certain, becaufe we have not been 
 affured of it by any accounts, that demand full 
 aflent. Some of the feven Deacons may 
 have been of the Seventy, as Stephen and 
 Philip. But we do not know, that they 
 were. It is very probable, that all thofe 
 Deacons were not of the Seventy, particu- 
 larly, NicoIaSy a profelyte, of Antioch. If 
 Luke^ the Evangelift, be the fame as LuciuSy 
 of Cyrene, there arifeth a ftrong objedlion a- 
 gainfl his having been one of the Seventy. 
 Simeon, called Niger ^ and Lucius of Cyrene, 
 mentioned Ads xiii. i. and the men of Cyprus 
 and Cyrene, (of whom thofe two, juH: 
 mentioned, were a part :) were early be- 
 lievers, after Chrift's afcenfion, and they 
 may have heard and feen the Lord in 
 perfon. But they cannot be well fuppofed 
 to have been of the Seventy. Chrift's twelve 
 Apoftles were of Galilee, It is likely, that 
 the Seventy alfo were of the fame countrey, 
 
 R3 or 
 
2A.& ■ St. Luh, Ch. Vlil. 
 
 or near it. Cbriil: fent them forth from, him, 
 to go over the land of Jfrael, and to return 
 to him in a (liort time, where he {iiould be. 
 And his ufual reiidcnce was in Gdlilee. It 
 does not appear to me at all probable, that 
 our Lord put into that commiflion any men, 
 who were born, and irfiiaHy refided abroad, 
 in other countreys, out of the land of IfraeL 
 Hitherco, then, we have not any fall proof, 
 that our Evangeliil was one of the Seventy. 
 Let u.s proceed. 
 
 St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13. . . 34^ relates how 
 two difciples met Jefus after his refwrreftion, 
 as they were going to Emmaus. And he 
 fays, that the name of one of them was Ck- 
 cphas, '^beopbjlaB in his comment upon 
 this place, as (h) formerly iliewn, obferves ; 
 ^* Some (i) fay, that one of thefe two was 
 Liiike himfelf : but that the Evangelif^ con- 
 cealed his own name." Nicephorus CalliJIi [k) 
 in one place, makes no doubt, that Ltike 
 was the other difciple not named, it is like- 
 
 [h] Vvl xi. p. 423. 
 
 (?) T/»5i Toc zua, r'.Tuv tuv J^vo avTov rov Xovxav eiccti 
 ^afft' <Pto J9 a-7e;fpi/-4-2 70 sstt/Ta ovoy.u o \v'J.yyzKm]<;- Theoph, 
 pi Luc. cap. xxiv. p. 539. 
 
 (i) Tc/V TTifi ?>i"av K^ K^^tozscty thu oJ^ov 'net^rcai yvcupl^iTscti 
 
 'TrpliZCT'Tlk^lX.V eii S'^TTVOIf dvTQli SV^KCtTcCKhl^cic. Niceph. I. U, 
 
 f, 34./>. 117. 
 
Ch. VIII. St, Luke, 
 
 ]y, that he had met with it in more ancient 
 writers. Sam. Baf?2age (I) readily declares 
 himfelf of the fame opinion. Indeed, I 
 think, it has a great appearance of probabili- 
 ty. It is much more hkely, than the tradi- 
 tion, or interpretation in Epiphanius^ that (m) 
 it was Natha?iaeL The fame Bafnage fays, 
 that \iNathanael\\2.^ been the other, St. Luke 
 would have named him. 
 
 St. Mark ch. xvi. 12. 13. has a like ac- 
 count, but briefer, of two, to whom Chrift 
 appeared, as they were walking into the couu' 
 trey. He does not name either of them. 
 Grotius (n) allows, that Mark's and Luke's 
 hiftories are of the fame perfons. Both the 
 Evangelifts fpeak of thefe as tivo of them, 
 ^ They were not of the Twelve, but yet they 
 were of their companie, fuch as had been 
 
 R 4 with 
 
 (/) Nulla fane magis idonea ratio obfervatur animo, cur 
 Cleopae, non alterius, Lucas meminerit : quomodo Joannes, 
 ubi de fe mentionem agitat, nomen difumulat fuum. Side 
 grege Apoflolorum fuiiTent, aut virorum multa laude in Evan- 
 gelio celebratorum, uti Nathanael, quod Epiphanio vifunij 
 iterum atque iterum dicemus. tarn ejus quani Cleopvie nonien 
 foeneralTet. Ann. 33. num. CL. 
 
 {m) See 'vol. li'ii. p. 316- 
 
 («) Quare immerito Euthyoiius hie aliam putat hiftoriam 
 indicari, quam earn, quae a Luca copiofe defcribitur. Grot, 
 ad Marc, xvi, 1 2. 
 
 247 
 
248 Sf. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 with Jefus : as is allowed by (0) Grotius^ 
 and (p) Beza. Neverthelefs they fay, that 
 (q) Luke is not the other. He is excluded, 
 as they fay, by the tenour of his introdudions 
 both to hisGofpel, and the Ails. Their rea- 
 fonings will be confidered prefently. 
 
 However, fuppofing Luke to be the perfon 
 here intended, I do not think, that he is there- 
 by (hewn to be one of the Seventy. Cleophas 
 and the other were difciples of Chrift, and 
 eye-witnefles. But it does not therefore 
 follow, that they were of the number of the 
 Seventy. 
 
 We 
 
 (0) . . S'vah in o.vicov.'] TUP fj.iTu \mv. yevoiAvuv, ut fu- 
 pra dixit ver. lo. Nam hoc nomine etiam alii extra xii. 
 cenfentur, praecipue qui de numero erant illorum feptuagin- 
 ta. Grof. ad Marc. pcvi. I I. 
 
 (p) Ex iis, e^ dvTKV, nempe difcipulis, non autem ex A- 
 poltolis. Alioriim enim praeter Apoftolos mentio fadla fuit 
 praecedente verfu 9. Bez. in Luc. xxi'v. 13. 
 
 (q) Alteram fuifle hunc noftrum Lucam, quidam ex veteri- 
 bus arbitrantur, quorum opinio refellitur ex praefatione Adlis 
 ApofiOiorum praepofita. Bez.adLuc.xxi'v. 18. 
 
 Duo ex illis, nenspe eorum, quos modo Koi'aZv, ceterorum 
 nomine defignarat, e fedatoribus Chrifti. Probabiliter fen- 
 tiunt Veteres, fuifle hos de numero LXX. . . Nomeu alte- 
 rius infAaexprimit Lucas, Cleopam vocans. Alteram ipfum 
 Lucam multi putarunt, quos fatis ipfe refellit in Evangelii 
 anteloquio, ab oculatis tefdbus fe feparans. Grot, (id Luc 
 Kxyv. 13. 
 
Ch. Vlir. St. Luke. 
 
 We proceed. Among the Salutations in 
 the epiflle to the Romam are thefe. ch. xvi. 
 20. Timothie my work-fellow^ and Lucius ^ 
 and Jafon^ and Sofipater, my kin/men^ fa lute 
 you. All thefe were Jewifh believers, and, 
 the three laft mentioned, as it feems, were 
 the Apoftle's relations. That by Lucius 
 fome fuppofed the Evangelift Luke to be in- 
 tended, we have been informed by fo ancient 
 a writer, as Origen. And it is very likely, 
 that St. Luke's name was writ differently : 
 Lucas, Lucius, and Lucanus. There is the 
 more reafon to think, that the Evangelift is 
 here intended, becaufe he mufl: have been 
 with the Apoftle at the time of writing the 
 epiftle to the Romans, Says Mr. Tillemont : 
 *' Many (^rj believe, that St. Lz^/^^ is he, whom 
 " St. Paul in his epiflle to the Romans calls 
 *' Lucius J making his name a little more La- 
 *' tin. And it is the more likely, inafmuch 
 " as the Ads afTure us, that St. Luke was 
 *' then with St. Paul. If that be fo, he was 
 " related to this Apoflle." Grotius, who fup- 
 pofed our Evangeliflto have been oi Antiochy 
 taking notice of the above-mentioned obfer- 
 
 vation 
 
 (r) Mem, Ec, Tom. 2. S. Luc. 
 
 •49 
 
250 St. Luke. Ch.. WW. 
 
 vation of Origen, fays, that (s) Lucius, m 
 Rome xvi. is the fame, as Lucius o^^Cyrene, 
 mentioned Ads xiii. i. 
 
 Fabriciiis (t) efteemed it fomewhat pro- 
 bablCj that Lucius is the Evangelifl:. 
 
 Dr. Heumann fbppofes (11) this Lucius to 
 be St. Luke, and the fame as Lucius of Cyrene^ 
 whom (x) he computes to be one of the fe- 
 venty Difciples, as before feen. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 (s) Docet nos Origenes, in annotationibus epiftolae ad 
 Romanos, fuiffe qui crederent Lucium eum, qui in eadeni 
 epiilola nominatur. xvi. 21. efle hunc ipfum Lucam, et Lu- 
 cium dici iiexione Romana, Lucam Graeca. Ego Lucium 
 ilium, cujus ibi meminit Paulus, puto non alium efie a Cyre- 
 nenfi, quem nofter hie nominat Ador. xiii. i. Grot. Praef. 
 ad E'vang. S. Luc. 
 
 (t) Fuerunt enim jam olim, qui telle Origenc Lucam eun- 
 dem putarunt cum Lucio, quem Paulus inter ffvyyeie-i fuos 
 refertRom. xvi. 21. Neque verifimilitudine deftituitur haec 
 fententia. Fab. Bib. Gr. uhi fupra.p,. 132. 
 
 (u) Lucas non eft verum, id eft, pure expreflum nomen 
 Evangeliftae, fed vel Lucanus, (quem in modum et ex Sil- 
 vanus fadum eft Silas,) vel Lucius. Ac perverifimile eft, 
 Evangeliftam noftrum effe Lucium ilium Cyrenaeum, cujus 
 £t mentio Aft. xiii. i. Quem nee diverfum effe credo ab 
 illo Lucio, quem Paulus Rom. xvi. 21 . vocat cognatum fuum, 
 fmiulque teftatur, eum in fuo coniitatu fuilTe. Heujnan. Bp. 
 Mifc. T. 2./>. 519. 
 
 (x) Jure igitur credimus, et hos quatuor [A£l. xiii. i.] 
 fuifie e feptuaginta illorum difcipulorum numero. Jam inter 
 hos fi Lucius non eft alius quam Lucas Evangelifta, merito et 
 Lucam noftrum recenfemus inter fuptuaginta illos difcipulos. 
 Vif. de hxx, ChriJH Legat. %. x,x.p. J 49. 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 251 
 
 Mr. R/zjhage llkewife argues very flrongly, 
 that' (y) Lucius is our Evaiigelift. 
 
 Indeed this opinion cannot be well faid to 
 be deftitute of probability : fince there is a 
 good deal of reafon to think, that Luke was 
 in the ApoHle's companie, when he wrote 
 the epiftle to the 'Romans. And if Lucius 
 be not he, no meiition is made of him. 
 Which is very unlikely. 
 
 if this be our Evangelift, we hence learn, 
 that he was a Jew, and related to the Apof- 
 tle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we 
 know his chara6ler, and, in part, his hifiorie, 
 from Ads xi. 19 . . 21. and xiii. 1 ... 4. 
 He was an early Jewifh believer after Chrifl's 
 afcenfion, and together with others was very 
 ferviceable in early preaching the gofpel to 
 Jews and Gentils out of Judea, And, once 
 more, if the other, who accompanied Cleo- 
 
 phas 
 
 (y) Lucam Evangeliftam Paulo confanguineum fui/Te ve- 
 xihmilitudinis multum habet. LuciumTane, cujus nomine Ro- 
 manes falutat Apoflolus, ex ipfius cognatis unus erat. Sunt 
 vero non pcrtenues conjedurae, quibus adducamur ad exifd- 
 mandum unum eundemque virum cum Luca Lucium efTe. 
 Quae antiqua fane fententia fuit, cnjus meminit Origenes in 
 Rom. xvi. . . . Silam quidem Paulus ipfe Silvanum vocat, 
 Aderat etiam Paulo comes Lucas, cum miffa efl. ad Romanos 
 eriftola, quern infalutatos praeteriiffe, prorfus fit incrqdibile : 
 quod tamen fadum fuiffet, fi Lucius eft a Luca diverfus, 
 Bajn. ann. 60. m. xxxiii. 
 
252 Sf, Luke. Ch. Vlir. 
 
 phas in the way to Emmaus, be Luke the 
 Evangelift, he was a difciple and eye-.witnefle 
 of Jefus Chrift. But I do not fay, one of 
 the Seventy. 
 
 Now we come to confider the objecflion 
 of Beza, Grothis^ and divers others : who 
 have fuppofed, that St. Luke, in the intro- 
 dudion to his Gofpel, excludes himfelf 
 from the number of eye- witnefles. But 
 though this has been a difBcuhy with many, 
 there have been of late divers learned men, 
 remarkable for inquilitivenelTe, and good 
 judgement, who are not much moved by it. 
 One of them is Dr. Whitby, in his preface 
 to St. Lukei Gofpel, already taken notice of 
 by us. Another is (z) Fabricius, a third 
 (a) Bajhage, the fourth Heumann : who in 
 his forecited Differtation obferves, that (b) 
 St, Luke% introdudion imports no more, 
 
 • • than 
 
 (x) Neque obftat porro, quod Lucas affirmat, fe ea fcri- 
 bere, quae acceperit ab illis, qui fuiffent ait" «pX"f etuTOTT-ra.'. 
 Nam non de omnibus lxx dici hoc poterat, quod K&. i. 21. 
 et feq. ad Apoftolum requiritar. Bib. Gr. T. 3. />. 133. 
 
 (a) Ann. to. num. xx'viii. 
 
 (h) Repugnare quidem videri pollit ipfe Lucas cap. i. 2. 
 fcribens, fe quae tradat accepijTe a roti air i^yj\i duTOTT' 
 TcLti* Vcrum non fe negat fuiffe avi'o'Tnw, qui negat, fe 
 ttWoTTznc «V ^fyj^i fuiffe. Concedimus itaque, non zh 
 
 initio 
 
Ch. Vlir. Sf. Luke, 253 
 
 than that he was not an eye-vvitneffe from 
 the begining, nor an Apoflle. But he may 
 have been for feme while a follower of 
 Chrift, very confiftently with what he there 
 writes. And, probably, he was fo. But 
 he very fitly puts the credit and authority 
 of his hiftorie upon the teftimonie of the 
 Apoflles. 
 
 I (hall likewife tranfcribe below a pafTage 
 of Petavius [c) from his Animadverfions up- 
 on EpiphanhiSj though it be fomewhat long, 
 
 I do 
 
 initio ftatim, uti Apoftolos, quos virnoircti .ra \oyH appelkt, 
 interfuiiTe rebus a Chrilto gclUs Lucam. Sed aliquo jam 
 tempore fundlo fuo niunere MelTiae fe applicuifTe Lucam, et 
 f^oilea Temper in ejus comitatu fulffe, quo minus credamus, 
 hoc ipfius teftimonium rainime impedit. Accedit, quod mo- 
 deftiae erat, Apoftolorum potius, quam fuum ipfius teftimo- 
 nium commendare, jubereque leftares, fi forte fibi crediturl 
 fmt aegrius, fidem habere Apoftolis, teftibus uulli obnoxiis 
 exceptioni. Heum. Dijf. ib. num. xx. 
 
 (c) Qiiod Lucas & difcipulorum numero fuerit, afferit 
 et Dorotheus in Synopfi . . . Sed contra fentiunt plerique, 
 et id ex ipfis Lucae verbis collii^unt, cum ait : 'E</o^s 
 KA[j.oi . . Sed tantum abeft, ut ha-ec difcipulum ChriiH 
 fuifTe, ac non pleraque, cum ab eo gererentur, oculis 
 ufurpafTe negeut, ut contrarium potius hinc eluci pollit. 
 Verbum enim '^apxx.olnQ^v nonnunquam ad earn notitiam 
 refertur, quae oculis ipfis, ac propria intelhgentia com- 
 paratur, non aliorum fermonibus, Ut cum Dcnioflhenes 
 4v ru '^{p} •sTcifa.TTfiC&'iui;, de Aefchine, cujus in legatione 
 comes fuerat, iic loquitur : Kai rm 'jovi^iviAccTx biS'uu 
 
,254 St. Luke. Ch.Vni. 
 
 I do It the rather, becaufe he is an older 
 author than any of thofe, hitherto cited in 
 behalf of this interpretation. He is confid.r- 
 ing what Epipbanius fays of Lukes being 
 one of Chrift's sfeventy difciples. The ifum 
 of what he advanceth is to this purpofe : 
 " He dares not afHnm, that Luke was a dif- 
 " ciple of Chrift, becaufe many of the Fa- 
 *' thers have thonght other wife. 'But he 
 " fays, there is nothing in St. Luke's intro- 
 *' dudion to induce us to think, he was 
 *' not a difciple of Chrift, or that he had 
 ** not feen a large part of the things related 
 " by hiai : but rather the contrarie. And 
 *' he was willing to {liew, that Epiphanms 
 *« is not contradidcd by St. Luke himfelf ." 
 
 7. St. 
 
 jfe?/ TafH'coAsGi) •«; a/rraai y^-otrnyo^Z. Sic igitur Lucas 
 trvcchv 'Trapif/.Q^v^UKkvcci TTita-iV iXKOsCZi dicitiir, hoc eft, com- 
 perta, explorataqiie, ac fpectata etiam, habujfib. Ac videri 
 ■poteft, ct nonnuila liaec antihefis efie, iit cnm fupcricre 
 •verfu dixerit : Quemadmedum multi res a Chrifto geftas 
 fcribere aggreffi lunt, na^jcji 'za^'i-S'ociay vuiv o» «x' tfp^wf, 
 ftatim fiibjiciat : ''E/c^g Jia/^o/ 'mx2i)''.o'kt^^\uhi, ■ hoc e/l, 
 qui non, ut ilii Ik, fisoc^xayia^y fed ex propria id feientia 
 compererim. Ceteruih tametfi ad eum fenfum accommodari 
 1 Lucae verba nihil prohibet, non idcirco tamen Chrifd difci- 
 
 puhim fuiiTe certo pronunciare aufim : cum huic adverfari 
 fententiae longe plures Patres intelligam. Sed iftacoinmem- 
 oravi, ut ne Lucae ipfi de fe teftanti refragari quifquam Epi- 
 phanium arbitretur. Teta^v. Animad-v, in E^iphan. Haer. ti. 
 w»»;. xi. p. 89. go. 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 255 
 
 7. St. Luke was for a good while a con- 
 ftant companion of St. Paul. But he was 
 alfo acquainted with other Apoftles. 
 
 Tertulliany and Chryfoflom, as we have 
 feen, call St. Paul Luke'^ Mafter. But they 
 need not be underRood to intend, that Luke 
 learned nothing from other Apoftles. So 
 Irenaetn faid : *' Luke^ the companion of 
 Paul^ put down in a book the Gofpel that 
 had been preached by Paul^ But in another 
 place he fays : " That (*) Luke was a fel- 
 low-laborer of the Apoftles, efpecially, of 
 Paul.'' And in another place he calls 
 Luke (**) '^ a follower and difciple of the 
 Apoftles." And Etifebius faid: '' Luke was 
 for the moft part a companion of Pauly but 
 had alfo more than a flight acquaintance 
 with the other ApoHles." A.nd Jerome fays : 
 ** It was fuppofed, that Luke did not learn 
 " his Gofpel from the Apoftle Paul only, 
 <* who had not converfed with the Lord 
 " in the flefh, but alfo from other Apoftles. 
 " Which alfo he acknowledgeth at the be- 
 
 " gming 
 
 {*) Quoniam iion folum profequutor, fed et cooperarius 
 fuerit Apollolorum, maiime autem Pauli. Len. /. 3. r, 14, 
 «. I. p. 201. b. 
 
 (**) Lucas autem feflator et difcipulas Apodolorum. Ihid. 
 cap, X, [a/, xi.} in p. 189. 
 
256 ' St. Luke. Ch.VIII. 
 
 " gining of his volume, faying : Even as 
 " they delivered them unto us^ who from the 
 - '* hegining were eye-witfiejjes oj the word'' 
 That mud be right, I think, becaufe it 
 is agreeable to the writer's own words in the 
 introdadion to his work. I always conlider 
 Paul a.s an eye-witnejje. But he was not an 
 eye-witnelle from the begining : nor a rninif- 
 ter of the word^ from the begining. He 
 mail have had a dif}:in(5t knowledge of all 
 things concerning the Lord Jefus. Chrif- 
 tianity, as has been often, and juftly faid, 
 is founded in fad^s. In order to preach it, 
 Faid muft have had a knowledge of Chrift's 
 life, preaching, miracles, death, refurrec- 
 tion, and afcenfion. As he was not in- 
 flruded by other Apoftles in the dodrine 
 preached by him, he muft have had it from 
 revelation. And I fuppofe, that a man, 
 who, like hiike^ often heard Paid preach, 
 might have compofed a Gofpel, or hif- 
 torie of Jefus Chrift from Faui'i fermons, 
 preached in divers places, and to men of all 
 chara6ters. And the ancients feem to have 
 fuppofed, that Luke had thereby great af- 
 iiftances for compoiing his Gofpel. Which 
 I do not deny. Neverthelefs it feems fairly 
 
 to 
 
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luh. 257 
 
 to be concluded from his own introdudlon, 
 that he had confulted others alfo. 
 
 It might not be amifs, if I had room for 
 fuch obfervatlons, to compare St. Luke's 
 Gofpel and the hiftorical parto of St. Paul's 
 Epirtles, and alfo of his difcourfes recorded 
 by Luke himfelf in the book of the Ads. 
 It is reafonable to think, that wherever any 
 difciples of Jcfus preached the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion, they gave an account of the things 
 concerning Chrift. Wherever the Apoflles,. 
 or others, preached, in order to induce faith 
 in Jefus and his dodrine, their firfl dif- 
 courfes muft have been hiftorical. The 
 reafon of the thinqr leads us to this. And 
 we are ailared of it from their difcourfes, 
 of which we have an account. V/e per- 
 ceive this in the difcourfes of St. Peter at 
 ^eriifalem. Ads ii. 22 . . . 36. iii. 12 . . . 26. 
 iv. 10. and at the houfe of Cornelius in Ce- 
 farea^ x. 34 • . . 43. from Paul's difcourfes 
 in the fynagcgue at Antioch in- Pijidia. Ch. 
 xiii. 23 . . . 38. at Athens, xvii. .31. at Co- 
 rinth, xix. 8. before the Governour Fejius^ 
 and King Agrippcij ch. xxvi. and at Rome : 
 though then many years had pafTed, fince 
 the afcenfion of Chrift, and fince his re- 
 ligion had begun to be preached, and pro- 
 
 VoL. I. * S pagited 
 
25B ^ St. Luke. Ch. VIII, 
 
 pagated in the world. St. Lw^^'s general 
 account of Paul there is thus : y^nd Paul 
 dwelt two whole years in his own hired houfe^ 
 and received all that came in unto him, preach- 
 ing the kingdom of Godj and teaching thofe 
 things which concern the Lord Jefus Chrijl, 
 xxvii. 30. 31. *' That is, fays (d) Grotius, 
 " his miracles, dodirine, death, reiurredion, 
 " and the miffion of the Spirit : by which 
 " things men were afTured, that the hea- 
 " venly kingdom was fet up." And this 
 may have been the occafion o^ the frequent 
 ufe of thofe expreffions, preaching Chrijl^ 
 and preaching fejus Chrijl^ as equivalent to 
 preaching the Chrifiian Religion, or the doc- 
 lilne of the Gofpel. 
 
 I muft own, that in the furvey of St. 
 Liike\ Gofpel, and St. Poid\ difcourfes and 
 epiftles, I have not difcerned any fuch fpe- 
 cial agreement, as to be induced to think, 
 that one of them had copied the other, 
 
 St. Paul fays, at Antioch in Piftdia^ Ads 
 xiii. 23. Of this maii s feed has God raifed un- 
 to Ifrael a Saviour ^ Jefus. And 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
 
 Remember, 
 
 (d) Miracula ejus, et praecepta, et mortem, et refurrec- 
 tionem, et miflionem Spiritus San^i. Per quae certi fiebant 
 liomines de regno il!o coelclli. Gr. ad A^. fcx-viii. 31. 
 
Ch. Vllr. Sf. Luke, 259 
 
 Remember, that yefiis Chrift, of the feed of 
 David, was raifedjrom the dead, according to 
 my gofpel. Thefe things are agreeable to 
 St. Lukes Gofpel. But they are alfo in St. 
 Matthew'^, And muO: have been taught 
 by all the Apoftles, and all preachers of the 
 gofpel . 
 
 Ad:s XX. 35. And to remember the words of 
 the Lord 'Jejus, how hefaid: It is mcrehlejjed 
 to give^ than to receive. That faying of our 
 Lord is not recorded by St. Luke'm his Gof- 
 pel, nor by any other of the Evangelifts. 
 
 I Cor. XV. 5 . . 7. And that he was feen 
 of Cephas^ then of the Twelve, After that, 
 he was feen of above five hundred brethren 
 at once . . After that he was feen of fames, 
 then of all the' Apo (lies. St. Luke's, account of 
 our Saviour's appearances after his refurrec- 
 tion are in ch. xxiv. and Ads i. i . . . 12. 
 And if they arc obferved, I fuppofe, that 
 no remarkable agreement between Paul and 
 Luke will be difcerned, but rather the con- 
 trarie, The^^w hundred brethren, mention- 
 ed by St. Paul, probably, faw Jefus- in Ga- 
 like : where, as in Matth. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 7. 
 and Mark xvi. 7. he appointed to meet the 
 difciples. But of 'this there is nothing in 
 St. Luke, And all our Saviour's appearances 
 
 S 2 to 
 
26o , St.Luhe. Ch.VlII. 
 
 to the difclples, mentioned by him, were at 
 Jerufakm, or in it's neighborhood. Nor 
 does LtikegWQ any hint of that particular ap- 
 pearance to James^ mentioned by St. Paul. 
 Not now to add any thing farther. 
 
 However, I fhall tranfcribe below (e) fomc 
 obfervations of Mr. Wetflein^ relating to this 
 matter. 
 
 8. It may be reckoned probable, that St. 
 huke died a natural death : forafmuch as 
 none of the moil: ancient writers, fuch as Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria^ IrenaeuSy Origen, Eufe- 
 biiiSy Jerome^ fay any thing of his martyrdom. 
 Gregorie Nazianzeny in (f) one of his ora- 
 tions, feems to put Luke among Martyrs. 
 Neverthelefs, as is well obferved by (g) JiU 
 lemont^ EUas Crctenfis, in the eighth centu- 
 rie, famous for his Commentaries upon Gre- 
 gorie, fuppofeth it certain, that (h) Luke did 
 
 not 
 
 (e) Si Lucas vel Pauli hortatu, vel peculiarl Spiritus 
 San6ti afflatu ad fcribendum impullus fuiflet, rem memo- 
 rata tarn dignam . . . filentio neutiquam tranfiiffet. Quod 
 vero quidam exiftlmant, ex locis 2. Tim. ii. 8. et i. Cor. 
 XV. 4, collatis cum Luc. x. 7. et xxiv. 34. probari, Lucae, 
 quod dicitur, Evqngelium ad Paulum potius audorem eiic 
 referendum, nobis parum fit verofiiiiile. Wetjien. ad Luc. cap. 
 i. ruer. 3. Tom, i, p. 644. ' 
 
 (f) Orc.t. 3. p. 76. (g) St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. 
 
 (h) Quippe ne longe abeam, Joannes , . . et item Luca? 
 
 haud- 
 
Ch. VJIT. St. Luke. 261 
 
 not dye a Martyr any more than yA, the 
 Apoftle and Evangellft : but that after hav- 
 ing fufFered much in the caufe of Chrifl:, 
 and the gofpel, he returned in peace to the 
 God of peace. Gaudentiiis, Bifliop of Bref^ 
 da, about 387. obferves, that (tj in his time 
 it was generally faid, that Luke and Aiidrew 
 finifhed their courfe at Patrae in Achaia, 
 He does not fay, in the way of martyrdom. 
 I do not perceive PauUtJus, about the year 
 403. to (k) celebrate Lztke, as a Martyr, but 
 rather Nazarius, mentioned in the next verfe. 
 If Martyr belongs to Luke, it may be under- 
 flood in a general fenfe, as equivalent to Con- 
 fefTor, or a great fufferer for the gofpel. 
 9. Cave fays, that (I) Luke lived a fingle 
 
 S 3 life. 
 
 haudquaquam interempti fuere, verum cum permultas prop- 
 ter Chriftum et ejus evangelium calamitates pertuliflent, in 
 pace ad eum qui pacis Deus eft, reverfl funt. El. Cr. Anmt. 
 f. 322. 323. 
 
 (t) Andreas et Lucas apud Patras, Achaiae civitatem, con- 
 fummati referuntur. Gaud. Serm. 17. ap. Bib. PP. Tom. 5,/, 
 969. C. 
 
 (k) Hie pater Andreas, et magno nomine Lucas, 
 Martyr et illullris fanguine Nazarius. 
 Paulin, Ep^^z, p. 210. Conf. Annot. p. 75. Paru 1685. 
 
 (I) Vitam egit coelibem, ac mortuus eft anno aetatis 84. 
 circa annum (ut nonnulli volunt,) 70. Quo vero mortis ge- 
 nere incertumeft, Hijl. Ut. p. 25, 
 
r62 Sl Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 life, and died in the 84. year of his age, a- 
 bouttheyearof Chrift 70, but of what death, 
 is uncertain. And it is true, that Nicepho- 
 i:uSy in the fourteenth centurie, fays, that (mj 
 Luke died in the 80. year of his age. And 
 in feme editions of Jero?ne\ book of Illuflri- 
 ous Men there is a pafiage, near the end of 
 the article of St. Liikey importing, that he 
 lived 84 years in ceiibacie. But Martian\\ 
 the learned Benedidlin editor of 'Jeromes 
 works, fays, that (n) pafTage is not in any 
 manufcripts. Nor does he know, whence 
 that filly fidion Vi^as borrowed. Fabriciui 
 (0) confirms that account. 
 ThcTmeof IV". Thei:e is no great difficulty In fettling 
 this Go/pel. j.j^g tij^g Qf St^ Luke's Writing his Gofpel. 
 The Ads of the Apoftles were publiflied in 
 63. or 64. and not long after his Gofpel, as 
 is generally allowed, , Accordingly Dr. Mill 
 
 fup- 
 
 (m) 'Qyi'omovrA ItZv yivoutvoi. &? ip-iaiv. Niceph. I. 2. 
 
 c. 43. 
 
 (n) Falfo additur in hoc loco : Fixit oSoginta et quatitor 
 anvios, uxoreni non hahens. Nullum exftat veftiqium horum 
 verborum in manufcriptis codicibus, Neque novi, utide pu- 
 tida haec conimenta fiuxerint. Martian. 
 
 (0) Sed ilia Erafmus, Martinus Lipfius, et SufFridus Petri, 
 in examplaribus fuis mil', non invcneruj:it, Fabr. in loc. ap. 
 Bib. Ecclef, 
 
Ch. VJir. Sl Luke. 26x 
 
 fpj fuppofeth thofe books to have been two 
 parts of one and the fame volume, and to 
 have been publiflied in the year of Chrift 64. 
 
 This argument was reprefented at length 
 (q) formerly. The reader is referred to it, 
 that I may not enlarge upon it in this phce. 
 
 V. However, I cannot forbear to obferve Marks of 
 fome marks of time in the Gofpel itfelf. Ti^'ryntht 
 
 i^ Go/pel it' 
 
 1. The occafion of writing it, as St. Luke fiif' 
 aflures us in the introdudlion, was, that many 
 had already publiflied narrations of thefe 
 things. But it cannot be reafonably thought, 
 that many (hould have writ hiftories of Jefus 
 Chrift prefently after his afcenfion, nor indeed 
 
 till many years after it. 
 
 2. There are feveral things in the Gofpel, 
 from which it may be fairly argued, that it 
 W'as not writ, till after Feter and Faul^ and 
 perhaps other Apoflles likewii'e, had preach- 
 ed to Gentils, and received them into the 
 Church, without their embracing the pecu- 
 liarities of the law of Mofes. 
 
 S 4 3. la 
 
 (p) Voluminibus hujus D. Lucae partem pofleriorem, feu 
 AsT^ou S'iuTipov quod attinet, librum dico Ai^cimm Apo-'.o!o- 
 runi, baud dubium eft, quin is fcriptus fiierit ftatim poll 
 ?\'jyov 'TT^urrovt iive Evangelium. Proleg. num, \z\. 
 
 (^) See in this 'volume fh. iTf-fe^- iv. f. 78. . . . 85. 
 
264 Sf, Luke, Ch. VIIT. 
 
 3. In ch. il. 10. ,the angel fays to the 
 fliepherds n^av Betb/ehem : I bri?2g you good 
 tidings of great joy to all people. At ver. 30. 
 
 I ... 32. Simeon fays, at the prefentation of 
 
 Jefus in the temple : Mine eyes have fe en thy 
 
 fahaiiony which thou haft prepared before the 
 
 face of all people : a light to lighten the Gentils^ 
 
 and the glorie of thy people Ifrael. In ch. iii. 
 
 8. fays John the Baptift : God is able of thefe 
 
 fones to ralje up children to Abraham, And 
 
 I might here refer to ch. i. 78. 79. I fup- 
 
 pofe, that when St. Luke recorded thefe 
 
 thing?, he underftood them. Which he 
 
 could not do, till after the gofpel had been 
 
 freely and fully publiHied among Gentils. 
 
 4. That St. Luke underftood the fpirituality 
 of the dodrine of the gofpel, may be con- 
 cluded from the account, which he has ^iven 
 of our Lord's difcourfe, recorded ch. vi, 20. 
 . . . 49. I might for this refer to ch. i. 74. 
 'jc^, and other places. 
 
 5. Ch. vii. 9. When our Lord had heard 
 the centurion's profeffion of faith, he mar- 
 "velled at him, and f aid : I have not found fo 
 great fat thy 770 not in Ifrael, In Matth. viii. 
 II. 12. is a farther enlargement. The like 
 to which may be feen in Luke xiii- 28. 
 
 . . 30. 
 
 6. In 
 
Ch. Vlir. " St. Luke, 265 
 
 6. In ch. xiii. 6. . . 9. is the parable o£ tbe 
 Jig-tree^ /pared one year more : reprefenting 
 
 the ruin of the Jewifh church and people as 
 near, if they did not fpeedily repent. 
 
 7. In' ch. xi. 48. . . 51. are predidions of 
 the calamities coming upon the Jewifti peo- 
 ple. In ch.xiii. 34. 35. are our Lord's la- 
 mentations over the city of Jerufalem, in the 
 view of the calamities coming upon it. See 
 likewife xvii. 22. . . 37. xix. 11. . . 27. xx. 
 9. . . 18. xxi. 5. . . 11. and ver. 20. . . 35. 
 As St. Luke enlargeth fo much in his accounts 
 of thefe predidtions, it may be argued, that 
 the accomplifhment was not far off, when 
 he wrote. 
 
 8. In ch. xiv. 16. . . 24. is the parable of 
 a great flipper. When they who were firfl 
 invited, refufe4 to come. Whereupon the 
 invitations were enlarged, and made more ge- 
 neral. And in the end he who made the fup- 
 per declares, that they who werefirjl bidden^ 
 JJ:ould not taft of it : reprefenting the call of 
 
 the Gentils, and the general rejedion of the 
 Jews for their unbelief. 
 
 9. In ch. xiii. 18. . . 21. are the parables 
 of the grain of j?iuflard-fied, and leaven^ re- 
 prefenting the wonderful progrefTe of the 
 
 golpel : 
 
266 Sl Luke. Ch VIII. 
 
 gofpel : of which, probably, ^i,Luh had been 
 witneffe, when he recorded them. 
 
 10. Ch. xxiv. 46. 47. . . And he /aid un- 
 to them . . that repentance and remijjion offms 
 Jhould be preached in his name among all na- 
 tiofJSi begining at Jerufalem. When St. Luke 
 wrote this, it is very Hkely, that he well 
 underftood the commiffion of the Apoftles, 
 as reaching to men of all denominations, 
 throughout the whole world. 
 
 1 1. But I need not enlarge farther on thefe 
 internal charaders of time, the other argu- 
 ment being fufficient and fatisfadorie. 
 
 The Place, VI. I mull fay fomething concerning the 
 place, where St. Liike'^ Gofpel was writ. 
 
 yeromey as before (r) quoted, in the pro- 
 logue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew, 
 fays, that (s) Luke, the third Evangelift, pub- 
 liflied his Gofpel in the countreys oi Achaia 
 and Boe'dtia. In his book of Illuftrious Men 
 he fays, the (tj Ads were writ at Rome, 
 Gregorie Nazianzen fays, that fu) Luke wrote 
 for the Greeks, or in Achaia. And fpeaking 
 of the provinces of divers of the Apoftles and 
 
 Evan- 
 
 (s) In Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus volumen condidit. 
 Ibid. 
 
 (fJIt>-p'9S' (u)Fol.ix,p. i^i. 
 
 fjbere it 
 ivas ijurit 
 
Ch. VIII. Sf. Litke, 267 
 
 Evangelifts, he (x) afllgns Judea to Peter^ 
 the Gentils to Pauly Achaia to Luke^ Epirus 
 to Andrew^ Ephefiis or Afia to John^ India to 
 'ThomaSy Italic to Mark : in which countrey, 
 undoubtedly, many of the ancients believed 
 this laft mentioned Evangelift to have writ 
 his Gofpel. Chryfojhm does not fay, where 
 Luke wrote: but only that (y) he wrote for 
 cili in general. 
 
 We are told by (z) Philo/Iorgey that In the 
 reign of the Emperour Conftantim St, hiike% 
 reliques were tranfiated from Achaia to Con^ 
 Jlantinople. It muft therefore have been the 
 general perfuafion in thofe times, that St. 
 lauke had died, and had been buried in Achaia, 
 Nicephorus fays, that (a) when Paul left 
 Rome, Luke returned to Greece, where he 
 preached the gofpel, and converted many : 
 where alfo he fuffered martyrdom, and was 
 burled. Soon afterwards he fays, that (d) 
 in the reign of Conjlantius Luke's body was 
 
 tranflated 
 
 Abhs -STpof dxaloiV . . . ixoipxa -wpo; nukiav; Gregor. Or. 25. 
 
 (y) Vol. x,p. 318. (z) Vol. 'vii. p. 317. 
 
 (a) ^uvJ^iuymJ'' kv puy.n re} tsoivXa, iTsx-Jwti 7» IWaJ^f 
 JvSii. X. A. Niceph. /. 2. cap. 43. /i. 210. (bj, 
 (b)lbid,C, 
 
268 St. tuke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 tranflated from Tbel?es to Con/la^itinople. The 
 connexion leads us by Thebes to underftand 
 Thebes in Greece* 
 
 Grofitis fays, he thinks, that (c) about the 
 time that Paul left Rome, Luke alfo went 
 thence \nioAchma,^nd there wrote his books, 
 which we have, as 'Jerome likewife fays. 
 Caije thought, that (d) both St. Luke's books 
 were writ at Rojjte, and before PaiiFs captivity 
 there was at an end. 
 
 But by Mill, Grabe, and Wetftein, it is 
 faid, that Luke published his Gofpel at Alex- 
 (indria, in Egypt, Let us obferve their 
 proofs. 
 
 Firft of all {/) Mill and (f) Wetjlein quote 
 Oeciimeniiis, as faying, that Luke preached at 
 Thebes in Egypt. Neverthelefs I do not find 
 
 it 
 
 (c) Puto autem Roma iifTe Lucani in Achaiam, atque ibi 
 ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Quod et Hierony- 
 mus prodidit. Grot. Praef. iu Enjang. Luc, 
 
 (dj Utrumque anno Chrifti 59. S. Paulo nondum ex car- 
 cere dimifTo, fcripfifTe videtur. In Luca H. L. p. 25. 
 
 (e) Certe poft difcefTum a Roma Libyam petiiiTe noftrum 
 hunc Evangeliftam, ac apud Thebanos verbum praedicafle, 
 .teftatur Oecumenius comment, in Lucam. Mill. Prql. n. 
 
 (f) ... vel fecundum Hieronymum . . in Achaiae Boeo- 
 tiaeque finibus, qui tamen Thebas Aegyptias, ubi tefte Oecu- 
 menio Lucas praedicavit, pro Boeotiis accepifle videtur. 
 Wetji. N. T, To7». i, /. 643 . 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, . 269 
 
 it in Oecumenius. And I fuppofe, that Si' 
 tneon MetapbrafteSy a writer of no great credit, 
 in the tenth centurie, in his Hfe of St. Lukcy 
 is their authority. For he is the writer 
 quoted by (g) Grabe, though he does it cau- 
 tioufly. Nor does Metaphrajies fay, that St. 
 Luke publiflied his Gofpel in Egypt. He 
 fuppofeth it to have been writ before he went 
 thither. For he fays, that (h) when Ltike 
 preached there, he fometimes argued from 
 the 0!d Teftament, and fometimes from the 
 Gofpel, which he had writ. 
 
 It may be reckoned probable therefore, 
 that this journey of St. Luke into Egypt is a 
 mere fidion, a thing without ground afcribed 
 to him by fome, after he had left Paul^ and 
 after he had writ his Gofpel. 
 
 Neverthelefs thofe learned men (i) have 
 
 been 
 
 (g) Taceo recentiores, veluti Sinieonem Metaphraflen, 
 qui in Vita S. Lucae Graece et Latine edita ad calcem 
 commentariorum Oecumenii. p. 857. D. ita fcribit: Totam 
 Libyam percurrens in Aegyptuni pervenit. &c. Gmbe Spic. 
 r. /. ^. 33. 
 
 (h) Ka/ vvv [Av tf-zra tw? 'zretXetiocs 'srxpayav ypstipTu, pvv 
 erl aa' Ktjrsp kts? aiera^aTo zvnyyiXiv S'lipfxiivivfjv avroii to. rsi- 
 p/ Xp/rS. Sim. Metaphr. de Fit. S. Lucae p.S^S.B. 
 
 (i) Neque aliunde in aliam fententiam duftum arbitror 
 Hieronymum, giui in Achaiae Boctiaeque finibus hoc Evan- 
 gel! um 
 
270 Sf. Luke. Cb. VI 1 1. 
 
 been pleafed to argue from this paiTage of 
 Mefaphra/IeSy that Jerome miftook ^heles in 
 Boeotia for Thebes m Egypt. Which. appears 
 to me to be altogether arbitrarie. i (liould 
 rather think, that fome hater writer miftook 
 the place, and inflead of Thebes in Boeotia, 
 thought of Thebes in Egypt, a very famous 
 city, and better known to himfelf than the 
 other. 
 
 It may be of ufe to take here more at large 
 the pafTage oi Nicephoriis, in part quoted juft 
 now. *' Luke (k) fays he, was born at Afi' 
 *' tiochy which is in Syria^ by profeffion a 
 " Phyfician,and aifo well flcilled in painting. 
 " Fie came to 'Paul 2X Thebes with it's {tv^iw 
 " gates : where renouncing the errour of his 
 '* anceftors, he embraced the Chriflian doc- 
 " trine, and of a Phyfician for the body, 
 '* became a Phyfician for the Soul. He 
 *' likewife wrote a Gofpel, as Paul didated 
 ** it to him, and alfo the A6ts of the Apo- 
 
 " ftles. 
 
 gclium conditum ait, quam quod feu ledo, fea ex traditions 
 alicubi accepto, Lucam apud Thebanos praedicalTe, ac coh- 
 fcripfiffe Evangeliuni, incolas iftos fuiffe exiftimarit Theba- 
 rum Boeotiarum, non autem Thebarum uibis Aegypti fuperi- 
 ovis. Mill. Pro I. n. 115. Fid. et Wetfien. citat.fupra not. (/). 
 (k) Nice^h. I. z. cap, J^.y. p. 210. J, B. 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 271 
 
 " ftles. Whild Paul was at Rome, [or, 
 " When PWhad been at Rome,] he return- 
 " ed into (d) Greece.'* This, 1 think, mufl: 
 confirm our fuppofition, that fomebody mif- 
 took Thebes in Egypt for T^hebes in Boebtia. 
 It is plain, that Nicephorus means T^hebes of 
 Greece. And he feems to have fuppofed, 
 in this place, that huke was converted about 
 the time that he came to be with Raul in 
 Macedonia and Greece. See Ads xvi. 10. 
 He fays, huke returned into Greece, There- 
 fore the T^hebes before- mentioned muft have 
 been in that countrev. Nor was Raul ever 
 at Thebes in Egypt. Luke therefore could 
 not meet him, and be converted by him 
 there. He calls it Thebes with ifsfeven 
 gates. So (I) Thebes in Boeotia was fome- 
 'times called. 
 
 Secondly. Another argument, that St. 
 Luke\ Gofpel was writ at Alexandria^ is, 
 
 that 
 
 (d) ah muft be fenfible, that this fiorie o^ Nicephorus is very 
 llrange. for in one place he without hefitation fpeaks of St. 
 Luke, as the companion of Cleophas, mentioned Luke xxiv, i 8. 
 Lib. \.cap. 34. p. ii-j.A, And he fcvcral times fpeaks of 
 Mark ;x\\d Luke, as two of Chrift's feventy difciples. Lib. 2. 
 cap. 43. in et cap. 45. p. 213. B. xjjjc TaV cTi/o mf«j, ^.a'pxov 
 
 (I) Vid. Cellar, Qeogr^ Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 13, 
 
272 St. Luke. Ch Vlir. 
 
 that (m) it is To faid in the Syriac verfion. 
 
 But thofe tides are of no great weight. 
 Before the three Catholic Epiftles, received 
 by the Syria^is, is a title or infcription, im- 
 porting, that (?ij they were writ by fbe Apo- 
 Jlles, James^ Petcry and Johfty witriejfes of our 
 Saviour s transfiguration ^ taking James to be 
 the fen of Zehedee : whereas the epiftie of 
 James could not be writ till long after his 
 death, who was beheaded by Herod Agrip- 
 pay as related Ads xii. i. 2. AndSt. PWs 
 fecond epiftle to Timothie (0) is faid by the 
 fame SyrianSy to have been writ at Homey and 
 fent by Luke. Which is manifeftly contrarie 
 to the epiftle itfclf. See 2 Tim. iv. 11. 12. 
 
 St. Luke\ Gofpel is aifo faid in the Perfic 
 verfion, (p) to have been writ at Alexandria. 
 
 But 
 
 (m) Tta quippe fonat titulus ejus in vcrfione Syriaca, ante 
 -mille annos edita : Ev-angelium Lucae Evangeliftae, quod 
 protulit et evangelizavit Graece in Alexandria magna. Grahe 
 Spic. T.i.p. 33. C'j}if. Mill. Prcl. ?i. 1 1 4. 
 
 (n) Sanftorum Apoilolorum, Jacobi, Petri, Johannis, tranf- 
 figurationis Chrilli fpeilatorum, epiftolae fingulae. 
 
 ^0^ Ad Timotheum vero fecunda Roniae fcripta, fuit mif- 
 fa per eundem Lucam Medicum et Evangeliftam. Ebedjefu 
 Catal. ap. AJfeman.Bih. Or. 7". 3. p.iz. 
 
 (p) Et in verfione Perfica, quam tamen non ex Graeco, 
 fed Syriaco textu tranflatam exilllmat admodum R. Walto- 
 nus : Evangeliiun Lucae, quod lingua Graeca Aegyptiaca 
 in Alexandria fcripfit. Grab, ubi fupr. />. 33. 
 
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luke. 273 
 
 But then it is allowed, that this verfion was 
 made from the Syriac^ not from the Greek. 
 
 'Thirdly^ it is alfo urged, that there zvQepi- 
 graphai or iiifcriptions in fome manufcripts, 
 at the end of this Gofpel, where it is faid^ 
 that it was writ in the great city of Alexah- 
 dria. 
 
 But it is well known, that thofe infcrip- 
 tions at the end of the books of the New 
 Teftament are of little value, divers of them 
 containing manifeft miftakes : and they are 
 in late manufcripts only, or however, fuch as 
 are not of the higheft antiquity. 
 
 Fourthly, Grabe (q) likewife infifts upon 
 a pafiage in the Apoflolical Conftituticns, 
 where the Apodles are brought in, relating 
 what Bifhops had been appointed by them ia 
 their own time. And it is faid, that in Alex- 
 andrta, Anianus^ the firft Bifhop, was or- 
 dained by the Evangelift Mark^ and Abillm 
 by Liike^ alfo Evangelift. And (r) Mill in 
 
 (q) Atque hoc non parum confirmatur ex eo quod lib, vii. 
 Conft. Apofr. Clement, cap. 46. Lucas dicatrur Alexan- 
 driae fuifTe, ibiquc Epifcopum Avilium ordinaffe. Vrbit A- 
 hxatidrincrum Anianus pmus a Marco E^angelijla ordinatus eft, 
 Jecundus n:ero A-vilii:s a Luca, et ipfi E-vangelifta. Grabe ibid, 
 
 (r) Et fi Conftitutionum Apoflolicarum feu auflori feu^ 
 confarcinatori tdesj in ecclefia Alexandria, a Marco pri- . 
 
 Vol, I. * T mum 
 
274 
 
 St. Luke. Ch.VIII. 
 
 like manner quotes the Conftitutians, after 
 Grahcj though almoft afhamed fo to do. 
 
 But it Should be confidred, that the au- 
 thor of that work is anonymous, and un- 
 known, and his time not certain. He fays 
 what he pleafeth. And has been convided 
 of fahhood in fuch accounts (s) as thefe, as 
 well as in others. It ha« very much the 
 appearance of fidion, that the firfl Bifhop of 
 Alexandria fhould be ordained by Mark^ 
 and the fecond by huke. And poffibly it is 
 a fidlion of the writer himfelf. For I do not 
 recoiled:, that this is faid any where elfe. £- 
 piphanius, as well as more ancient writers, 
 muft have been totally unacquainted with this 
 ordination, and with St. Luke\ journeys in 
 Eg)pt. For he fays, that (t) this Evangelift 
 preached the gofpel in Dalmatia^ Gaul^ Ita- 
 iiCi and Macedonia^ but efpecially in GaiiL 
 
 Du Fin having taken notice of what is 
 faid relating to this matter in the infcriptions, 
 which are in Tome manufcripts, the titles in 
 the Syriac and Perf.c verfions, Metaphrajies^ 
 and the Conftitutions, concludes : *' All (u) 
 
 " thefe 
 
 mum fundata, . . . Avilium Aniani prima Epifcopi fucceflb- 
 xem, ordinaverit. Mill. Prol.n. 141. 
 , (s) See in this nvork 'vol. 'viii. p- ^^Z. 
 
 (t) Haer. L. i. ?ium. x/. ^. 433. « 
 
 (u) Dijj'erta, fur la Bible, li'v. 2, ch. 2, §. v. p. 39. 
 
(C 
 
 Ch. Vill. S/. Luke. 27^* 
 
 " thefe monuments deferve no credit. We 
 " ought to adhere to what is laid by Jtrome, 
 
 as moft probable : that this , Gofpel was 
 
 compofed in u^chaia^ or Boeotia'* 
 
 Upon the whole, there appears not any 
 good reafon to fay, that St. Luke wrote his 
 Gofpel at Alexandria^ or that he preached at 
 all in Egypt. It is more probable, that when 
 he left Patdy he went into Greece, and there 
 compofed, or finiflied, and publifhed his 
 Gofpel, and the Ads of the Apoftles. 
 
 VII. I would now offer fomething by H-.s chai 
 way of charader of this Evangelift, But I "^'^^''* 
 fliall do it briefly, and cautioufly. And if I 
 mention doi^btful things doubtfully, I may 
 hope to efcape cenfure. It is probable, that 
 he is Lucius^ mentioned Rom. xvi. 21. .If 
 fo, he was related to St. Paul the Apoftle. 
 And it is not unlikely, that that Lucius is 
 the fame as Lucius of Cyrrne, mentioned by 
 name. Ads xiii. i. and in general with 
 others, ch. xi. 20. It appears to me very 
 probable, that St. Luke was a Jew by birth, 
 and an early Jewifli believer. This mufl be 
 reckoned to be a kind of requifite qualifi- 
 cation for writing a hiftorie of Chrift and 
 the early preaching of his Apoftles to ad- 
 
 T 2 vantage,'' 
 
276 tt.Luke. Ch. VllL 
 
 vantage. Which, certainly, St. Luke \\2.^ 
 performed. I do not perceive fufScient rea- 
 Ibn to believe, that Ijuke vi^as one of Chrift's 
 feventy difciples. But he may have been 
 one of the two, whom our Lord met in 
 the way to EmmauSj on the day of his re- 
 furredlion,'as related Luke xxiv. 13 . .35. 
 He is expreflly ftiled by the Apoftle bis fel- 
 low-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. If he be the 
 perfon intended Col. iv. 14. (which feems 
 very probable,) he was, or had been, by 
 profeffion a Phyfician. And he was greatly 
 valued by the Apoftle, who calls him beloved. 
 Which muH: be reckoned much to his ho- 
 nour. For nothing could be fo likely to re- 
 commend any man to St. Pmih ePteem, as 
 faithfulnefie to the interefls of pure religion. 
 It is undoubted, that he accompanied Paul, 
 when he firft went into Macedonia. Ads xvi. 
 8 . . . 40. And though we are not fallv af- 
 fured, that he continued to be with him, 
 confiantly afterwards : Vv'e know, that he 
 went with the Apoftle from Greece through 
 Macedp?iiaj and Afia, to Jerufaiem, and 
 thence to Rome, vvhere he ilaved with him 
 the whole two years of his imprifonment in 
 that city. This alone makes out the fpace 
 
 . of 
 
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke. 
 
 of above five years. And it is an attenflence 
 well becoming Lucius of Cyrene : to which 
 no man could be more readily difpofed, than 
 one of the iirft preachers of the gofpel to 
 the Gentils. We do not exa6tly know, 
 when St. Ltde formed the defign of writing 
 his two books. But, probably, they are 
 the labour of feveral years. During St. 
 Paul's imprifonment in JuJea, which lafted 
 more than two years, and was a time of in- 
 adion for the Apoflle, St. Luke had an op- 
 portunity for compleating his colledions, and 
 filling up his plan. For in that time un- 
 queftionably Luke converfed with many 
 early Jewilli believers, and eye-witnefTes of 
 the Lord, and fome of the Apoftles, who 
 were flill at Jerufalem, And I make no 
 doubt, but that before that feafon he had 
 converfed with feveral of the Apoftles, and 
 other eye-witnefles of our Lord's perfon and 
 works. Nor can any hefitate to allow the 
 truth of what is faid by fome of the an- 
 cients, that Lukey who for the moft part 
 v/as a companion of Paul^ had likevvife 
 .more than a flight acquaintance with the 
 reft of the Apoftles. V/hilft he was with 
 Paul at RomCy it is likely, that he had fome 
 
 T 3 lei fare 
 
 ^77 
 
278 ' St, Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 leifure for compofing, and writing. When 
 St. Faiil left Rcme^ I imagine, that Luke ac- 
 companied him no longer : but went into 
 Greece^ where he finiflied, and publiflied, 
 one after the other, his two books. Which 
 he infcribed to 'Theophilus^ an honorable 
 friend, and a good Chriflian in that countrey. 
 Here Luke died, and, perhaps fomewhat in 
 years. Nor need it to be reckoned an impro- 
 bable fuppofition, that he was older than the 
 Apoftle. 
 Ohfer-ta. VIII. I (hall concludc this chapter with 
 tionsupon fomc obfcrvations upon St. Luke\ Gofpel, 
 and the Ads of the Apoftles. But thofe 
 upon his Gofpel will chiefly relate to the 
 introdudion : though fome were mentioned 
 formerly. 
 
 I. St. Luke's two books, his Gofpel and 
 the Ads, are infcribed to T^heophilus. Where- 
 by fome underftand any good Chriftian in 
 general, others a particular perfon. 
 
 Epiphanius (x) fpeaks as if he was in 
 doubt, whether thereby fhould be under- 
 flood a particular perfon, or a lover of God 
 
 in 
 
 (x) *Eit' 8U rm ho(piKa) toTJ yfOKpuv T~TO iMyiV, » 
 cravT/ au9fWT«' 0£ov ayocTruvrii Epiph. Haer. LI. n, «v«, 
 ^, 429. A, 
 
Ch. VIIT. Sf, Luke. 
 
 in general. Salvian (y) feems to have fup- 
 pofcd it to be only a feigned name. 
 
 Augujlin (zj and Cbryfojiom (a), and many 
 others, have thereby underftood a real per- 
 fon. T^heophyladl expreffeth himfelf after 
 this manner : " Theophilus (b) to whom 
 " Luke wrote, was a man of fenatorian rank, 
 " and poffibly a Governour : forafmuch as 
 *' he calls him mojl excellent^ the fame tide, 
 *' which Faul ufeth in his addreifes to Fe- 
 ** lix and Feftus" Oecumenius fays, " that 
 (c) Theophilus was a Prefecl or Governour." 
 However, we have no particular account in 
 the ancients, who he was, or of what coun- 
 trey. 
 
 Cave (d) fuppofed 'Theophilus to have been 
 T 4 a Noble- 
 
 (y) Pofitus itaque in hoc ambiguae opinionis incerto, 
 optimum fere credidit, ut bead Evangeliftae facratiffimum 
 fequeretur exemplum : qui in utroque divini operis exordio 
 Theophili nomen infcribens, cum ad hominem fcripfifle 
 videatur, ad amorem Dei fcripfit : hoc fcilicet digniffimum 
 effe judicans, ut ad ipfum afFeftum Dei fcripta dirigeret, a 
 quo ad fcribendum impulfus efTet. Salvian, ad Salon, ep. 9, 
 p. 215. 
 
 (z) De Confenf. E'van. I. 4. c. S.T. 3. 
 
 fa) Chryf. in Acl. Horn, i. 7". <).p. 3. 4. 
 
 (b) See Vol. xi p. 423. 
 
 (c) 'Kyzyicdit m Ivroi flj&tp/Xof. &c. Cm»i^ i» ^^* 7", 
 2. p. 2. C, 
 
 (d) Utrumque opus infcripfif Theophilo optimati, (ut cre- 
 dere fas eft,) Antiocheno. Hijh Lit. in Luca* 
 
 279 
 
28o Si. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 a Nobleman o( Antioch. And In his Lives 
 cf the Apoftles and EvangeHfts (e) writ in 
 Engliih, he refers to the Recognitions : 
 where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch, 
 of this name. But I do not efteem that to 
 be any proof, that St. Lukes Jhecphilus was 
 of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not 
 fpeaking of Faiil^ nor o^ Luke, but of Peter : 
 who, as he fays, in (f) feven days converted 
 ten thoufand people at Antioch. And Theo- 
 phihis, the greatefi: man in the city, turned 
 his houfe into a church. Moreover, fup- 
 pofing him to intend St. Luke's T^heophilus^ 
 his authority is of no value. A writer at 
 the end of the fecond centurie does not 
 fpeak of his own knowledge. And if St. 
 Luke publifhed his books in Greece, which 
 to me feems probable, I fliould be in- 
 clined to think, that Theophilus, to whom 
 they are addreffed, was a man of the fame 
 ccuntrey. 
 
 2. It 
 
 (e) P. 224. 
 
 (fj Et ne multis immorcr, intra feptem dies, plus quam 
 decern millia hominum credentes Deo baptizati funt, et 
 fiindificatione confecrati : ita ut omni aviditatis defiderio 
 Theophilus, qui erat cundis potentibus in civJtate fublimior, 
 domus fuae ingentem bafilicam, ecclefiae nomine confecravit. 
 Js.(co^}2. 1. X, cap. 71, 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke, 28 1 
 
 2. It may be of more importance to in- 
 quire, whom St. Luke means by the man)\ 
 who before him had attempted to write hif- 
 tories of Jefus Chrift. Epiphanius fays, that 
 (g) St. Luke intencied Ctrinthiis^ Mermthiis, 
 and others. Flow Origen (h) exprefTed him- 
 felf concerning this, in his preface to St. 
 Luke's Gofpel : and how 'Jerome (i) in his 
 preface to St. Matthew, may be feen by thofe, 
 who are pleafed to look back. They fay, 
 that many attempted to write Gofpels, as 
 Bafilides, Apellesy and others. And they 
 mention divers Gofpels, not received by the 
 Church : Such as the Gofpel of 'Thomas, and 
 Matthias, the Gofpels of the Egyptians, and 
 of the Twelve. But it is not necefTarie to be 
 fuppofed by us, that they thought, that all, 
 if any, of thofe Gofpels were writ before 
 St. Luke's, or that he fpoke of them. For 
 Bafilides and Apelles could not write Gofpels 
 before the fecond centurie. And they might 
 fuppofe, that feveral, if not all the other, 
 mentioned by them, were writ after St. 
 
 Luke's, ■ 
 
 (g) . . p:/V;'.&'v l-rreiS^nTZ^ ttoXXoi l^s'x^&ifnira.v' m nvii 
 
 6.iv> K) ly.i tfAAKf. H. LI. 71. wi. in, 
 (h) See Vol. in. p. 317. 318. 
 (i) See Vol. X. p. i-|0. 141, 
 
282 6"/. Luke, Ch. VIII. 
 
 Lith\. The meaning of what thefe an- 
 cient writers fay, is, that the Church re- 
 ceives four Gofpels only. There were many 
 others. But to them may be applied the 
 words of St. Luke : they only took in hand^ 
 or attempted. They did not perform, as 
 Matthew^ and Mark^ and Luke^ and 'John 
 did. And they might exprefs themfelves in 
 that manner concerning Gofpels writ after 
 St. Luke's, as well as before it. 
 
 However, T^heophylaSl , as was formerly 
 (k) obferved, in the preface to his Com- 
 mentarie upon St. Luke^ exprefleth himfelf, 
 as if he thought, the Evangeliil: referred to 
 the Gofpels according to the Egyptians, and 
 according to the 'T'welve. 
 
 3. We will now obferve the judgements 
 of fome learned moderns. Grabe (i) allows, 
 that St. Luke did not refer to the Gofpels of 
 
 Baji- 
 
 (k) Vol.xi.p. 422. 
 
 (i) Reliqua quippe ab Origene et Ambrofio nominata 
 falfa Evangelia, veluti Bafilidis, aliudque Manichaeorum, 
 Apoilolo Thomae perperam adfcriptunij procul omni dubio 
 poft S. Lucae obitum prodiere : adeo ut ea in primis Evan- 
 gelii verbis, in quorum explicatione Origenes et Ambrofius 
 ifta afFerunt, refpicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud ell 
 abfiraile, ifta fecundum Hebraeos et Aegyptios ante fuifle 
 fcripta, atque ad ea, una cum aliis pluribus jam ignotis, Lu- 
 cam intendiffg digitum, dum praefutus clh ^C. Gr. Spc, ?". 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 283 
 
 Bafilides, or 7howas, or fome others, men- 
 tioned by Origen. For they were not pub- 
 li(hed, till after St. Luke's death. But he 
 thinks, that St. Luke might refer to the 
 Gofpels according to the Egyptians^ and ac- 
 cording to the Twelve J and fome others, 
 now unknown. 
 
 That St. Luke might refer to the Gofpel 
 according to the Egyptm?2S, be thinks for the 
 following reafons, which I fiiall confider. 
 
 The firft is, that fk) St. Luke's Gofpel was 
 writ in Egypt. To which I anfwer : That 
 is faid without ground, as has been lately (i) 
 fhewn. 
 
 Grabe's fecond argument is, that (m) Cle- 
 ment of Rome^ or fome other, in the frag- 
 ment of the fecond epiftle afcribed to him, 
 has quoted the Gofpel according to the 
 
 Egyptians. 
 
 (k) Evangelium, de quo agitur, ab Aegyptlis editum fu- 
 ifTe ante Lucae Evangelivim,*huncque iftud inter alia, fi non ^ 
 
 praecipue, refpexifle, dum in prooemio plures hiftorias evan- 
 gelicas memorat, ad quas emendandas, et defeftus eorum 
 fupplendos, fuam literis confignafTe fe innuit, probabile red- 
 ditur ex eo, quod Lucas Evangelium fcripfifle dicatur Alex-, 
 andriae in Aegypto. Id. ib. />• 33. /«• 
 
 (I) See before />. 273 . . 277. 
 
 (tn) Accedit, quod jam Clemens Romanus, vel quifquis eft 
 auilor ep. 2. ad Corinthios, certe antiquiflimus, ifto Evan- 
 gelic ufus tjl^ ex fragmento mox rcckando, colligatur, Ilii!. 
 t' 34- 
 
2^4 Sf. Luh. Ch. VIIJ, 
 
 Egyptians, Which argument, as one would 
 think, might have been fpared : iince Grabe 
 himfelf allows, that (n) fecond cpiflle to be 
 iupporitiouG, and not to have been compofed, 
 till about the midle of the third centurie. 
 If that be the true date of the epiftle, it is 
 too late a thing, to warrant the fuppcfition, 
 that St. Luke referred to the GofpJ, accord- 
 ing to the Egyptia?is. 
 
 I fliall ' take no farther notice of Grahe. 
 But I imagine, that the Gofpel according to 
 the Egyptians was not compofed before the 
 fecond centurie. Clement of Alexandria is 
 the fiiil known Catholic author, that has 
 cited it. And in his tim.e it was very ob- 
 fcure and little known. This (o) was fhewn 
 formerly. 
 
 Dr. Mil/ does not much differ fi'om Grabc. 
 He thinks, that (p) of the many Narrations, 
 to which. St. Luke re.^ers, the two principal 
 
 were 
 
 (n) Ceterum quaeras, quando epifiola ilia Clement! fup- 
 pofita faerat, refpondeo, id feculo iii, et quidem medio, fac- 
 tum efle. Ih. p. 269. i?2. 
 
 (o)'See Vol.ii.p. 527 . . . z^-ijO. feand edition. /. 526 . . 
 529. Jii-Ji edition, 
 ' (p) Ex ditSlis autem hifce hiftoriolis . . duae prae ceteris 
 
 cekLratae erant, quae et ipfae Exangelia appellabantur, 
 fecimdiim Hebraeos alterum, alterum Secundum Aegyptios^ 
 ^roleg, n. 38. i}id. et n. 39 . . • 41 ■ ^/ '^' 1 1 -. ^■3'ft . 
 
 { 
 
Ch. Vlil. St. Luke. 2S5 
 
 were the Gofpels according to the Hebrews, 
 and according to the Egyptians,. 
 
 The general account, which Mill gives of 
 thofe Memoirs or Narrations, Teems to be 
 very jufl: and reafonable. And I intend 
 to tranfcribe him here largely. " About 
 *' (q) the year 58. or fomewhat fooner, 
 " fays Mi'li vvere compofed by fome of the 
 
 *•' faithful 
 
 (q) Sub hoc quidem tempus, annum dico LVIII. fea 
 etiani aliquamo ante, contextae fuere a fidelibus quibuf- 
 dam illius aevi iaym&a evangelicae, feu hiftoriolae de 
 rebus Chrifti. Patet hoc ex Evangelii D. Lucae prooe- 
 mio : . . . Eiinde colligimus, in primis equidem, toAAm? 
 hofce, qui hiftoriolas conficiebant, alios prorfus effe ab 
 Evangeliftis noftris, ?v/Iatthaeo et Marco. Erat enim Mat- 
 thaeus unus ex avToirTuti, ideoque neque ab iftorum tra- 
 diiionibus pendebat, ficut hi quos memorat Lucas. Ne 
 dicam, quod duos duntaxat nemo 'sroAAaj dixerit. Deinde 
 vero notandum, eos narrationes fuas inftituifTe T«p< ray 
 'TTi'jKvi^oipo^y^lAvav kv Cfxlv 'TTfxyixa.Tuv, hoc eft, ut ego lu- 
 bens interpretor, de rebus apud primos fidei profej/hres, quorum 
 numero feipfum accenfet Lucas, a Chrifto impktis five geftis. 
 Denique liquet ex verbis modo xitatis, tradudlas fuiile na- 
 ratiunculas iftas feu proxime, feu mediate faltem, ab A- 
 poftolis ipfis, eorumque in opere evangelico adjutoribus. 
 Manifeftum eft igitur, fuiffe e primis Chriftianis nonnullcs 
 qui ante Lucam, [addo etiam Matthuaem et Marcum,] 
 res Chrifti, (feu Evangeha,) ex apoftoHcis traditionibus un- 
 decunque acceptis, confcripfcrant : idque non ftudio aliquo 
 maligno, feu haeretico, quod infmuant fere qui in hoc 
 Lucae prooemium commentati funt : fed eodem plane fine, 
 quo Evangelirtae noftri : ut haberet fcilicet Ecclefia rerum 
 
 a Domino 
 
cc 
 
 286 St, Luke. ' Ch.VIII. 
 
 ** faithful Evangelical Narrations, or fliort 
 " hiftories of Chrift. This appears ' from 
 *' St. Lukes introdudlion to his Gofpel. 
 *' From which we learn, in the firft place, 
 " that they were not our Evangelifls, Mat- 
 " thew and Mark. For Matthew was an 
 '* eye-witnefTe. Nor can two be called 
 " maJiy, In the next place, it is to be ob- 
 *' ferved, that thefe Narrations confided of 
 *' things mojl fiirely believed among us, that 
 ** is, as I underftand it, of the things fid[iiled 
 and done by Chrift among the fir ft profejfors of 
 the faith : of which number Luke reckons 
 *' himfelf. Laftly^ from the words of that 
 " introdudion it appears, that thofe Nar- 
 " rations were received eidier from the A- 
 " poftles themfelves, or from their affiftants 
 " in the work of the gofpel. It is there- 
 
 " fore 
 
 a Domino iioflro geflarum qualem qualem notitiam. Ceterum 
 cum in iis quae fequuntur apud Lucam, fingula Chriftianae 
 rei hiftoriam fpedantia accurate fe aflecutum eKt dicat 
 Evangelifta . . . baud obfcure quidem hinc colligi videtur, 
 ticv 'zsQKXm iftorum S'tY^ynaaq minus accuratas fuifle, mi- 
 Eufque pcrfedlas : ita quidem, ut in his, quae tradiderant, 
 aliqua hinc inde occurrerint parum certa, ne dicam a vero 
 aberrantia. Unde omnino vifum fit ipfi plenariam hif- 
 tofiaehujus cognitionem confecuto, integrum jam et luculen- 
 tum rerum a Chriflo geftarum Commentarium fcribere. Mill, 
 Prolog, mm. 35 . . 37. 
 
 A 
 
Ch. VIII. Sl Luke, 287 
 
 " fore manifeft, that there were fome of 
 
 " the firft Chriftians, who before Luke^ 
 
 " (and alfo, as we may fuppofe, before 
 
 " Matthew and Mark^) wrote hiftories of 
 
 *« the things done by Chrift, and received 
 
 ** from apoftoHcal traditions : and that not 
 
 " with a bad, or heretical defign, as many 
 
 *' infinuate, who comment upon this intro- 
 
 " dudtion of St. Lttkey but with the^ fame 
 
 " defign, as our Evangelifts : that Chriftians 
 
 " might have at left fome account in wri- 
 
 ** ting of the Lord's adions. Neverthelefs 
 
 " it may be alfo inferred from what St. Luke 
 
 ** here fays, that their hiftories were inac- 
 
 *' curate, and imperfecTt : there were in them 
 
 " fome things not certain, or well attefted, 
 
 ** and poflibly, here and there,, fome mif- 
 
 " takes. For which caufe it feemed good 
 
 " to hioi, who had attained to full infor- 
 
 " mation, to write a compleat and copious 
 
 " hiilorie of the things done by Chrift." 
 
 If this account be right, fome confequences 
 may be deduced, which will be of ufe to us. 
 
 And indeed, it feeras to me to be very 
 right. There were feveral hiftories of Chrift, 
 to which St. Luke here refers. They were 
 compofed with a good view, like to that of 
 
 our 
 
288 ^ . St. Luke, Ch.VIir. 
 
 our Evangellfts. But they were defedive, 
 
 • and inaccurate. If there were any mifi^kes, 
 I would imaeine, that thev were not nu- 
 merous, nor in things of the greatell: im- 
 portance. Nor were the writers fufEciently 
 qualified for the work, which they had un- 
 dertaken. This, I think, to be intimated by 
 St. Luke^ though modellly, and without cen- 
 forioufneffe, in what he fays of himfelf, thi:t 
 he had pcrjeSl underjlanding of all things from 
 the 'very jirft. Which, probably, could not 
 be faid of the compofers of the Narrations, 
 to which he refers. They were men, who 
 had an honefl: zeal. But they had^writtoo 
 haftily, before they had obtained full in- 
 
 ^ formation. For which reafon their hiftories 
 could not anfwer the end aimed at. 
 
 Thefe things being allowed to be right, 
 feveral confequences may be deduced by us. 
 In the jirjt place, and in particular, we 
 hence learn, that the Gofpel according to 
 the Tivelvej or according to the Hebrews, 
 was not one of thofe Narrations, or Me- 
 moirs, to which St. Luke refers. For thefe 
 
 ' were very fhort hiftories : [hijloriolae as Mi/I 
 calls them :] that was a full Gofpel, or large 
 hiilorie of Jefus Chrift. Many, in Jerome's 
 time, fuppofed it to be -the authentic Gofpel 
 
 of 
 
Ch.VIII. St. Luke. 289 
 
 of St. Matthew: which, certainly, is not a 
 fliort and imperfcd: " Memoir. From the 
 notice taken of that Gofpel by feveral an- 
 cient writers, efpecialiy by yerome^ it ap- 
 pears to me very probable, (and I fhouid 
 think, muft: appear very probable to others 
 likewife,) that the Gofpel according to the 
 Twelve^ or according to the Hebrews, either 
 was St. Matthew?, original Hebrew Gofpel, 
 with a(]ditIons : or his original Greek Gofpel, 
 tranilated into Hebrew^ with additions. Bat 
 this laft feems to me mod likely, as has been, 
 often faid already upon divers occafions. 
 
 Seccridly. Another thing to be deduced 
 from Mill's account, if right, is, that (e) 
 the Gofpel according to the Egyptians was 
 cot one of the Narrations, to which St. Luke 
 refers. For that Gofpel w^s not compofed - 
 upon the fame principles with thofe of our 
 Evangeliils. It w^as an heretical Gofpel, as 
 
 (h^ I am not fingular in fuppofing, that the Gofpel accord- 
 ing to the Eojpiians is not intended by St. L^/ie. Btza fay3 
 the fame ftrongly. And, as I imagine, he jnfily afTertSj it 
 not to have been writ, till at'ter St. Z^^^'s Gofpel. Quod 
 iilos ait Lucas, non fatis commode pracftitifle : minime ta- 
 men opinor, fubulofas, imo etiam impias narrationes intelli- 
 gens, tandem Ecclefiae fub Nicodemi, Nazaraeorum, Tho- 
 vnae, Aegyptlorumjnominibus irapudentiiTime ttbtrufas. Bez, 
 ad Imc. cap, i. 'ver. I . 
 
 Vol. I. «- U 
 
 ap- 
 
90 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 appears from the fragments of it, colleded 
 by Grabe^ ^iid (r) probably, it was compofed 
 in the fecond centuric, bv Tome Rncratites, 
 
 enemies of marriage. 
 
 Thirdly. I add one thing more, whether 
 it be a confequence from what has been al- 
 ready faid, or not : that- nothing remains of 
 the Narrations, to which St. Liike refers, not 
 •fo much as any fragments, they not being 
 quoted in any Chridian writings, now ex- 
 iiant. 
 
 3. I flsall now tranfcribe a part of Dr. 
 Doddridge s remarks upon St. Luke's intro- 
 dudion. " This (s) muft refer to fome 
 ** hiftories of the life of Chrift, now loft. 
 *^ For Matthew and Mark, the only Evan- 
 " gelifts that can be fuppofed to have writ- 
 *' ten before Luke, could not with any pro- 
 ** priety be called many. And of thefe 
 *' two, Matthew at left wrote from per- 
 " fonal knowledge, not from the tefli- 
 " monie of others. I conclude, that the 
 ** books referred to are loft : as I am well 
 •' fatisfied, that none of the apocryphal 
 ** Gofpels, now extant, publiihed, parti - 
 
 " cularly i| 
 
 (r) VU. Grahe Spic. 7*. z. />. 3 1 . . . 37. 
 (i) See hii Famiij-Exfojitor, Vsl, i. p, \, 
 
Ch. VII[. Sf. Luke. 
 
 " cwlirly, by Fabriciiis, and '^ones, can pre- 
 *' tend to equal antiquity, with this of St. 
 *' Luke. ... And St. Luke feems to allow 
 ** thefe hillories, whatever they were, to 
 " have been honeflly written, according 
 *' to information received from capable 
 *' judges." 
 
 4, Mr. Beaufobre, fpeaking of thefe Me* 
 moirs, fays : " The (t) life of our Saviour 
 " was fo beautiful, his character fo fublime 
 " and divine, his dodrine fo excellent, and 
 '' the miracles, by which he confirmed it, 
 ** were f^ (hining, and fo numerous, that 
 " it was impoffible, but many lliould under- 
 " take to write Memoirs of them. This 
 " produced many hidories of our Saviour, 
 ** fome more, others icfs exad. It is great 
 *' pity, that they are loft. For we tuight 
 " have confulted them, and could have 
 "judged for ourfelves concerning the cha- 
 *' rader of the writers, and their compo- 
 " Tition. St, Luke^ who fpeaks of Narra- 
 " tions, or Gofpels, that had preceded his 
 *' own, intimates indeed, that they were 
 ^* defcdive, but he does not condemn them, 
 *' as fabulous, or bad." 
 
 U 2 5. That 
 
 (t) H!J}, de Manich. Tmi. /. p, 449. 
 
 291 
 
292 St. Luke. Ch.VIIL 
 
 5. That Is right. Thofe Memoirs were 
 not bad, nor fabulous. But they were im- 
 perfecft, as I apprehend, to a great degree. 
 Nor do I lament the lofTe of them. I can 
 pay fo much deference to the judgement of 
 Chriflian Antiquity, efpecially, the earlieft 
 of all, as to believe, that thofe J7'ia72y Nar- 
 rations, to which St. Luke refers, did not 
 deferve to be preferved, or to be much ta- 
 ken notice of, after the publication of the 
 Gofpels of our firfl three Evangelifts. I 
 imagine, that when once thefe came abroad, 
 the former appeared to the faithful fo low, 
 and mean, and defeftive, that they could 
 not bear to fee, or read them. 
 Ohfei-nja- IX. I fhsll HOW make fome obfervations 
 tl"\o7k"f upon the other work of our Evangelifl:. 
 the Ms. J ^ "YhQ book of the Ads was writ, ac- 
 
 cording to (u) Mill, in the year 64. And 
 from what has been argued by us in feveral 
 places that mufl appear to be as likely a 
 time, as any. It could not be writ, till 
 after St. Paul's confinement at Rome was 
 come to a period. I fuppofe, it to have 
 ended in the former part of the year of 
 
 Chrift 
 
 (uj Prolegom. num. 1 21. 
 
Ch. VIIL Sf. Luke, 
 
 Chrift 63. And I think it probable, that 
 St. Luke linifhed this book the fame, or the 
 next year, either at Kome^ or in Greece. 
 
 2. It cannot be difagreeable to recollect 
 here fome of the obfervations of ancient wri- 
 ters upon this book, the only book of the 
 kind, which v/e have, containinoj a hiftorie of 
 the preaching of Chrift's ApolUes after his 
 refurredlion. 
 
 3. Terttillian (x) often fpeaks of the im- 
 portance of this book, as lliewing Chrift's 
 fulfilment of the promife of the Holy Ghofl: 
 to his difciples. 
 
 4. " The (y) Afis of the Apoftles, fays 
 " "Jerome J in his letter to Faulinus^ concern- 
 " ing the ftudie of the Scriptures, feems to 
 " promife a bdre hiftorie, and an account of 
 *' the early infance of the Church : but if 
 *' we confider, that the writer is hiike the 
 *' Phyfician, we (hall at the fame time dif- 
 " cern, that every word is fuited to heal the 
 *' maladies of the foul/' 
 
 U 3 5. Says 
 
 (x) See Vol. a. p. 588. . . 590. or p. 587. . . 589. 
 
 (y) Adus Apoftolorum nudam quidem fonare videntiir 
 hiftoriam, et nafcentis Ecclefiae infantiam texere. Scd li 
 noverimus, fcriptorem eorum Lucam efte Medicum, cujiis 
 laus eft in evangelio, arrimadvertemus pariter, omnia verba 
 illius animae languentis efle msdicinam. J^ Paulin. ep. ro» 
 al. 103. 7. 4. P. 2. p. 574. 
 
 293 
 
294 
 
 St. Luke. , * Cb. VIII. 
 
 5. Says Augufiln : ^^ Luke(z) after having 
 " writ a Gofpel, containing a hillorie of 
 " Chrift's words and works to the time of 
 " his refurredion and afcenfion, wrote fuch 
 " an account of the A6ts of the Apoftlcs, as 
 «' he judged to be fufficient for the edifi« 
 *< cation of believers. And it is the only 
 *' hiftorie of the Apoftles, which has been 
 *' received by the Church : all other having 
 *' been rejeded, as not to be relied upon.'' 
 
 6. I beg leave to refer my readers to the 
 paiTages cAChryfoJlom^ already [a) tranfcribed, 
 relating to this book : and to the whole of 
 his firft homilie upon it. I add now only 
 one pafiage niore out of the fame homilie. 
 '' The (b) Gofpelsj fays he, are the hif- 
 *' torie of the things, which Chrift did, and 
 " fpake. The xAds the hiftorie of the 
 " things, which another Paraclet fpake and 
 " did." 
 
 7. It is not needful for me to make a 
 diftindl enumeration of the things contain- 
 ed in this book. Every one who has 
 
 perufed 
 
 (2) See Vol. X. p. 237. 238. 
 
 {a) See Vol. x.p. 323. . . 330. 
 
 [b] To. /jAv Kf kvuyyiXicc h-v ^f '5-&? liroimiv i^ U'ttiv iTopioi 
 
 Ja Act. kxtm. i, Tom, 9. p. 9. B* 
 
Ch. Viir. « Sf. Luke, 
 perufed it with care, cannot but know, that 
 it contains an account of the choice of Mat' 
 thias to be Apoftle in the room of the traitor, 
 of the wonderful and plentiful pouring out 
 of the gift of ihe Holy Gholl: upon the A- 
 potlles, and other difciples of Jefus at Jeru- 
 falem, at the Pentecofl: next fucceding his 
 crucifixion, and of the teftimoniebore by the 
 Apoftles to his refurredtion and afcenfioii in. 
 their difcourfes, and by many miracles, and 
 various fufferings : their preaching firft at 
 Jerufalem, and in Judea, and afterwards by 
 themfelves, or their affirtants, in Samaria : 
 and then to Gentils in Judea, and afterwards 
 out of it, as well as to Jews : and of the con- 
 verfion of Paid, and his preaching, miracles, 
 labours, fufferings, in many cities andcoun- 
 treys, parts of the Roman Empire, and the 
 polite world, and at length in Rofiie itfelf. 
 
 8. If we were to indulge ourfelves in ma- 
 king remarks upon this ufeful and excellent 
 performance, nothing, perhaps, would be 
 more obfervable, than it's brevity and con- 
 cifeneffe : by which means many things muil 
 have been omitted, which happened during 
 the period oif that hiftorie. For it is very true, 
 which Chryfoflom faid, that [c) Luke leaves us 
 thirfting for more. 9. Says 
 
 (c) Vol. AT. />, 327. u 4 
 
 295 
 
296 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 9 Says Le Clerc : *' Lio^-ie's (d) Apoftoli- 
 •' Cell Hiftorie relates the beginings of' the 
 *' preaching of the Gofpel among Jews and 
 " Gentils, chiefly by the miniflrie of Peter 
 *' and Paul. P"or of the other Apoftles he 
 ^* is almoil: entirely filent. . . I wi(h, fays he, 
 *' that fome other apoftolical man, of like 
 *' judgement and integrity, had writ the hif- 
 *' torie of the other Apoflles, and had under- 
 ** taken to fuppiy what was wanting in Luke's 
 ** hillorie,and that this work had come down 
 '' to us." Bat, however dcfirable it may 
 now appear to us, we cannot perceive from 
 ecclefiallical hiilorie, that ever fach a work 
 was publiflicd. 
 
 10. E/Iius imagined, " that (e) Luke, pof- 
 *' fiblv, intended to write a third book, to 
 
 «' fupply, 
 
 (d) Flic vero cefmit Lucae Hiftoria Apoftolica, qua initia 
 praedicationis evangelicae apud Judaeos^ Ethnicofque, et mj- 
 nillerio quidem Petri et Pauli potiffimum fcribere adgrefius 
 fell, De ceteris Apoftolis altum ubique apud eum eft filen- 
 tium. . . Utinam vero, vir quifpiam apoftolicus, pari judicio 
 et iide, celerorum res gefias literis mandaffet, quae narratio- 
 ni Lucjie defunt fuppkre voIuifTet, idque opus ad nos perve- 
 millet ! Cler. H. E. An. 61. n. i'u. 
 
 (e) Sed proculdubio multa aciorum Pauli a Luca funt 43- 
 jDiffa. ... Ac fortafle Lucas meditabatur tertium librum, in 
 quo repeteret ada illius biennii . . ficut Aft. i. quaedam expo- 
 fait tacita ukimo capite Evangelii, EJi, ad A61. A^. xx^jiii. 30, 
 
Ch. VIIT. St. Luke. 
 
 " furply, particularly, the omifTions of the 
 " two years, which St. Paid fpent at KomeT 
 But i verily believe, there is no ground at all 
 for that conje6lural fuppofition. 
 
 11. Again: Le Chrc^ above mentioned, 
 thinks, " that (f) Luke breaks off the hif- 
 torie of St. Peter, of whom he had faid To 
 much before, very abruptly, in thofe words, 
 Ad:s xii. 17. And he departed, and went to 
 another place.'' Nevenhejefs St. Luke after- 
 wards drops St. Barnabas in a like manner, 
 ch. XV. 39. And in the end he will take his 
 leave of the Apoftle Paid himfelf without 
 much more ceremonie. 
 
 12. Thofe omiffions are no reflexion upon 
 the writer, nor any difparagement to his hif- 
 torie. The proper deduction to be made by 
 us is this : We hereby perceive, that it was 
 not the defign of St. Luke, to aggrandize Pe- 
 ter, or Paul, or any of the Apoftles, nor to 
 write their lives : but to record the evidences 
 of our Saviour's refurredlion, and to write a 
 hiftorie of the firft preaching and planting 
 the Chriftian Religion in the world. This 
 
 delign 
 
 (f) Mirum eft, Lucam, poftquam liberationem Petri e car- 
 cere narravit cap. xii. 1 7. eumquc in nliu7H locum, hoc eft, ex- 
 tra lerofolymam, ivifle dixit, no verbulum quidem de eo 
 Jiabcre, de <^uo tarn multa alia dixerat. Id. ibid. < 
 
 297 
 
298 St, Luke. Ch, VJII. 
 
 defign he has admirably executed. And ha- 
 ving filled up his plan, he concluded. 
 
 13. However, undoubtedly, many things 
 are omitted by St. Luke. Some of which we 
 may learn from St. Pants epiftles. I fliall 
 cbferve fome omiffions. 
 
 14. St. Z/Z^y^d'has not in the courfe of his 
 hiftorie, mentioned the writing of any of St. 
 Paul's epiftles. It is probable, that he was 
 at Corifithj when the Apoftle wrote thence 
 his large epiftle to the Ro'Ka?is. Neverthe- 
 lefs he takes not any notice of it, nor of the 
 epiilles writ by St. Paul at Rome, when he 
 certainly was with him, nor indeed of any 
 other. By comparing the epiftles themfelves, 
 and St. Luke's hiftorie of the Apoftle in the 
 A6ls, we are enabled to trace the time and 
 place of divers of thofe epiftles. But they 
 are no where particularly mentioned by the 
 hiftorian. 
 
 ^15. In Ads ix. 19. . . 26. St. Luke^ after 
 the account of St. Paul's converfion, fpeaks 
 of his being at Dauwfcus, and his preaching 
 there, and of the oppofition, which he there 
 met with from the Jews, and his efcape 
 thence, and then going to Jerufalem, But 
 St. Paul Gal. i. 17. 18. informs us, that after 
 his converfion he went into Arabia^ and then 
 
 returned 
 
Ch. VIII. Si. Luke, 299 
 
 returned to Dawajcus : and that three years 
 
 pafled between his converfion and his going 
 
 to yeru/akm. This is an inftrudlive inllance. 
 
 For the omiffion is certain, and undoubted. 
 
 I am of opinion, that St. Luke did not omit 
 
 the journey into Arabia^ becaufe he did not 
 
 know of it : but defignedly, and becaufe he 
 
 did not judge it ncceffarie to be mentioned. ^ 
 
 yero?72e (g) has taken particular notice of the 
 
 omiffion of that journey into Arabia. 
 
 16. Like omiffions are in St. Luke's Gofpel, 
 I diall take notice of two. 
 
 I.) Having given the hiftorie of our Lord's 
 prefentation at the temple, he fays ch. ii. 39. 
 And ijohcn they had fei'jormed all things ac- 
 cording to the law of the Lord, they returned 
 into Galilee^ to their own city, Na'zareth, 
 Neverthelefs, I think, the holy family did not 
 now go diredtly from yerujalem to Nazareth^ 
 but to Bethlehem. There, as I fuppofe, our 
 .Lord received the homage of the Magians, 
 And afterwards, to avoid the pcrfecution of 
 
 Herod f 
 
 (g) Lucam vero idcirco de Arabia praeterifie, quia foifitan 
 nihil dignnm apoftolatu in Arabia perpetrarat : et ea potius 
 compendiofa narratione dixifle : quae digna Chrifti evangelio 
 videbantur. Nee hoc fegnitiae Apoltoli deputandum, fi fruf- 
 tra in Arabia fuerit : fed quod aliqua difpenfatlo et Dei prae- 
 ceptum fuerit, ut tacgret. Hier. in £/>. ad Gal. cap. i. T. 4, 
 
300 St. Luke. Ch. Vill. 
 
 Herod, tliey removed thence to Egypt ^ and 
 then returned to Nazareth. All which is 
 recorded Matth. ii. 1....13. The vifit of 
 the Magians mufl have been after the prefen- 
 tation at the temple. If it had been before, 
 and if they had prefented their gifts^ gold, 
 and franklncenjcy and myrrh : mentioned 
 Matt. ii. II. Marie would not have made 
 the leffer offering for her purification, men- 
 tioned Luke ii. 23. 24. Nor could the 
 ^child Jefus have been fafely brought to Jeru- 
 Jalem, or fuch notice have been taken of him 
 at the temple, as St. Lzike particularly relates, 
 ch. ii. 25. ..38. \^ Herod y and all J erufalem, 
 had been jufl before alarmed by the inquiries 
 of tlie Magians : Where is he that is born King 
 ofthejews^ Matth. ii. i. 2. Omitting there- 
 fore all thofe things, St. Lz/z^^" fays, as above 
 obferved, and afterwards they returned to Na- 
 xarethy the place of their ufual abode. Which 
 is a'greeable to Matth. ii. 22. 23. 
 
 2.) Another thing obfervable is, that all 
 our Saviour's appearances to his difciples, af- 
 ter his refurredion, recorded by St. huke ch. 
 xxiv. were at Jeriifaletn^ or near it. He 
 takes not any notice of our Saviour's meeting 
 the difciples in Galilee^ fo particularly men- 
 tioned Matth. xxviii. j. and Mark xvi. 7. 
 
 St, 
 
Ch. VIII. Sf. Luke. 301 
 
 Si, John alfo ch. xxi. i. . . 23. fpeaks of our 
 Saviour's fliewing himfelf to the difciples at 
 the fea of Tiberias. And St. Paul afTures us, 
 that our Lord was feen of above Jive hundred 
 brethren at once, i Cor. xv. 6. Which, pro- 
 bahly, was in the fame countrey. And 
 though at i!i\^ begining of his book of the 
 A6ls, St. Luke refumes the account of our 
 Saviour's fliewing himfelf to the difciples af- 
 ter his refurre^tion ; there is nothing more 
 about Galilee, than in the former relation. 
 Infomuch that, if we had St. Luke\ hiltories 
 only, we might have been apt to conclude, 
 that all the appearances of our Saviour to his 
 difciples were at Jerufalern^ or near it, and no 
 where elfe. 
 
 17. St. PauFs epiftles inform us of many 
 things omitted by St. Luke. But we Ihould 
 liave known many more, if we had had a pa- 
 rallel hiftorian. A comparifon of St. Luke's 
 hiftorie of our Saviour with that of the other 
 Evangelirts may affure of this, 
 
 18. In the eleventh chapter of the fecond 
 epiftle to the Ccrintbiansy St. Paul mentions 
 divers vifions and revelations, with which he 
 had been favored. But St. Luke has not 
 taken notice of any of them. St. Paul in 
 his fpeech to the people at Jerufalem, record- 
 ed 
 
302 St. Luke. Ch. VIII. 
 
 ed by St. Luke Ads xxii. 17. mentions a 
 tranfe, which he had in the temple. But St. 
 Luke has no where told us the exad time of 
 it. Nor has he otherwife mentioned it. 
 
 19. 1 do not think, that thefe things were 
 omitted by St. Luke, becaufe St. Pazi/ con- 
 cealed them from him : or becaufe by fome 
 other means he was unacquainted with the 
 time and place of them. But it was a regard 
 to brevity, that induced him to pafs them 
 over. They were not neceffarie to be infert- 
 ed in his hiftorie. Without them he has re- 
 corded fufficientatteftationsof Ptfz^/'s apofto- 
 iical authority, and of the truth, and divine 
 original of the dodrine taught by him. 
 
 20, Says St. Ptfz//,- unwillingly, and con- 
 ftrained by the difadvantageous infinuations 
 and charges of felf-interefted and defigning 
 men. 2 Cor. xi. 23. yire they minijicrs of 
 ■Ckrijlt [1 [peak as a fool :^ 1 dm more. In 
 labours more abundant ^ inflripes above meafure, 
 in prifons more frequent^ in death ojt. 
 
 In prifons mere jrequent. Therefore before 
 writing this epiftle, in the year 57. Faul had 
 been imprifoned feveral times : though St. 
 Luke has mentioned before this time one im- 
 prifonment only, which was at Philippi. Ads 
 
 xvi. 
 
Ch. VIII. St. Luke. 303 
 
 xvi. 23. . . 40. Upon which Eflius (b) ob- 
 ferves, that Paul did and fuffered many 
 things, not mentioned in the Ads. And 
 Rom. xvi. 7. Salute Andronicus and Junia^ 
 my kinfmeriy and my fellcnv-prifoners . . . 'wbo 
 alfo were in Chrift before me. Paul was not 
 a piifoner, when he wrote the epiftle to the 
 RomaJis^ in the begining of the year 58. But 
 (i) he had been in priibn before with thofe 
 two early Chriftians, his relations. But 
 where, or when, we cannot exadly fay. 
 21. Ver. 24. of the Jews five times received 
 I forty firipes fave one. Neverthelefs St. huke 
 has not mentioned one of thofe times. Pfii" 
 us conjedures, that (k) Luke omitted thefe, 
 
 and 
 
 (h) De Paulo autem incarcerato ante hanc epiftolam, in 
 A6>is Apoftolorum non legiinus quideni, nifi cap. xvi. ubi a 
 Philippenfibus in carcerem miflus legitur. Sed permulta 
 Paulus et fecit et pafTus eft, quae in Aftis non fcribuntur. 
 Eji. ad 2 Cor, xi. 23. 
 
 (i) Porro concaptivos intellige, quod aliquando commu- 
 nia cum Paulo vincula pro Chriilo paffi fuilTent. Ubi tamen, 
 aut quando fadluni fit, ignoratur. EJi. ad Rom. xnii. 7.' 
 
 (k) Sed cuj- Lucas in Aftis ne unius quidem flagillationis 
 ex quinque meminit ? Ideo videlicet, quod de Paulo pene ea 
 fola, quibus ipfe praefens fuit, figiUatim recenfeat : alia vero 
 vel filentio pertranfeat, vel fummatim ac breviter referat, . . 
 Qua in re notanda humilitas Pauli, qui fuas tot et tarn graves 
 pro Chrifto paffiones Lycae comiti fuo non aperuerit, ne hie 
 quidem recitaturus, nifi coegi/Tet eum amor falutis Corinthi- 
 01 u ra . Ifi, il> . adi/er, 24, 
 
104 Sf.Liihe. ChVIIf. 
 
 and many other thing?, becaufe he was not 
 with the Apoftle, when they happened, 'and 
 Faid out of modeftie forbore to tell him of 
 them. I rather think, that Luke was fully 
 acquainted with PauFs hiftorie. But he 
 aimed at brevity, and judged the things men- 
 tioned by him to be fufficient. 
 
 22. Ver. 25, Thrice was 1 beaten with rods : 
 meaning, I fuppofe, by Roman Magiflrates. 
 But St. Luke has mentioned one inftance 
 only of this : which was at Philippic when 
 Fdul and Silas both underwent this hard 
 ufage. Ads xvi. 19. . . 40. Of this (I) like- 
 wife Eftius has taken notice in his Com- 
 mentarie. 
 
 Once was 1 floncd : undoubtedly meaning 
 at Lyflra in Lycaonia, as related by St. Luke 
 Ads xiv. 19. 20. 
 
 Thrice I have fnffered fiipwreck, St. Luke 
 
 has recorded but one inftance, which was 
 
 not untill after this time, in the Apoftle's 
 
 • voyage from 'Judca to Rome, Ads xxvii. 
 
 Which therefore mufl have been the fourth. 
 
 A night 
 
 (I) Ter 'viigis coefus fum : a Gentilibus. Erat enim Ro- 
 manis confuetudo, virgis coedere nocentes. . . Porro Lucas 
 tantum femel meminit hujus contumeliae Paiilo illatae : 
 icilicet Adt. xvi. ubi fcribit eum una cum Sila virgis caefum 
 a Philippenfibus. Jijl. in loc. 
 
Ch. VII r. Sr. Luke. ' 30^ 
 
 yl flight and a day have I been in the deep. 
 
 At one of thofe times 1 efcaped with the ut- 
 
 moft difficulty, by getting on a plai^k, and 
 
 • floating in the fea a night and a day, or a 
 
 whole day of four and twenty hours. 
 
 23. Ver. 26. In journey if jgs J often, in perils 
 cf waters, or rather rivers. Which (m) are 
 fometimes very dangerous. But St. Luke has 
 not recorded any dangers of the Apoftle up- 
 on rivers, either in crolTing them, or failing 
 upon them. 
 
 24. Says Tillemont in his life of St. Taid: 
 ** The (n) greatefl part of interpreters think, 
 '" that St. Faut made no voyages, but thofe, 
 *' which are taken notice of in the Adls. . . . 
 " Nevertheleis we mud neceflarily acknow- 
 *' ledge, that befide what St. Luke informs us 
 *' of the fufFi^rings of St. Paul, this Apoftle 
 " was five times fcourged by the Jews, twice 
 *^ beaten with rods, and thrice (hipwrecked. 
 ** All this happened, before he wrote hisfe- 
 " cond epiille to the Corinthians : that is, in 
 " the time, of which St. Luke has writN^he 
 " hiilorie. Neverthelefs St. L?^^-^ fays nothing 
 
 (fn) Peri cutis fumhium : quae interdiim non minv?s pericu- ' 
 lofa funt navigantibus, quam mare. E^. in toe. 
 (n) Mem. Ec, T, i. St. Paul, note xviii. 
 
 Vol. I. . * X o£ 
 
3o6 ^^. Luke, Ch. VIII. 
 
 " of all this. It is certain therefore, that 
 •* either he has omitted the ciixumftances of 
 *' ,the rnoft remarkable events, which he re- 
 ** lates, or that St. PWmade leveral voyages, 
 *^ of which he has taken no notice." 
 
 25. The reafon of St. Luke's filence here I 
 take to be the fam^ that has been already af- 
 figned of his fileince upon other occafions. It 
 was not neceffarie, that thefe things (hould be 
 related. To have writ an account of all the 
 Apoftle's journeys, and dangers, would have 
 rendered the work more voluminous and 
 prolix, than was judged proper. When St. 
 Luke fet about compofing and publifliing this 
 book, he had all the materials before him, 
 and his plan was formed. Agreeably to 
 which, he determined to write at large the 
 hiflorie of St. Paul's voyage from Judea to 
 Rome^ in which are many remarkable inci- 
 dents, and to omit fome other of the Apoflles 
 journeys and voyages : though divers of them 
 Jikewife were attended with atFeding circum- 
 flances. 
 
 26. The chapter, from which I have juft 
 now tranfcribed feveral things, concludes in 
 this manner, ver. 31. . . . 33. The God and 
 Father of our Lord Jefus Chriji, who is blejfed 
 
 Jor evermore ^ bwws that I lie not. In Da- 
 
 mafcus 
 
Ch. VIIT. Sl Luke. 307 
 
 mufiii-s the Govcmour under Arefas, the King, 
 ke^pt ihe city of doe Damafcem ivith a garri- 
 jbn, Jcfirciis to apprehend me. And through a 
 window in a baJJiet wm I let down hy the wall, 
 'and efcapcd Ins hands. 
 
 I have often refleded with great fatis fac- 
 tion on St. Luke's not omitting this dangerous 
 attempt upon the Apoftle's Hberty, and life : 
 vM\ which himfelf was fo tiiuch afFecfled, 
 and which he has here mentioned with ftidi 
 foSem^nity. The hiftorie of it may be feert 
 in A<5l8 ix. 23. . . 25. 
 
 I now proceed to fonie other things. 
 
 27. -St. Paui affures us Gal. ii. i. . . 3. tiiat 
 when he went n p to yerufalem upon occafioa 
 of the debate concerning the manner of re- 
 ceiving Gentil converts, he took ^itus with 
 him. Which is not faid by St. Luke Ads xv. 
 though he gives a particular account of Paul's 
 going from Antioch to Jerufiilem upon that 
 occafion. Nor indeed lias St. Luke once 
 mentioned Titus in his hidorie : though St. 
 Paul wrote an epiftle to him, and has men- 
 tioned him feverai times in his epiftles, fent 
 to others. 
 
 28. Gal. ii. 1 1. . . 21. St. Paul fpeaks of 
 Peter's be[ng at Antioch^ before he and Bar- 
 nabas had feparated. But St. Luke fays no- 
 
 X 2 thing 
 
3o8 St. Luke. Ch.Vlir. 
 
 thins of it. Jerome^ in his Commentaric 
 upon the epiftle to the Galaiians, fays : 
 ** We (o) are not to wonder, that Luke has 
 *' taken no notice of this. For by the ufual 
 " privilege of hiflorians he has omitted many 
 ** things performed by Paid, and which we 
 ** know from himfelf." 
 
 29. Rom. xvi. 3. 4. St. PW applauds an 
 adion of great generofity in Aquila and Prif- 
 
 ' ' cilia. But St. Luke has not informed us of 
 
 the place, or occafion of it. Doubtlefs he 
 did not omit it, for v^ant of refped: to thofe 
 excellent Chriftians, whom he has mention- 
 ed more than once. ch. xviii. 18. and 26. 
 But that particular did no: come within the 
 compaffe of his defign. 
 
 30. Many things, not expreflly mention- 
 ed by St. Luke^ may be argued, and con- 
 cluded to have been done, from thofe which 
 he has recorded. 
 
 I.) In Ads iv. 23 . . . 30. is recorded a 
 prayer of the Apoftles, in which they re- 
 queft, that they may be enabled to work 
 miracles for farther confirming the dodrine 
 taught by them. And unquef!:ionably, their 
 
 prayer 
 
 (0) Nee minim e/fe, fi Lucas Ivinc rem tacuerit, quum 
 et alia multa, quae Paulus fuftinuiUbfe replicat, hiftoriographi 
 licentia praettrmiferit. In Gal. cap. ii. T. 4. /. 244. 
 
Ch. Vlir. St. Luke, 
 
 prayer was heard, and their reqnefl: granted, 
 and they did work many miracles in the 
 name of Chrift, more than are related by 
 St. Luke. 
 
 2.) Ads V. 12. ^nd by the hafjd of the 
 Apoftles 'were many /igns and wonders done a- 
 ?nong the people . And what follows. Whence 
 it may be concluded, that (p) many miracles 
 were wrought, not only by Peter and yohn^ 
 but alfo by the other Apofiles alfo, befide 
 thofe, which are particularly recorded. See 
 alfo ch. ii. 43. 
 
 3.} Says Mr. Bifcce: ** Many (q) and great 
 " miracles are related in the hiilorie of the 
 ** A6ts to be wrought by St. Patil^ and his 
 *' fellow-laborers, in their preaching the gof- 
 " pel to the Gentils. And agreeably hereto 
 *' St. Paid fays, 2 Cor. xii. 12. Truly the 
 ^^figns of an Apojlle were wrought amongfi 
 ^^ you in all patience ^ in figns^ and wonder s^ 
 
 X, 3 ** and 
 
 (p) Oecumen'ius fays, that Luke omitted many miracles 
 wrought by the Apoftles for avoiding oftentation. Ils^Aav 
 cTs Qctvfj.arav kTnih^sfAv&jV vtto t&v ol'ttot'oKccv, &•? }C) etvar 
 ripa i/uWffSw o ravTa yfaoov A«>f«f, [cap. ii. 43.] tS'ivoe 
 iiCeivuv oio//«S"i,/MHv//ou4i/«, aXX" eKei'.'o yp'j<pei fjLovov dcp a 
 
 'Ttjhrii imiiiQwav « J(J orj » x6//t7b %tfpii' ti avy- 
 
 ypef.pi cvicd uuTH iUTiiiS'id^iU Occum. in Ad, Cap, Hi, Tom, 
 i,p. 25. A. B. . ' , 
 
 (q) The H'Jiory of the Aili confrmed, ch, xi. §. 8. p. 407. 
 408. 
 
 309 
 
St. Luke. Cla. VIIiL 
 
 *' ^nd fuighty deeds. And to the RomanSy, 
 
 ** ch. XV. iB. 19 I make no doubt, 
 
 " fliys that learned writer, but the A.po(?cls3' 
 *' wrought miracles in every city, where 
 " they came with a view to preach, the gof- 
 ** pel/ and make converts. St. Luke is fo 
 " very fuccind: in his hifborie of the Ads, 
 *^ that he often omits them. He gives an ac- 
 *' count of only a miracle or two wrought at 
 *' Philippi in his whole relation of St. Paul's 
 " journey from Jntioch to the "Weil:^ when 
 *' he converted a great part of Macedonia and 
 *' Acbaia: though it is evident from St. PauH 
 ** own epiftle, already quoted, that he at that 
 ** time did manvfiens and wonders at Corinth. 
 " And that he did the fame 2X"Ihc[jalomca^ is 
 *' not obfcurely intimated' in his firfh epii^ie 
 " to the Ihejfalonians. ch. i. 5. We r^ad' 
 " nothing in the Ads of the Apofiks of 
 *' wimfc Sfc. Paul did in Galatia the iirfl: time, 
 " more than that he went through it. Ads 
 " xvi. 6. And all that is added the fecond 
 " time he was there is, that he 'went over all 
 ^' the coiintrcy of Galatia^ firengthcning all 
 «' the difciples. ch. xviii. 23. Which in- 
 '* deedi is an intimation^ that the iirft time 
 *' he was there he preached the gofpel a- 
 *' mong them, and made converts. But 
 
 ^* from 
 
Ch. Vlir. Sf. Luke, 
 
 ** from his eolftle to the Gahiiian churches It 
 " is fully evident, that he wrought miracles 
 *' among them, and conferred on them gifts 
 ** of the Holy Spirit. For he afl^s tliem : 
 " He that mintftreth to you the Spirit, and 
 " worketh miracles among you, doth he it by 
 " the works of the law, or by the hearing of 
 ^^ faith F Gal. iii. 25. That he means 
 ** himfelf, is manifeft from the whole tenour 
 " of the epiftle. See ch. i. 6. iv. ir. 13. 
 
 There follow other like obfervations, which 
 I may not tranfcribe. 
 
 4.) Mr. Bifcoe, as above, makes no doubt, 
 hut the Apoftles wrought miracles in every 
 city, where they came, %mth a 'view to preach the 
 go/pel, and make converts. I am of opinion, 
 that this may be truly fuppofed of Paul, par- 
 ticularly, and that it may be concluded from 
 what St. hiike has writ. For, according to 
 him, Faul wrought miracles m Cyprus. Ads 
 xiii. II. at Lyfira. xiv. 10. 2.t Philippi xvi. 
 16 . . 18, See alfo 25. 26. and very many 
 at Ephefus. xix. 11 .. 17. And at Troas he 
 raifed Eutychus to life. xix. 9 . . 12. In his 
 voyage from Judea io Rome he wrought 
 many miracles, xxviii. 3 ... 6. and 7 . . 10. 
 From thefe miracles, recorded by St. Luke^ 
 
 X 4 .it 
 
 311 
 
12 St, Luke. Ch.VIIL 
 
 it may be well argued, that St. Fmd wrought 
 miracles in all, or mcfl: other places, where 
 he went, and made any ftay, preaching the 
 go/pel. In particular, it may be aVg-Jcd'^ 
 that Pmil wrougint miracles at Athens^ and 
 at 'Ko7ne. What they were, we cannot fay, 
 becaufe they have not been recorded by St. 
 hukcy nor by.any other credible writer. But 
 tjiat miracles were performed by the Apofile 
 in'thofe cities, appears to me very probable. 
 5.) St. Luke (r) has not given any account 
 pf St. Paul's appearing before the Emperour 
 Nero at I^mej when he was fent thither by 
 Fefius. Nevertlielefs, that Paul was brought 
 before Nero fooa after his arrival at Rome, 
 is highly probable. And though St. Luke 
 has not expreflly faid fo, it may be con- 
 cluded from what he has faid. For he has 
 ggain and again fufficiently intimated, that 
 Faul was certainly to appear before the, 
 Emperour, to whom he had appealed. See 
 Ads XXV. 10. II. 12. 21. xxvi. 32. xxvii. 
 24. xxviii. 9. The Apoftle therefore was 
 brought before Nero^ and pleaded before 
 
 him. 
 
 (}■) Mirum, quod Lucas hk nullam faciat mentionem pri- 
 ii]ae defeniionis Panli, de qua ipfe 2 Tim. iv. Quani fa£tam 
 fuilTe primo anno, quo Roniam venit, non dubitandurq. Ef. 
 (id Ad t xxviii. 30. 
 
 J 
 
Cb. VIII. Si. Luke. 
 
 him. But St. Luke forbore to give a dlftinfl 
 account of it, becaufe he had already given 
 a particular account of Paul's pleadings be- 
 fore Felix y and Fejius^ and /jgrippn. And 
 from them may be conclucied, what was 
 the .tetiour of his apologie before the Em- 
 perour himfelf. 
 
 6 ) St, Paul, in his epiTile to the Chrif- 
 tians at i?{5;;2^, fays, ch. i. ii. I long to fee 
 you, that I may impart unto you Jbme jpritual 
 gift,, io the end ye may be ejlablijhed. And 
 ch. XV. 29. I am fure, that u-he?i I co??2e un- 
 to you, I Jball come unto you in the fzilnejfe of 
 the blefjing of the gofpel of Chrift. And un- 
 queftionably, the event was agreeable to thefc 
 wiihes and expectations. 
 
 7.) St. Luke has not particularly recorded 
 tliofe things in his hiftorie. Bat from what 
 he has faid they may be inferred. Says our 
 hiftorian. Acts xxviii. 13 . . 16. And iioe 
 came the next day io Puteoli. Where we found 
 brethren, and were d fired io tarry with them 
 feven days. And fo we went toward Rome. 
 And from thence, when the brethren heard of 
 us, they came to meet us, as far as Ajrpii 
 Forum, and the Jhree l^averns. Whom when 
 Paulfaw, he thanked God, and took courage. 
 And when he came to Rome, the Centurion 
 
 delivered 
 
 ZU 
 
314 ^t' Luh, Ch. VIIF. 
 
 delivered the pri [oners to the Captain of the 
 Guard. But Paul was fiijfered to dwell by 
 bimjl'lfy iiith a foldier that kept him. And" 
 ver. 30, Paid divelled two whole years in his 
 own hired houfe, 
 
 8.) From the things here faid it may be 
 fairly concluded, that during the Apoftl'e's 
 ftay at Rofne^ there was a very delightful 
 communication of civil and religious offices 
 between him and the believers there, ac- 
 cording to the abilities, and the exigences 
 of each. Before he left Rotne, the Philips 
 plans feem to have fent him a fupplie by 
 Epaphroditm. Philip, iv. 10 . . 18. But it! 
 may be well fuppofcd, that the price of his 
 lodging, and the expenfcs of his maintenance, 
 were provided for, chiefly, by the Chriflians, 
 whom he found at Rome^ when he came- 
 thither, and by the converts, which he made 
 afterwards. The foldiers likewife, who by 
 turns attended upon him, would expedt to be 
 confidered, If they carried it civilly toward 
 their prifoner. All which, we mayfuppofe, 
 was taken care of by the good Chriflians at 
 Rome : who, as St. Luke aflures us, went out 
 to meet him, and conduced him into the 
 City. 
 
 C H A P. 
 
3^5- 
 
 y-ct, ir)C% if^c^ (^).■^^ f^O\ ^ f^(X fr)Ct\ inct^, iTjCt, c;a\ f^ctt 
 
 ' Tilb- rDbflvT' '^Af -*«»> rtii 7«r '^KlT' 'VVf 'Xhi^ '%3'**f '^«¥'.„£^ 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 St. John, 
 
 Apoftl'e, and Evangelift. 
 
 I. His Hiftorie from the N, T. II. His Age, 
 
 III. When he left Judea, to go to Ephejus, 
 
 IV. His Hiflorie from ecclefiajical Writers, 
 
 V. ^he Time^ ijohen he was banipjed into 
 Tatmos. VI. How long he was there, 
 VII. Tejii monies of ancient Writers to his 
 Gofpel, VHI. Opinions of learned Mo- 
 derns concerning the Time^ when this Gof- 
 pel was writ. IX. An Argument^ to prove,, 
 that it was writ before the DefiruBion 
 cf Jerufalem. X. ObjeSiions confidered,_ 
 XL Obfervations upon this GofpeL 
 
 l.^KW^,OHN was the fon of Zebedee, a HisHifiorie 
 .0 J Q fiilierman upon the fea of Gali- /'-^'"t^e 
 ^kM^A i^^i probably (a) of the town 
 
 of 
 
 (a) Zebedaeum gente Galllaeum fuifTe ex loco commo- 
 racionis circa lacum Gennefarcth fufpicamur. Inccrtius 
 
 autem. 
 
3i6 St. John. Ch. IX, 
 
 of Betbfaiday and (b) Salome, John was the 
 younger brother. For jfames is always Y<^J 
 mentioned firft, except in Luke ix. 28, And 
 John is generally reckoned the youngeft of 
 all Chrifl's difciples. 
 
 Though Zebedee was by trade a fifher- 
 man, he needs not be reckoned poor. For, 
 as St. Mark has particularly obferved, he was 
 rot only mafter of a boat, and nets, but had 
 hired Jerv ants. ch. i. 20. Moreover, w& 
 may recolledt what Peter faid to Chrifl, who 
 alfo had been a fiflierman upon the fame fea. 
 We have left all, andjollowed thee. Matt. xix. 
 27. They left their employ inents, by which 
 they gained a fubfiilence : and for the pre- 
 fent there was felf-denial in tUeir attendence 
 upon Jefus. .. 
 
 It is not unlikely, that Zebedee died not 
 long after thefe two brothers were called 
 
 to 
 
 autem, Bethfaidenfem pronunciare, ut plerique faciunt : cum 
 id nitatur tantum teflimonio Evangelii, fociis Andreae ac Pe- 
 tro hoc oppidum adfignantis. Neque tamen argumenta ad 
 manus fiint, quibus vulgatam hanc opinionem impugnemus. 
 Latnpe Proiegatii. in 'Johan. 
 
 (h) Co-mpare Matt, xx'vii. 55. 1^2 th Mark xv. 40. and 
 xvL I . 
 
 (c) So Matt, 2'v. 21. ;v. 2. Mari L 19. Hi. 17. x. 35. Luke 
 V, 10. Aci. i. 13. 
 
Ch. IX. St.yolm. 3^7 
 
 to be Apoflles. However, the circumftances 
 
 of the famiiie may be colleded from what 
 
 is faid of their mother, who is mentioned, 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 5^. and Mark xv. 41. among 
 
 thofe ivomen^ ijcho followed 'J efui out of Galilee^ 
 
 and miniftred unto Urn. That miniflrie is 
 
 defcribed Luke viii. 3. To which might 
 
 be added, that (he is mentioned among 
 
 , thofe women that bought fweet fpices to 
 
 embalm the body of Jefus. Mark xvi. i. 
 
 Luke xxiii. ^^. And our Lord, having 
 
 recommended his mother to this difciple, 
 
 i ' 
 
 it is faid, that he took her to his own home, 
 John xix. 27. 
 
 li Salome was related to our Lord in the 
 manner fjppofed by (d) TheophylaSly or 
 fome other way, with which we are not 
 diftiadly acquainted ; that may have been, 
 in part, the ground and reafon of feveral 
 things mentioned in the Gofpels : as the 
 petition of thefe two brothers, difciples, for 
 the firfl: two places in Chrift's kingdom : 
 John's being the beloved difciple, and friend 
 of Jefus, and being admitted to fome free- 
 dom?, denied to the reft : and, poffibly, 
 
 per- 
 
 (iij See Vol, xi. p. 424, 425, 
 
31^ St. John, Ch. IX. 
 
 (e) performing fome offices about his perfon : 
 and, finally, our Lord's committing to hto 
 the care of his mother, fo long as (he fliould 
 iurvive him. 
 
 In Ads iv. 13. It is faid of Peter and 
 yobn, that they were ignorant^ and unlearned 
 men. Which, indeed, is nothing elfe, but 
 that they were neither (f) Dodors, nor Ma- 
 giftrates, but men of private ftations, who 
 had not been educated in the fchools of the 
 Rabbies : or, as Dr. Doddridge has happilv 
 tranflated this text, illiterate men, and in 
 private ftations of life. So Oecumeniiis fays, 
 
 that 
 
 (^e) Opus fcilicet erat ipii aliquo, quern interduni ad 
 matrem mitteret, (quod non ita raro fadum effe, facile 
 intelli»itur;) quo uteretur ad Javandos fibi pedes, ad in- 
 duendos fibi et exuendos calceos- [vid. Matt. iii. ix, 
 Pviarc. i. 8. Luc. iii. 16. Joan. i. 27.] qui fibi praefto 
 efiet ad mandata fubita, qui in cubiculo fibi adjaceret 
 dormienti, qui alia fibi praeitaret minuta oSiciola domef- 
 tica, qui propterea perpetuus fibi efTet pediilequus, nee 
 nifi jufliis ab ipfo re(;ederet. Heuman. Dijf. Syil, Totfi. 2. 
 ;.. 338. 
 
 if) Ayfdiji.fj.a.ro!, fine Uteris: id eft, non verfati iji doc- 
 trinis thalmudicis, quales illiterati Hebraeis. Nam fiiu-iptu- 
 ras Apoftolietlegerant, etmemoriatenebant. Ka/ \St^O!.t. 
 Idiotae funt Hebraeis, qui neque Mag^ilratus funt, neque 
 Legifperiti. Grot, in loc. 
 
Ch.IX. St. John. 319 
 
 that (i^J St. John in fendiug a letter to Caius 
 liad Paul for an exa tuple, who wrote to T/- 
 fjiothiey and 7///^.^, and to Philemon ^ an idiot : 
 that is, a man of a private flation : wherea« 
 Timotbie and Titus bad a public character in 
 the Church, as they v/ere Evangel ifls,. 
 
 There can he no douht, rhat Zebedeet , 
 ibns, as the children of all pious Jews at 
 that time, were well acquainted v/ith the 
 fcriptures of the Old Teftanient. They had 
 read them, and had heard them read and 
 explained in tlie fyiiagogues. They had 
 ^Ifo been accuftomed to go to Jerufalem^ at 
 the feafls, and had difcouried with many up- 
 on the things of religion. They now were 
 in exped:atIon of the appearing of the Mef- 
 fiah, foretold in the Law and the Prophets. 
 But, undoubtedly, were in the common pre- 
 judice of the nation, that it would be, in part 
 at left, a worldly kingdom. And it is very 
 likely, that they had heard John preach : 
 though they did not attend* ftatedly upon 
 him, as his difciples. For all the people of 
 Judea in general went to JoLm's baptifm. 
 
 Says 
 
 (g) rifcj cTi yi'iQV hct y^ii^tfov i)(^£i 'Tra.vXov r'lTu y^aipoVTX 
 
 606. c. 
 
3' 
 
 o« 
 
 St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 :ays St. Joh?i i. 35. 36. ^gain^ the next 
 day cijier John ftood^ and two of his difcfples. 
 And looking upon JefiiSy as he walked^ ht:Jaith : 
 Behold I he lamb of God . . From ver. 40. we 
 learn, that one of thefe two, which heard 
 John fpeak, u'as Andrew^ Simon Peter s bro- 
 ther. And (h) fome have fuppoied, that 
 our Evangeliftj who writes this, was the o- 
 ther. Which I do not look upon as certain, 
 though I do not d^uy it. 
 
 "Whether the other was John, or not, it 
 ought to be reckoned unqueftioned, that be- 
 fore he was called to be an Apoflle, he had 
 feen and heard the Lord Jefns, and had been 
 -witnelTe of fome miracles wrought by him. 
 It appears to me very probable, thatf'/j he was 
 one of the difclples, who were prefent at the 
 wedding in C.a7ia ofGalileey where water was 
 made wine. John ii. i . . . . 11. 
 
 The call of James and John, to attend up- 
 on Jefus ftatedly, is related Matt. iv. 21. 2i. 
 
 Mark i. 19. 20. Luke v. 1 . . 10. 
 
 St. 
 
 fh) Dviorum alter ver. 41. nominatur. Alter videtur ipfe 
 EvangcIiHa noiler fuiffe, uti vifum in vita ejus. Lib. i. cap. 2. 
 Lampe if. J oh. cap. i. I'er. 35. 36. 
 
 (i) However, 5^z<7g-^ difputes this. Neque probabile ad- 
 'iTsodum, Joannem his interfuiffe nuptiis. Quod fi conccdere* 
 tur, &c. Bafr.. Ami. 30, num. Hfcx^iii. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 321 
 
 St. Mark, putting down the names of the 
 twelve Apoftles, when he mentions James 
 and John, fays, that onvhovd. funiamedtbem 
 Boa?2ergeSy ijohich is fo?is of thunder, ch. iii. 
 17. By which it feems unreafonable to fup- 
 pofe, that our Lord intended td reproach 
 them with fome fault in their natural temper, 
 as if they were iierce and furious : though (k) 
 a learned writer has intimated fo much. 
 That (I) name muft have been very honor- 
 able, prophetically reprefenting the refolution 
 and courage, with which they would openly 
 and boldly declare the great truths of the 
 gofpel, when fully acquainted with them. 
 How Johfi anfwered this charadler, we know 
 from what is faid of him in the book of the 
 Ads, and from his own writings, and from 
 things recorded of him in ecclefiaftical hifto- 
 rie. How well Jamesj' the other brother, 
 anfwered that charadler, may be concluded 
 from his being beheaded by Herod Jgrippa 
 at Jeriifdlefn^ not many years after our Lord's 
 
 (k) " However it was, our Lord, I doubt not, herein had 
 *' refpedl to the furious and refolute difpolltion of thofc two 
 " brothers, who feem to have been of a more fierce and fiery 
 " temper, than the reft of the Apoftles." Ca-ve's Life of St, 
 Jnmes the Great, num. ^.p. 1 42. 
 
 (l)'Vid. Fr. Lamp. Prolegom. I. i. cap. 2. num. viz. . . x'v. 
 
 VoL.L * Y afcenfion. 
 
322 ' St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 afcenfion. Which, we cannot doubt, was 
 owing to an open and fledfall teftimonie to 
 the refurre(ftion of Jefus, and to other fervi- 
 ces for the Church : whereby he had greatly 
 fignalized himfelf in the fliort period of his 
 Hfe after our Lord's afceniion. Poffibly, (m) 
 he had, with a freedom, not a Httle ofFenfive, 
 fpoke of the calamities coming upon the Jew- 
 illi people, if they did not repent, and be- 
 lieve in Jefus, as the Chrift : as alfo Jchn the 
 Baptifi had declared in his preaching. Matt. 
 iii. 7. . . 12. Luke iii. 17. and Stephen in his. 
 Ads vi. 13. 14. James [a) was the firft 
 
 Martyr 
 
 ^/-7,'y' Accedit altera ratio, quae eos adhuc proprlus fpefla- 
 bat, nempe quod in fcopo rainifterii fui prae ceteris Apofto- 
 lis Baptiftae fimiles futuri. Nempe ficut Baptifta in ea to- 
 tus erat, ut per tonitru praeconii fui judicium jam turn Ju- 
 daeis imminens indicaret et averteret ; ita et minifterium 
 fratrum horum potiflimum ad Judaeos fpedaturum erat. Ja- 
 cobus quidem ea fini pofl: adfcenfionem Domini nunquam, 
 quod fcimus, ab Hierofolyma difcefiit, donee pro fide marty- 
 rium fubiret. Hoc vero ei eveniffe, quam maxime proba- 
 bile efi, quia invidiofa prae ceteris ejus concio fuit, pericu- 
 lum inftans incredulorum ex Judaeis omni data occafione 
 ingeminans. Sec. Lamp, ih, I. i. cap, 2. man. x-u. 
 
 (a) It has long been the general opinion of the people of 
 Spain, that this "James, the fon of Zebedee, planted the gof- 
 pel in that countrey. Cafpar Sandins, a learned Spanijb Je- 
 fuit, wrote a treatife in defenfe of it, befide what he fays in 
 his Commentarie upon the Adls of the Apollles. But it is 
 
 incon- 
 
Ch.IX. St, John. 323 
 
 Martyr for Chrifl; among the Apoftles. And 
 bids fair for obtaining his petition, in a higher 
 fenfe, than it was at firft intended : o^ fitting 
 on the right hand^ or the left hand of Chriji in 
 his kingdom. And the other brother, fur- 
 viving all the other Apoftles, bore the longed 
 teflimonie to the truth of the gofpel. 
 
 This account of that name is agreeable to 
 (n) what Grotiiis fays in his Annotations. 
 
 Y 2 But 
 
 inconfiftent with the hlHorie in the A£ls. None of the A- 
 poftles left Judea fo foon. Nor is this opinion founded on 
 the tefdmonie of any ancient writers, of good credit. And 
 it is now generally given up, even by Popilh writers. Vid. 
 Baron. A. D. 41. num. i. Tillemont S. Jacques Le Majeur, et 
 note 'vi. Mem. Ec. Tom. i. I tranfcribe here the Judgement 
 of Ejiius. Deinde, quando occifus eft, vixdum coeperat 
 evangelium gentibus praedicari, ut ex praecedentibus et fe- 
 quentibus patet. Nee dum Apofloli difperfi erant in re- 
 motas gentes : fed ejus rei commodum tempus exfpeflabant. 
 Denique nullus fcriptor antiquus certae fidei refert, Jacobum 
 Hifpanias vidifle. Ejl. in Acl. Jp. Cap. xii. njer. 2. — — Hcf. 
 et Bafn&g. Ann. 44. num. i'v. ij. et Didionalre de Moreri. S, 
 Jacques le Majeur. 
 
 (n) Omnino inihi videtur Chriftus, in hujus nominis impo- 
 fitione refpexiffe ad Aggaei vaticinium. cap. ii. 7. . . Quod 
 de evangelii praedicatione exponit Scriptor ad Hebraeos. 
 xii. 26. Ad banc ergo maximam rerum mutationem fig- 
 niiicat Chrillus, zebedaei iilios eximios fibi minillros fore. 
 Et certe deftinatam illis excellentiam quandam inter ipfos 
 ApoHolos vel hoc ollendit, quod cum Petro feorfim a ceteris 
 
St. 'John, Ch. IX, 
 
 But Dr. Heiimann (o) has another thought. 
 He obferves, that Simon, to whom Jefus g^ve 
 the name of Peter, is often fo called. But 
 we do not read, that the two fons of Zebedee 
 were any where elfe fpoken of by the name 
 Boanerges^ either by themfelves or others. 
 He thinks, that the words fliould be thus 
 rend red : And he had furnamed them Boaner- 
 ges : that is, upon a particular occafion he fo 
 called them. That occafion fqj he fijppofes 
 to be the hiftorie related Luke ix. 52. . . 56. 
 That is an ingenious conjefture. But if this 
 name had been given them in the way of re- 
 proof and cenfure, as Chrift once called Pe- 
 ter Satan. Mat. xvi. 23. Mark viii. 33. one 
 would fcarcely expedt to fee it here. The 
 place^as feems to me, leads us to think, the 
 
 name 
 
 multarum rernm telles Cant afTumti. AdJe, quod Jacobus 
 primus Apoftolorum omnium fanguine fuo Chrifti dodrinam 
 obfignavit, et quod Johannes omnibus Apollolis fuperftes diu- 
 tilTime teftimonium perhibuit veritatis Grot, ad Marc. Hi. 17. 
 
 (0) Nova Sylloge DiJJert. Part. i. p. 254. . . 259. 
 
 (q) Legimus, et adverfus Pecrum indigne fe gerentem, in 
 haec verba erupiffe Chriicum : Apage, Satana. Jam uti Sa- 
 tanas non faftum efl ordinarium Petri cognomen, fic nee 
 Zebedaci fratres nifi femel nominati funt Boanerges. Nee 
 proinde laudis hoc nomen ell, (quae quidem inveterata eft 
 opinio,) fed nomen vitii. Non eft, inquam, appellatio hono- 
 rifica, fed invedliva. /^, />. 259. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 325 
 
 name honorable, as well as Peter. Which 
 has been the general opinion of all times. 
 
 In Sm'cers Thefaurus, at the word Bpoiri? 
 may be feen the obfervations of many ancient 
 writers upon this name. I take Tbeophy/aB's 
 only. Who fays, that (rj when Chrift cal- 
 led thefe two difciples fons of thunder, he 
 intimated, that they would be great preach- 
 ers, and eminent divines. 
 
 From the time they were called by Chriil:, 
 they ftatedly attended upon him. They heard 
 his difcourfes, and faw his miracles. 
 
 They were two of the Twelve, whom (s) 
 Chrift fent forth upon a commiffion, to 
 preach in the land of Ifrael. Which was of 
 great ufe to them. Thereby (t) they learned 
 to truft in God, and were prepared for the 
 greater difficulties of their ApolUediip after- 
 wards. 
 
 John addreffed himfelf to Chriil:, fiying : 
 Majier^ we faw one cafting out demons i?i thy 
 name. And we forbad him, becaufe he follow' 
 eth not with its. . . So in Luke ix. 49. 50. And 
 more at large in Mark ix. 38. . . 41. But it 
 
 Y 3 was 
 
 }\.o<yipv)iot,<: )y ^iohoynirv!;. In Marc. Tom, i. p.. 205. C, 
 (s) See Matt. x. 46. Mark, li. 7. Luke ix. i. 
 (t) See Luke xxii. 3 j . 
 
326 Sf, John. Ch IX. 
 
 was a thing, in which feveral were concerned. 
 For yokn fays : We jaw one cafting cut' de- 
 mons^ in thy natm. And wefirbad him. The 
 hiftorie, as recorded by the EvangeHflSj led 
 me to think lo. And Mr. Lampe (u) was of 
 the iame mind. Moreover, it might be done 
 
 fome while before. 
 
 Our Lord was going from Galilee^ to Je- 
 
 rufalem before ihQ. featl of Tabernacles, as 
 fome think, or before the feail of the Dedi- 
 cation, as (x) Dr, Doddridge argues. And, 
 as he was to p?.fs through the countrey of iS*^- 
 maria, he jent mefjeiigers before his face. And 
 they went J and enired into a 'village of the Sa>' 
 maritanSy to make ready for him. But they 
 did not receive him^ becaufe his face *was, as 
 though he would go unto Jerufalem. Whn 
 his diJcipleSy James and John^ faw this, they 
 faid : Lord, wilt thou, that we command f re 
 to come down jro?n heaven, and cor fume them, 
 even as Elias did. But he turned, and rebu- 
 ked them, and faid: Te know not, what man' 
 ner of fpirit ye are of. . , , And they went to 
 another village. Luke ix. 51. . . 56. Some 
 have been of opinion, that the meOengers 
 
 fent 
 
 (u) Ubifupr. I. i. cap. 2. vicm. i8. 
 (x) Family -Expofitor. Vol. it. p. 183. 
 
Ch. IX. St, John. 327 
 
 fent by our Lord, to prepare entertainment 
 for him, were tliefe tw.o difciplcs. If fo, 
 this propofal might be fufpedied to proceed 
 as much from refentment of an injurious 
 treatment of themielves, as of their mader. 
 But to me that is not certain. I rather think, 
 that thofe meflengers were different perfons. 
 So (y) like wife argues Mr. Lampe, 
 
 The two brothers, James and John^ were 
 ambitious of high poils of honour and dig- 
 nity in Chrift's kingdom : which, with o- 
 thers, they efleemed to be of a worldly na- 
 ture. The petition was prefented by their 
 mother, but at their inftigation. And they 
 feem to have been prefent at the fame time. 
 For our Lord's anfwer is diredled to them. 
 Matt. XX. 20. . . 23. Mark x. 35. . . 40. 
 
 The two brothers, James and Joh72^ and 
 Feter, were the only difciples that were ad- 
 mitted to be prefent with our Lord at the 
 
 Y 4 raifmg 
 
 (y) Cui tamen in eo non accedimus, quod fiiios Zebcdaei 
 ij fos illos legates putat fuilTe, quob lefus in vicuni Samarita- 
 norum hofpitium rogaturos miferat. Unde ob illatam fibi 
 iiijuriam videntur exacerbati cffe, fed textus legates illos a 
 filiis Zebedaei fatis dare diftinguit. Accedit, qnod lefus 
 ad illos TpajtA? converfus fuerit. Quod indicat, illos, cum 
 Domino con fill uni proponerent, non fuiiTe Domino obvios, 
 fed pone cum fequentes. Lampe Praleg. /. l. cap. 2. n. xix. 
 not. (I). 
 
3^8 St. John. Ch.IX. 
 
 ralfing of the daughter o^ Jairus. Mark v. 
 37. Luke viii. 5 1 . The fame three difciples 
 were taken up by Chrift Into the Qiount, 
 when he was transformed in a glorious man- 
 
 o 
 
 ner, and Mofes and EHas appeared, talking 
 with him. Matt. xvii. i. Mark ix. 2. Luke 
 ix. 28. The fame three were admitted to be 
 prefent at our Lord's devotions in the garden, 
 when he retired from the red. But they ail 
 failed to watch with their Lord, as he had 
 defired. Matt, xxvi, 36. . 45. Mark xiv. 32. 
 
 Says St. Mark xili. 1.2. j^nd as he ivcjit 
 cut of the temple^ one of his difciples faith unto 
 him : Maflcr, fee what manner of ftones^ and 
 what buildings are here. And fejus anfwer- 
 ingf aid unto him : Seejl thou thef'e great build - 
 ings I There fiall not be left one Jlone upon 
 another, that jh all not be thrown down. Com- 
 pare Matt. xxiv. I. 2. It follows in Mark 
 xiii. 3. 4. And as he fat on the mount of olii-eSy 
 over againfi the tejfjple, Peter ^ and fames\ and 
 ychny and Andrew, afked him privatly : Tell 
 US, whenfimll thefe things be F and what fiall 
 be the fign, when all thefe things flmll beful- 
 Jilled f Whereby we perceive, that to tiiofe 
 four difciples, efpecialiy, our Lord addreffed 
 himfelf, when he delivered the predidions 
 
 con- 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 329 
 
 concerning the great defolation, coming upon 
 the Jewifli People, recorded in that chapter, 
 and in Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi. 
 
 This Apodle.and Peter were the two dif- 
 ciples, whom Jefus fent to prepare for eating 
 his laft paflbvcr. Luke xxii. 8. Compare Matt. 
 xxvi. 17. . . 19. Mark xiv. 13. . . 16. 
 
 Our Lord, fitting at' fupper with his dif- 
 ciples, faid : One of you ivill betray me. Pe- 
 ter beckoned to Joba, who leaned on the bo- 
 fom of Jefus, that be isooiild ajk^ ivho it JJjonId 
 be, of whom he [pake. Which he did. And 
 our Lord gave him a fign, by which he 
 might know, whom he intended. John xiii. 
 21. . .26. This is an inftance of the free- 
 dom, which John might take, as the beloved 
 difciple, and friend of Jefus. 
 
 When our Lord was apprehended by the 
 Jewilh officers, we are informed by St, Mark. 
 xiv. q I. 52. A?2d there followed him a certain 
 young man, having a linen cloth caji about his 
 naked body. And the young men laid hold of 
 him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled jrom 
 them. Some have thought, that this young 
 man was fohn. Cave (zj gives a good deal 
 
 of 
 
 (z) " Indeed upon our Lord's firft apprehenfion, he fled 
 after the other Apoftles : it not being without Tome proba- 
 bilities 
 
330 ' Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 of countenance to that fuppofition. Others 
 (a) have thought him to h^James^ the Lord's 
 brother. But GrotiuSy and juilly, wonders, 
 that (b) any fhould have been of opinion, 
 that he was one of the Apoftles. 
 
 That Peter followed our Lord at a dif- 
 tance, and was admitted into the Hall of the 
 Jewifh High-Prieft, we are afTured from all 
 the Gofpels. It has been fuppofed by ma- 
 ny, that John fliewed the like teflimonie of 
 affedion and refpedl for his Lord. For he 
 fays ch. xviii. 15. And Simon Peter foUoiVed 
 yefiis. And fo did another difciple. That 
 difciple was known to the High-Priejl. And 
 fpake to her thai kept the doory and brought in 
 Peter, 
 
 Neverthelefs it may be queftioned, whe- 
 ther St. John hereby intends himrdf. Chry- 
 
 fojiom 
 
 bilities of reafon, that the ancients conceive him to have 
 been that young man, that followed after Chrill, ha'ving a 
 linen cloth cajl about his naked body : whoin when the officers 
 laid hold upon, he left the linen cloth, and fled naked away." 
 CflwV Life of St. John, num. it. ?. 1 5 1 • 
 
 (a) See Whitby upon Mark xiv. 5 1 . 
 
 (b) Non de Apollolorum grege. Quod miror, veteribus 
 in mentem venire potuifie. Nee e donio, in quam Chriftus 
 in urbe diverterat, fed ex villa aliqua horto proxima, ftrepitu 
 militum excitatus, et fubito accurrens, ut confpiceret, quid 
 agerent. Grot, ad Marc. .xiv. 5 1 . 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 331 
 
 jofiom (c) fuppofeth him to be meant, and 
 that St. "John concealed his name ont of hu^ 
 mility and modeflie. To the Hke purpofe 
 ahb {(l) "Ibeophylaci . Nor (e) had jeroma 
 any doubt here. Bat Augufiin (f) was 
 cautious in faying, who it was : though he 
 thought it might be yohn. 
 
 Let us now obferve the fentiments of mo- 
 derns. Whitby upon the place fays : " He 
 " feems not to be John. For he being a Ga- 
 *' liiean, as well as Peter, they might equally 
 " have fufpedted him upon that account." > 
 
 However, to this it might be anfwered, that 
 yohn being known to the High-Priefl, he 
 
 was 
 
 (c) T(? k/v tfAXof iJ-A^yiTiu ; 'O Tavrsc y(>d'lcci. k. X. 
 Chr. in Joan. horn. 83. al. 82. T. 8. f. 491. 
 
 (d) Tj? «v rtAAo; //«?«TJK ; 'Auroj Q\j7<i<i toxtx ypd- 
 4'iic' UTTOKfiVTrTei idtVTov S'lA 7a.'7re>vc^po(7mr<). k. A. Theoph. 
 in Job. xnjiii. p. 809. 
 
 (e) Unde et lefus Joannem Evangeliftam amabat pluri- 
 mum. Qui propter generis rtobilitatem erat notus Pontiiici, 
 ct Judaeorum infidias non timebat : in tantum ut Peti-um in- 
 troduceret in atrium, et flaret folus Apoftolorutn ante cru- 
 cem, matremque Salvatoris in fua reciperet. Ad PriJicip, 
 'virg. ep. 96. al. 16. T. 4. p. 780. 
 
 (f) Quiinam ifte fit difcipulus, non temere affirmandum 
 eft, quia tacetur. Solet autem fe idem Joannes ita llgniiicare, 
 et addere, quern diligebat lefus. Fortaflis ergo hie ipfe eft. 
 Quifquis tamen fit, fequentia videamus. In Joann. E-vang, 
 Tr. 113. 7". 3. P. 2. 
 
332 St. JcLn. Ch. IX. 
 
 was fafe. But then another difficulty will 
 arife. For it may be faid : How came Jo/m 
 to be fo well known to the High-Priefl, and 
 his familie, as to be able to direcftthe fervant 
 to admit a ftranger, as Peter was, and at that 
 time of night ? 
 
 Grotius likewife thought, that (g) this other 
 difiiple could not be 'John^ or any one of the 
 Twelve, but rather Tome believer, an inhabi- 
 tant of 'Jerufalem^ and, pofiibly, the perfon, 
 at whofe houfe our Lord had eat the pafchal 
 fupper. 
 
 Lampe (h) hefitates. And at length al- 
 
 legeth 
 
 (g) Et fane non efl probablle, aut ipfum Johannem hie 
 intelligi : (cur enim Galilaeus cum effet, minus interroga- 
 retur ab aditantibus, quam Petrus ?) aut aliquem ex Duode- 
 cim, fed alium quendani Hierofolymitanum, non aeque ma- 
 nifeftum fautorem lefu : quales multi erant in urbe, ut fu- 
 pra didicimus. xii. 42. Valde niihi fe pfobat conjeflura 
 exiftimantium, hunc efTe eum, in cujus domo lefus coenave- 
 rat, ob id quod legitur. Matt. xxvi. 18. Grot, ad "Joh. 
 x'viii. 15. 
 
 (/jj Scripferam haec, cum J. Cafp. Merhenil Obfervat. 
 Crit. in Paff. J. C. confulens, novam ab eo hypothefin 
 proponi deprehenderem, . . . quae notatu non indigna elL 
 Ipfum fiquidem Judam proditorem pro hoc ^ifcipulo habct, 
 quern Joannes norainatu port; turpiiTunum proditionis crimen 
 indignum cenfuit. ... Id autem quod potiffimum in rem 
 ftedlare videtur, neque a nofira fententia,, quam de confdio 
 Judae in prodendo fervatore fovemus, abludit, ita habet : 
 
 Judarn 
 
Ch. IX. St.Jobu 333 
 
 legetli the fentiment of a learned writer, who 
 conjedured, that this other difciple was "Ju- 
 daSj the traitor. For Judas, he thinks, was 
 foon touched with remorfe for what he had 
 done. And he might follow Jefus to the 
 High-Prieft's, hoping, that by fooie means 
 he might efcape out of the hands of thofe, 
 to whom he had betrayed him. Judas be- 
 ing there himfelf, might be very willing to 
 let in Peter, Whether this conjedlure be 
 fpecious, or not, I cannot fay. But it does 
 not feem to me very likely, that St. John 
 Ihould characterife Judas, by the title of an^ 
 other difciple y after he had betrayed his Lord 
 and Mafter. 
 
 After all, I am not able to determine this 
 point. At firft reading this place of St. John^ 
 we are naturally enough led to think, that by 
 
 the 
 
 yudam pojl commiJJ'um fcelus puJore fnffufum pedetentim cohortem 
 fu'tjfe Jecutum, atque in Petrum ita incid'Jfe, cut Jcelus fuum ex~ 
 cuj'are, quiti negare potuit, fe ea tuerde Ckrljio o/culum dedijfey 
 lit Chrijium proderety fed ut periculum immtnens ei fubinduaret. 
 Nos fane de eo vix dubitamus, Judam poenitentia fcelcris 
 jam turn fuiflb tadlum, atque confcientiae llimulis ea prop- 
 ter agitatum facile potuifxe eo confilio lefum captiim fequi, 
 ut refciret, annon aliqua ratione, pro folito, Jefus manus 
 captorum evafurus elTet. Liberam jam Icflori optionem re- 
 linquimus. Lampe in E-van^, Joann. cap, xtiii, 'Tom, 3. p. 
 523. not. (f). 
 
334 ^^' y^^^' Ch. IX. 
 
 the other difcipk (hould be meant himfelf. 
 But upon farther confideratlon there arife'dif- 
 iiculties, that may induce us to hefitate. 
 
 Whether he followed Jefus to the Hall 
 of Caiaphas^ or not, we are afTured, that he 
 attended the crucifixion, and feems to have 
 been the only one of the Twelve, that 
 did fo. 
 
 John xix. 25. . . 27. Now there flood by 
 the crojje of Jejtis his mother. . . When jfe/us 
 tberejore faw his mother , and the difcipk fiand- 
 ing by^ whom he loved ^ he faith tin to his mo- 
 ther : Woman J behold thy fon. Then faith he 
 to the difcipk : Behold thy mother, Andjrom 
 that hour that difcipk took her unto his oven 
 home. There might be feveral reafons for 
 that determination : as Jolm\ being a rela- 
 tion, the fweetnefTe of his temper, and his 
 having fomewhat of his own. He had been 
 the beloved difciple, or friend of Jefus. And 
 therefore was the mod; proper to be thus 
 trufted. And doubtlefs this defignation was 
 perfedly agreeable to our Lord's mother. 
 
 John faw his Lord expire on the crofTe. 
 
 And ftill farther. Ojje of the foldiers with a 
 
 fpear pierced his fide. And forthwith came 
 
 thereout blond and water. And he that faw 
 
 it 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 335 
 
 it bore 'witnejje. And his record is true. ch. 
 xix. 34. 35. 
 
 And undoubtedly he alfo ftaid afterwards, 
 and faw the body of Jefus laid in the fe- 
 pulchre, and the flone placed at the mouth 
 of it : as related by himfelf. xix. 38. . . "42. 
 Comp. Matt, xxvii. 53. . . 60. Mark xv. 45. 
 . . 47. Luke xxiii. 50. . . 56. 
 
 Early in the morning, on which our 
 Lord rofe from the dead, Marie Magda^ 
 leUy and other women, came to the fepul- 
 chre, and faw that it was open, the ftone 
 having been taken away. Marie Magdalen 
 knowing where fl:ie could find the two A- 
 poftles, Peter and John^ went back to the 
 city, and told them, that they had taken away 
 the Lord out of the fepukhre : and^ fays fhe, 
 we know not where they have laid him. So 
 they ran both together, to the fepukhre. And 
 by what they faw there, they were led to 
 the perfuafion, that Jefus was rifen from the 
 dead. As related John xx. i. . . 10. 
 
 John was prefent with the other dlf- 
 ciples, when Jefus (hewed himfelf to them 
 in the evening of the day, on which he 
 arofe, and likewife eight days after, ch. xx. 
 19. . . 29. 
 
 He 
 
336 Sf. Johi, Ch. IX. 
 
 He has alfo particularly related the hif- 
 torie of our Lord's Viewing himfelf" to'fe- 
 veral difciples at the fea of Tiberius : when 
 they had an extraordinarie draught of fillies, 
 in number one hundred and fifty three. 
 There were prefent at that time Simojz 
 Peter ^ Thomas^ Nathanael, the Jons of Zebe- 
 dee, and two other dijciples. ch. xxi. i . . 23* 
 Eefide other things, which I omit, our Lord 
 having had difcourfe with Peter, and having 
 foretold his martyrdom : Peter put to him 
 a queftion, concerning John, faying : Lord, 
 ivhat fiall this man do ? 'Jefus faith unto him : 
 If I will, that he tarry ^ till I come^ what is 
 that to thee ? Folkw thou me. Then went 
 this faying abroad among the brethren, that 
 that difciple p,mdd not die, Tet Jefus faid 
 not unto him : He fiall not die. Put if I 
 will, that he tarry, till I come, what is that 
 to thee f Thus checking, as I apprehend, 
 Peter s curiofity. However, it has been fup- 
 pofed by judicious Commentators, that here 
 is an intimation, that John fhould not die 
 before the deflrudion of Jerujalem. Nor is 
 there any doubt, but he furvived that event, 
 which few or none of the other Apoflles 
 
 did. 
 
Ch.lX. Sf.yoJm. 33^ 
 
 did. Though (i) our Lord's words may be 
 underftood to contain only an oblcure inti- 
 mation, that whereas Peter 'i days would be 
 fhortened by martyrdom, this dilciple fliould 
 be preferved, till he died in the ordinarie 
 courfe of nature. 
 
 From all which we perceive, that (k) St. 
 John was prefent at moft of the things re- 
 lated by him in his Gofpel : and that he 
 
 was 
 
 (t) Ita obfciire fignificat, Johannem, non, ut Petruni 
 morte violenta morituriim, fed tali, qua, fine hominum vi 
 folveretur, ubi Chriflus tempus idoneum judicafiet. Qiiod 
 et contigit, ut Veterurn plures confentiunt. Grot, ad Joan, 
 xxi. 22. 
 
 (k) Ex ipfa hiftoria evangelica Joannis probabile fit, 
 omnibus eventibus, itineribus, miraculis, concionibus fer- 
 vatoris noftri ipfum interfuifle . . . cum probabile fit, ilium 
 fuifie inter difcipulos duos Joannis Baptiftae, a quibus ccl- 
 Icdionis difcipulorum initium Jefus fecit, uti L. i. cap. 2. 
 §. ii. oHendimus, Lnde colligimus, Evangeliftam noftrum fia- 
 tim ab initio rebus, quae fcribit, interfuiiTe, et hanc effe ve- 
 ram rationem, cur non altius filum hiftoriae fuae inciperet. 
 Ex omnibus quoque fequcntibus narrationibus nulla eft, in 
 qua abfentem Evangeliftam noilrum ftatuamus fuiHe, nifi forte 
 excipere velis ilia, quae in palatio Annae et Caiaphae accide- 
 runt. Cap. xviii. 1 3 . . . 1 7 . De quibus tamen res eft dubia, quia 
 definiri accurate nequit, annon difcipulus, qui Petrum in Pala- 
 tium Caiaphae introduxerit, ipfe Evangelifta nofter fuerit, 
 Sed licet ilia praefens non perceperit, a Petro tamen, focio 
 intimo, ftatim proculdubio audivit. Et forte per ejus re- 
 
 Vol. I. » Z lationeaa 
 
338 St. John. Ch.lX. 
 
 was an eye and ear-witne/Te of our Lord's 
 labours, journeyings, difcourfes, miracles, 
 his low abafement even to an ignominious 
 death, and his being alive again, and then 
 afcending to heaven. ' 
 
 Having (I) been prefent with the reft of 
 the Apoftles at the Lord's afcenfion, he (m) 
 returned with them from mount Olivet to 
 Jeriifakm^ and continued with them, joyn- 
 jng with them in their devotions, and in 
 the choice of another, to fupply the place of 
 Judas : and (n) partook in the plentiful ef- 
 fufion of the Holy Ghofl upon the Apoftles 
 and their companie on the day of Pentecofl 
 next enfuing. 
 
 Pete?' and John, who often accompanied 
 each other, healed the lame man at the 
 temple, and upon that occafion preached to 
 the people, who aiTembled about them. 
 For which they were brought before the 
 
 Jewifh 
 
 lationem excitatus eft, ut ad Praetorium Pilatl fummo mane 
 advolaret, atque ita cum reliquis mulierlbus Jefum ad crucem 
 fequsretur. . . Ex quo patet, quanta cum cmphafi prac ceteris 
 Apollolis et Evangeliftis dicere potuit : Quae audivimus, quae 
 vidimus, i Jo. i. i. 2. Lajnp. Proleg. I. 2. cap, 4. num. 'vi. 
 
 (I) Mark x'vi. 1 9. Luie xxi'V. 50. ... 53. A£isi,l. 
 ... 12. 
 
 (m) Acls i. 12... 26. 
 
 (n) A^sii. I, ;. 13, 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 339 
 
 Jewidi Council, and after fome debates were 
 difmifTed with orders, not to preach any 
 more in the name of Jefus. ACcs iii. and iv. 
 
 J • • • 22t 
 
 1 
 
 Some while after this, the number of be- 
 lievers flill encreafing in yerufakm^ 'John and 
 the reft of the Apoftles v/ere apprehended, 
 and put into the common prifon. But they 
 were the fame night dehvered by an angel, 
 who commanded them to go and [peak in the 
 temple to the people. Which they did earlj 
 In the morning. Whereupon they were a- 
 gain taken uo, and brought before the Coun- 
 cil, who confulted how they might put them 
 to death. But by the advice of Gamaliel 
 that defign was laid afide. And when they 
 had beaten them, they commanded^ that they 
 /IjQuld not fpeak in the name of Jefus^ and let 
 them go. V/hereupon the Apoftles departed 
 from the pre fence of the Council^ rejoycing. . . 
 And daily in the temple, and from hoife to 
 houfe^ they ceafed not to teach and preach fe- 
 fis Chriji. 
 
 Afterwards, there being a violent perfe- 
 cution at ferifalem^ many were fcattered 
 abroad. Philipy one of the fcven, went 
 down to Samaria^ and preached to them, 
 and wrought many miracles, infbmuch that 
 
 Z 2 great 
 
340 Sf. Jobn. Ch. IX. 
 
 great numbers believed. When the Apoftles, 
 who were at yerufakm, heard of this, " they 
 fent unto them Peter and "^ohn, that they 
 might receive the Holy Ghofc. Having per- 
 formed that fervice, they returned to Jeru- 
 fakm. And in their way preached the gofpel 
 in many villages of the Samaritans. A6ls viii. 
 
 From what St. Paul fays in the fecond 
 chapter of the epiftle to the Galatia?is we 
 perceive, that Jolm was pre lent at the Coun- 
 cil of Jerufakm: of which an account is 
 given Ads xv. Vv^hich Council was held 
 in the year 49. or 50. or thereabout. And 
 it may be reckoned probable, that till that 
 tirae Jobi had (laid in the land of Ifrael^ 
 and had not been abroad in any Gentil coun- 
 treys. 
 
 I would add, that though no miracles are 
 related to be done by St. Johuj befide thofe, 
 which have been here taken notice of j I 
 reckon it very probable, that many miracles, 
 befide thofe particularly mentioned by the 
 hiftorian, were wrought by him, and other 
 Apofiles, during their flay in Judea. This 
 may be inferred from general expreffions of 
 St. Luke in feveral places. And many Jigns 
 end wonder i were^done by the ApoJlles» Ads ii. 
 
 . 43- 
 
Ch. IX. St. John, 341 
 
 43 . A}id with great power gave the Apojiles 
 u-ttnejje of the refurredlion of the Lord f ejus. 
 ch. iv. 33. J7id by the hands of the A- 
 foftles were many figns and wonders wrought 
 among the people, ch. v. 12. Comp, iv. 29. 
 
 '^ o 
 
 From the book of the Revelation, ch. i. 
 9. we learn, that St. fohn was for a while in 
 the ifland called Patmos, where he was fa- 
 vored with vifions and revelations. 
 
 Thus far we have endeavored to colleft 
 the hiftorie of this Apoftle from the New 
 Teftament. 
 
 II. From ecclefiaflical hiftorie we learn, His Jgf. 
 that St. John lived to a great Age, and that 
 in the later part of his life he refided in y^^, 
 particularly at Ephefus, the chief city of that 
 countrey. 
 
 Concerning his abode in AJja we have 
 divers tefiimonies of good credit. Irenaens 
 in (0) two places of his work againft Herefies, 
 both (/)) cited by Eiifebe, fays, that Johfi 
 the Apoftle lived in AJia till the time of 
 Trajan. [Who fucceded AVt?^ in the year 
 
 Z 3 of 
 
 (0) Iren. ach. Haer. I. z. cap. 22. «. i/.p. 148, e^/, Majf, et 
 I. 3. cap. 3. /. 178. 
 
 (p) Eufeb. H. E. 1.'^, cap. 23. /;;. 
 
342 St. John. Ch. IK. 
 
 cf. Chrlft 98.] Eujebe (q) underftands Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria to fpeak to the lik^ pur- 
 pofe. Origen alfo fays, that (r) John having 
 lived long in AJia, died at Epbcfus. Pcly- 
 crates J Billiop of Ephefiis about 1 96. is an 
 unexceptionable witnefie, that (s) john was 
 buried in that city. Jerome (t) in his book 
 of Iliuftrious Men, and in his books againft 
 Jovinian^ fays, " that the Apoftle John 
 lived in AJia^ to the time of Trajan. And 
 dying at a great age, in the fixty-eighth year 
 after our Lord's paffion, was buried near 
 the city of Ephefus.'" Suppofing our Lord 
 to have been crucified in the year 32. of the 
 vulgar aera, which (u) feems to have been 
 Jerome's opinion, fixty eight years will reach 
 to the year 100. cr the third of Trajan. At 
 v/hich year of that Emperour the death 
 of St. John is placed by Jerome in lais (x) 
 Chronicle. 
 
 What was Johns age, when called by 
 Chrid, we are not informed. Baronim (y) 
 
 thought 
 
 {q) Vid. Eufeb. Ibid. 
 
 (r) Ap. Eujeb. I. 3. cap. l. 
 
 is) Ap. Eufeb. 1. 1/. eap. 24. in. 
 
 (/) See Credib. Vol. x. p. loo. and loi^ 
 
 (a) Fid. Bafnag. Ann, 1 01 . num. ii. 
 
 [x) P. 1 65 . ex ed. Scalig. 
 
 (y) Ann. loi. nu}n. ix. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John, 343 
 
 thought he might then be about 22 years of 
 age. Having been with Chrift three years, 
 he was about 25 years of age when our 
 Lord was crucitied. Tiliemont (z) fuppofes 
 St. John to have been about 25 or 26 years 
 of age when called to be an Apoflle. 
 Lampe (a) thinks, that he was about the 
 fame age with our Saviour. For my part, 
 I cannot perfuade my-felf, that any of 
 Chrift's Apoftles, when called to attend 
 upon him, that they might be bis witnefles 
 to the world, were much under the age of 
 thirty. If it hence follows, that Jolm v/as 
 a hundred years of age, or thereabout, when 
 he died, it is not at all incredible, nor un- 
 likely. 
 
 III. As it is an allowed point, that yohn whenhe 
 dwelt in Afia in the later part of his life ; we ^'*' 
 
 may be reafonably defirous to know, when 
 he fettled in that countrey. And for deter- 
 mining this, the books of the New Tefla- 
 ment may afford good hints. For (b) in all 
 
 Z 4 St. 
 
 (k) 5. Jean. P E'vavgelzjie. art. x. et note xv. Mem Tom. i. 
 
 {a) Quare nihil inipedit, quo minus ejufdem fermc aetatis 
 cum fervatore noftiO fuerit. Prolegom. in Jo. I. i. cap. 2. 
 }?um. i. not. (a). 
 
 [b] •' In the divifion of provinces, which the Apoilles 
 
 made 
 
344 ^f' Jo^-^"' Ch. IX. 
 
 St. Luke's hiftorie of the preaching and tra- 
 vels o^ Paul, particularly in Jffia, no men- 
 tion is made of John. Which may induce us 
 to think, that he was not there at that time. 
 Nor are there any faUuations fent to John in 
 any of St. Pauh epillles, writ at Rome: feveral 
 of which were fent to Ephefus, or other 
 places, not very remote from it : as the 
 epiftle to the Epbefians, the fecond epiftle 
 to l^imothie, probably, at Ephefiis, the epiftle 
 to the ColoJJianSf and the epiftle to Philemon^ 
 at Colojfe. 
 
 I will now obferve the opinions of fome 
 learned moderns. Baronius thought, that {c) 
 this Apoftie did not come to refide in Afia, 
 until after the death of St. Peter, and St. 
 Paul. Du Pin fays : We (d) do not ex- 
 actly know, when he came into Afia, Per- 
 haps it was about the year 70. 'Tillemont 
 was of opinion, that {e) Sx.Joh?i did not come 
 
 made among themfelves, Jfia fell to his ftiare, though he 
 did not prefently enter into his charge. Otherwife, we muft 
 have heard of him in the account, which St. Luke gives of 
 St. PauVs feveral journeys into, and refidence in thofe parts," 
 Caw'j Life of St. John, §. i'v. 
 (c) A. d. 97. num. it. 
 , (d) Du Pin Diff. Prel I. 2. ch. 2. §. w. 
 
 fe) St. jean art. iv. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 345 
 
 to rcTide in Afia^ till about the year 66. But 
 he fuppofeth, that upon fome occafionj he 
 had before that been in that countrey, with- 
 out making a ftay there. Which laft, as I 
 apprehend, is faid without any good au- 
 thority. Mr. Lampe was of opinion, that 
 
 (f) John did not leave Judca, till after the 
 death of JameSy called the Lefs, and but a 
 fliort time only, before the deftrudlion ofje- 
 riifilem. 
 
 To me it feems not unlikely, that St. John 
 came into AJiaj about the time that the war 
 broke out in Jiidea^ in the year 66. or a fhort 
 time before, when, probably, St. Feter and 
 Paul h2id been before crowned with martyr- 
 dom. 
 
 As St. John (laid a good while in Pale/iifje, 
 it may be reafonably concluded, that the vir- 
 gin Marie did not go with him to Ephefus, as 
 
 (g) Baronius, and fome others have thought, 
 but died, before he went thither. Which 
 
 was 
 
 (f) Poft ejus (Jacobi Mhwris) exceflum neminem ex tSi> 
 S'uS'tKA grege et conftantius et diutius Hierofolymis fub- ' 
 ftitifle noftro Apoftolo : ita ut vix exiguo ante exordium in- 
 tervallo, inde fe avelli pateretur. Proleg. Li, cap. z. n. xv. 
 
 p. 29. 
 
 (g) A. d. 44. «. xxix. 
 
346 ^^- 'John, Ch. IX. 
 
 was the opinion of (h) Cave, and (ij Baf- 
 
 nage. 
 KisHiprie IV. St. John having had a long life, many 
 Writes!' things have been faid of him, fome true, 
 others faUe. Mo ft of them have been al- 
 ready taken notice of in feveral chapters of 
 this work. It may not be improper to re- 
 colle(5i: them here, with fome remarks. 
 
 1. JpoiloniuSj who wrote againft the Mon- 
 tanijfsy and flouriihed about the year 211. 
 fays, in a fragment, preferved by Eufebe, 
 " That [k) by the divine power Jolm raifed 
 lip a dead man to life at Ephefus'' Which 
 miracle is alfo taken notice of by (/) Sozomen, 
 and [m) Nicephorus^ and may have been re- 
 ally done. But if we had had a more cir- 
 cumftantialhiftorie of it, and if it had been 
 mentioned by fome other early writers, be- 
 iide Apollonius^ it would have been more 
 credible. 
 
 2. There was a book forged with the 
 title of the travels of Paul and Thecla by 
 
 a Pref- 
 
 (h) " Probable therefore it is, that he dwelt in his own 
 houfe at Jerufalem, at left til! the death of the bleifed Virgin." 
 Cave's Life of St. yohn, §. i'v. 
 
 (i) Vid. Bcfnag, An. 46. num. xxxmin. 
 
 (k) See ch. 31. num. iv. Vol, iii. p. 16. 
 
 (I) Soz. I. 7. cap. 27. p. 750. 
 - (m) Niceph. /. 4. f^^. 25. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 347 
 
 a Prefbyter, who was depofed for (o doing, as 
 related by Tertuilian. Jerome fays, that 
 he was a Prefbyter in Afia, and that he was 
 convided before St. John of being the au- 
 thor of it, and for that reafon was depofed. 
 Of this matter we have already fpoken di- 
 flindly aheady, and therefore refer to what 
 was then {n) faid. 
 
 3. It is alfo related of our Apoftle, that 
 going to bathe at Epkefus, and perceiving, 
 that CerinthuSj or, as others fay, Ebion, was 
 already in the bath, he came out again haftly, 
 and would not make ufe of the bath. The 
 probability of which account was examined 
 (0) formerly. 
 
 4. It is faid, that by order of the Em- 
 perour Domiiian St. John was cafl: into a cal- 
 dron of boy ling oyl at Rome, and came out 
 again, without being hurt. The (p) truth 
 of which ftorie likevvife has been con/idred 
 by us. 
 
 5. Poly- 
 
 («) See ch. 27. 'vol. ii. p. 641. . . . 643. and ch. 29. f. 
 698. ^V. 
 
 {0) Sec ch. 6. I'ol.i. p. 190. 191. note (B) the fecand edition ^ 
 and ch. 114. lol. x, p. 10^. 
 
 (/>) See ch. 27. 'vol. ii. p, 604. note (E) thifecond edition, and 
 fbf n4' 'i'ol' •*■• P' 108, 
 
34^ ' Sl Jobn. Ch IX. 
 
 5. PolycrafeSj Bifliop of Ephefus in the 
 later part of the fecond centurie, fays, that 
 y(?.67z was Chrifi's High-Prieft, wearing on 
 his forehead a golden plate. Which ac- 
 count (q) has been confidred, and the 
 judgements of divers learned men upon it 
 alleged. 
 
 6. Etifebe has a ftorie, from a work of 
 Clement of Alexandria^ of a young man in 
 a city of Afia^ not far from Ephefus^ who 
 after having been inftru6led in the ChriQian 
 Religion took to evil courfes, and became 
 profligate : but neverthelefs was afterwards 
 brought to repentance by our Apoftle. This 
 account is inferted at large by Eufebe (r) 
 in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. It has been 
 repeated in like manner by Simeoji Meta- 
 pbrajles in his Life of St. '^ohn. Chryfoflom (s) 
 has referred to it. It is alfo briefly told in 
 the it) Pafchal Chronicle. I have already 
 taken fome notice of this [u) ftorie. S. Baf- 
 nage (x) thinks it to be a fable, or feigned 
 
 apologue, 
 
 [q) See ch. 114. vol. x. p. 104. . . 107. 
 (;•) L. 3. cap. 23. 
 
 {/) j^d Theodor. Lap/. T. i. p. ^X. cd. Bened. 
 [t] Chr. Pafch.p. 251. I>. 
 («) See ch. 114. i/o/. x. p. 107. 108. 
 [x] Apologo fjuam hiftoriae videtur efTe propior. . ." . ^ 
 
 Ac 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 349 
 
 apologue, compofed to convey ufeful inftruc- 
 tion. Mr. Lampe (y) is favorable to this hif- 
 torie. And, perhaps, it may be true, aba- 
 ting fome circumftances. Which are not 
 feldom added to fuch accounts, to render 
 them the more entertaining. 
 
 7. yerome has given an account of St. 
 John's method of preaching, when he was 
 of a great age, and was not able to make 
 a long difcourfe. This {z) was taken notice 
 of by us in a proper place. Nor is the 
 truth of it, though related by Jerome only, 
 difputed, either by (a) LamJ)e, or {b) Le 
 Clerc. 
 
 8. It 
 
 Ac fane nefcimus, li vera hiftoria eft, cur Clemens /wJ9», 
 fabulae, nomen ipfi primum impofuerit. Fabula fuit ratione 
 rei fignificantis, veritafque refpedlu rei fignificatae, quae 
 mentibus proponebatur, nempe exirnii paftoris officium, ac 
 vis poenitentiae. Non infolens erat antiquis, uti apologis 
 ejufmodi ad informandos mores. ... Si cui tamen placet de 
 Joanne Clementis narrationem veram hifloriam eiTe, quia fie 
 Veteribus vifum, de hac re quidem contendere nolumus. 
 Bafn. ann. 97. num. x. 
 
 (y) Prolegom. I. i. cap. -v, num. Hi. . . . ix. 
 
 (z) Vol. x.p. 103. 
 
 (a) Licet enim Hieronymus folus hujus narrationis auftor 
 fit, nihil tamen occurrit, quod non cum more Joannis, ut 
 cum ratione Ecclefiae ejus temporis apprime convenit. Lamp, 
 Proleg, I. i, cap. 'v, n, xi. 
 
 (b) H, E, ann. 99. num. i. 
 
35© St. John, Ch. IX* 
 
 8. It is generally fuppofed, that (c) John 
 is one of thofe Apoftles, who lived a fingie 
 life. It is faid by (d) TeriulUaJi^ and Jerome. 
 Which laft affirms, that (e) ecclefiaftical hif- 
 torie afTures us of it. And he makes it the 
 ground of all the peculiar privileges of this 
 Apoftle. 
 
 9. Another thing, faid of John^ is, that 
 he was banidied into Patmos, an illand of 
 the Mediterranean Sea, not far from the 
 coaft of Afta. And, if he is the writer of 
 the book of the Revelation, which we do 
 not now difpute, the thing is unqueftioned. 
 
 But 
 
 (c) Vid. Lamp. Proleg. I. i, cap. i. num. xui. 
 
 (d) Joannes Chriili fpado. De Monog. cap. ly.p. 68c?. 
 (ej Talemfuifle eunuchum, quern Jelus amavit plurimum, 
 
 Evangeliftam Joannem, ecclefiailicae tradunt hiftoriae : qui 
 recubuit fuper peAus Jefu : qui, Petro tardius ambulance, 
 elatus virginitatis alis cucurrit ad Dominum : qui in fecreta 
 divinae fe nativitatis immergens, aufus eft dicere : In prin- 
 cipio erat Verbum. &-c. /■? If. cap. lvi. Tom. 3. p. 410. 
 
 Joannes vero nofter, quafi aquila, ad fuperna volat, et ad 
 ipfum Patrem pervenit, dicens : In principio erat Verbum, 
 &c. Expofuit virginitas, quod nuptiae fcire non poterant. 
 Et ut brevi fermone multa coinprehendam, doceamque, cu- 
 jus privilegii fit Joannes, imo in Joanne virginitas : a Domino 
 virgine, mater virgo \'irgini difcipulo commendatur. y^d-v. 
 Jo'vin. I. i. 7. 4. P. z. p. 1 69. Vid. et ad. Princip. mrg. ep. 
 96. al. 16. ih. p. /So./". 
 
Ch. IX. St.John.^ 351 
 
 But I have deferred the condderation of 
 this particular, till now, becaufe learned 
 moderns are not agreed about the time 
 of it. 
 
 V. I fliall therefore firfl put down the The "Time, 
 
 ~ . , 111 'when he 
 
 accounts or ancient authors, and then ob- ^ujasha- 
 (erve the opinions of learned men of later "^^^^^^ 
 
 ^ Patmos, 
 
 times. 
 
 Irenaem fays of the Revelation, '* that 
 (f) it was feen no long time ago, but almofb 
 in our age, at the end of the reign of Do- 
 mitian.'' And though Ircnaeia does not 
 fay, that St. 'John was then in Patmos, yet 
 iince he fuppofeth him to be the perfon, 
 who had the revelation, he muft have be- 
 lieved him to be then in Patmos, as the book 
 itfelf fays. ch. i. 9. 
 
 Clement, of Alexandria, m his book, en- 
 tided. Who is the rich man that may be 
 faved, as cited by Eufebe, fpeaks (g) of 
 *' Johris returning from Patmos to Ephefus, 
 after the death of the tyrant." By whom, 
 it is probable, he rrkeans Domkiaii. 
 
 Tertullian^ 
 
 (/) See cap. 1 7. Vol, i. p, 379. 
 
 (g) E'TreiS'ti yap t» Typ«vv» TiKZVTrKrcttToi, u-tto tmj 'varutt 
 tm vwH fjETTiA^iv «; T«ii i^iffov. X. A. Jft Eufeh. H, E, I. z. 
 c. 23./. 92, 
 
352 Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 TerfuIIia?ij In his Apologie, fpeaks of Do'- 
 mitian, as (h) having banidied fome Chrif- 
 tians, and afterwards giving them leave to 
 return home : probably intending St. yohn, 
 and fome others. In another work he fays, 
 *' that (i) yolm having been fent for to Romey 
 was cad into a vellel of boyling oyl, and then 
 banidied into an ifland :" in the time of Do- 
 mitian, as is mofb probable. 
 
 Origefiy explaining Matt. xx. 23. fays : 
 ** James (k) the brother of John^ was killed 
 ** with a fword by Herod. And a Roman 
 " Emperour, as tradition teaches, banifhed 
 " John into the ifland Patmos for the tefti- 
 *'' monie, which he bore to the word of truth. 
 ** And John himfelf bears witnefle to his ba- 
 " nifhment, omitting the name of the Em- 
 *' perour, by v*fhom he was banifhed, faying 
 *' in the Revelation : / Johnj 'who alfo am 
 " \oiir brother and companion in tribulation y 
 *' and in the kingdom and patience of Jefus 
 
 '' Chrifly 
 
 (h) Tentaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudeli- 
 tate. Sed qua et homo facile ceptum repreflit, reflitutis etiain 
 quos relegaverat. Jpol. cap. 5. 
 
 (i) . . . habes Romam, . . . ubi Apoftolus Joannes, poftea- 
 quam in oleum igneum demerfus, nihil paffus eft, in infulam 
 relegatur. De Pr. Haer. cap. 36. p. 245. 
 
 (k) Comm. in Matt. T. i.p, 417. Huet, 
 
Ch. IX. aS/. ''johu 353 
 
 *' Cbriff, was in the if.e ofPafmos^ fer the word 
 ** of Godj and jor the te/iimo?ne of J ejus 
 " ChrilL And (I) it feems, that the Reve- 
 y lation was feen in that ifland." 
 
 ViBorin^ Birtiop of Pettaw about 290. 
 again and again fays, that (m) John was ba- 
 ni{]ied by DGmitia?!^ and in his reign faw the 
 revelation. 
 
 Eiifebcj giving an account. oi Domitians 
 periecution, fays : ** In fn) this perfecution, 
 as it is faid) johj?, the Apoftle and Evange- 
 lift, being ftill living, was banifhed into the 
 ifland Patmos for the teftimonie of the word 
 of God." 
 
 Epiphanius, as formerly (p) fliewn, fays : 
 " John prophefied in the ifle of Patmos^ in 
 the reign of Qlaudius," And in another place, 
 then only referred to, he fays : *' Joh?: wrote 
 *« his Gofpel in his old age, tvhen he was 
 *' more than ninety years old, after his re- 
 " turn from Patmo>, which fqj was in the 
 *' time of Claudius Caefar." 
 
 (I) Kci/ £3ix« T«v a7roKiKv\.iv h rvi v'lffu nSek^fmiton. 
 Ibid. C. 
 
 (m) See Vol. nj.p. 223. 
 
 (n) H. E. I. 3 cap. 1 8. 
 
 (p) Vol. 'viii.p. 311. 
 
 (q) . . -rnv iTt KActy/ia yivofj.my Kouffa^oi. Haer. 51. 
 num. xii. 
 
 Vol. I. - A a Jerome , 
 
354 St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 Jerome^ in his book of Illuftrious Men, 
 as (r) formerly cited, fays : " Dojnitian in 
 the fourteenth year of his reign railing the 
 fecond perfecution after Nero, John was ba- 
 niflied into the ifland PatmoSy where he wrote 
 the Revelation." And in another work, alfo 
 cited fs) formerly, he fays again : " John 
 was a Prophet, as he faw the Revelation in 
 the ifland PafmoSj where he was banifhed by 
 Domitian." And 1 fhail now tranfcribe be- 
 low (t) in his own words, without tranflating 
 them, his comment upon Matt. xx. 23. 
 where he fpeaks of St. yohn^ having been ba- 
 nifhed into Patmos : but does not name the 
 Emperour, by whom he was banilhed. 
 
 Sidpicius Severus fays, ** that (u) yohn^ the 
 Apoftle and EvangeliU, was banifhed by Do- 
 mittan into the ifland Patmos : where he had 
 
 vifions, 
 
 (r) See Vol. x. p. lOO. (s) P. 102. 
 
 (i) Quaeritur, quomodo calicem martyrii filii Zebedaei, 
 Jacobus videlicet et Joannes, biberint : quum fcriptura narret 
 Jacobum tantum Apoftolum ab Herode capite truncatum : 
 Joannes autem propria morte vitam finierit. Sed fi legamus 
 ecclefiafticas hiilorias, in quibus fertur, quod et ipfe propter 
 martyrium lit mifTus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad fuf- 
 cipiendam coronam Chrifti athleta procefTerit, ftatimque re- 
 legatus in Patmon infulam fit, videbimus, martyrio animum 
 non defuifTe, ec bibifTe Joannem calicem confeffionis. Omm, 
 in Matt. Tom. 4. P. i. p. 92. 
 
 (n) See Vol. xi, p, II. 
 
Ch.IX. Si. John. 35^ 
 
 vifions, and where he wrote the book of the 
 Revelation." 
 
 Arethasj in his Commentarie upon the Re- 
 velation, fuppofed to be writ in the fixth cen- 
 turie, fays, upon the authority of Eufebius, 
 that (x) John was banifhed into Patmos by 
 Domitian. 
 
 IJidore, of Seville^ near the end of the fixth 
 centurie, fays : " Domitian (y) raifed a per- 
 fecution againft the Chriftians. In his time 
 the Apoftle John having been banillied into 
 the ifland Patmos faw the Revelation/* 
 
 We may now make a remark or two. 
 
 I . All thefe teftimonies are of ufe, whether 
 they name the ifland, where John was ba- 
 nifhed, or the Emperour, by whom he was 
 banifhed, or not. They all agree, that St. 
 John was fent thither by way of punifhment, 
 or reflraint, for bearing witnefle to the truth. 
 Which confutes the opinion of Lightjoot^ 
 ** that (z) John travelling in the miniftrie of 
 ** the gofpel, up and down, from AJia weft- 
 *' ward, comes into the ille Patmos^ in the 
 
 A a 2 " Ic avian 
 
 (x) 'E^opiTflV H awTou yevitrSxi h 7raT//.« t]! vfjo-a Ctto 
 
 vtx^r'i^iToci. Andr. in Apoc. ap. Occum. Tom. 2. p. 654. D. 
 (y) Vol.xi.p. 377. 
 (z) Harmonie of the N. T, VcL i. p. ^^1. 
 
356 Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 *« Icaria?! fea, an ifland about thirty miles 
 <' compafs. And there on the Lord's-day he 
 " has thefe vifions, and an angel interprets to 
 " him ail he faw." 
 
 2. All thefe writers, who mention the time 
 of the Revelation, and of the baniiliment, 
 fay, it was in the time of Domitimtj and that 
 he was the Emperour, by whom St. John was 
 baniflied : except EpiphaniuSy who fays, it 
 was in the time of Claudius. As he is fingu- 
 lar, it fliould feem, that he cannot be of any 
 great weight againfl; fo many others. 
 
 Neverthelefs, as fome learned men, parti- 
 cularly GKOtiiis, have paid great regard to E- 
 piphanim in this point -, it is fit, we fliould 
 ■s confider, what they fay. 
 
 Says Grotius in a trafl, entitled A Com- 
 ment upon divers texts of the NevvTefta- 
 ment, relating to Antichrift : particularly, 
 upon the tenth verfe of the xvii. chapter of 
 the Revelation : " j'oh?i (a) began to be-il- 
 
 *' lumi- 
 
 (a) Coepit autem Joannes in Patmo eHb, et Dei vifis il- 
 • luminari Claudii temporibus, quae veturiiffimorura Chriftia- 
 norum eft fententia, non Domitiani, ut volunt alii. Vide 
 E^iplianium in Kacrefi Alogoruni. Claudius Judaeos, fub 
 quorum nomine tunc et Chriitiani cenfebantur, ut multis vi- 
 ris dodis obfervatum eft, Roma pepulerat, Ad. xviii. 2. 
 
 Quod 
 
 -^f 
 
Ch. IX. St. John . '^-^y 
 
 ** liiminated with divine vifions in the ifland 
 " Patmos^ in the time of Claudius. Which 
 ** was the opinion of the mod ancient Chrif- 
 *' tians. See Epiphanhis in the Herefie of 
 " the Alogiam. Claudius^ as we learn from 
 " Ads xviii. 2. commanded all 'J ews to depart 
 ^^ from Rome. Under the name of Jews, 
 " Chriftians alfo were comprehended, as has 
 " been obferved by many learned men. And 
 *' it cannot be doubted, but many Governours 
 " of the Roman provinces followed that ex- 
 ** ample. So therefore fobi was driven from 
 " Ephefus." 
 
 That argument was long ago examined by 
 (b) David Blondel, who fays i . It is not true, 
 that the moft ancient writers faid, that St. 
 yoh?i was fent into Fatinos by Claudius. It is 
 Epiphanius only, who fays fo. He is altoge- 
 ther lingular. There are no ancients, either 
 before, or after him, who have faid this. 
 2. As Epiphanius is fingular, he ought not to 
 be regarded. 3. There was no perfecution of 
 
 A a 3 the 
 
 Quod exemplum non dubium eft, quln imitati fmt multi 
 Praefides Romanorum provinciarnm. Ita Ephefo expulfus 
 Joannes. Grot. Commentatio ad loca qiiacdam N. T. quae de 
 Ant'ichrijlo agunt, ant agere putanttir. 0pp. Tom. 3. 
 
 (b) Des Siiylks, /. 2. f^. ///./>. 145, ,. . i/j-Sw; Charentcn, 
 1649. 
 
35B ^ St. John, Ch. IX. 
 
 the Chriftlans in the reign oi Claudius. There 
 is no proof from any ancient monuments, 
 that Chrillians, as fuch, fuffered banifliment 
 under that Emperour. It is allowed, that (c) 
 Nero was the firft Roman Emperour, who 
 perfecuted the Chrlftians. 4. The editft of 
 Claudius only baniflied the Jews from Rome. 
 It did not afFe6l the Jews in the provinces, as 
 appears from the New Teftament itfelf, par- 
 ticularly, Ads xviii. and xix. It is manifeft 
 from the hiftorie in the Ads, that in the reign 
 of Claudius^ in other parts of the Empire, out 
 of RomCy the Jews enjoyed as full liberty, as 
 they did before. Paul and Silas , Aquila and 
 Frifcilk^ dwelled quietly at Corinth : where 
 the men of their nation had their fynagogue, 
 and affembled in it according to cuftom^ 
 without moleflation, 5. Nor could the Go- 
 vernours of provinces banifli either Jews or 
 
 Chrif- 
 
 fc) Confulite commentarios veftros. Illic reperietis, prir 
 mum Neronem in hanc feftam, cum maxime Romae orien- 
 tem, Caefariano gladio ferociffe. Sed tali dedicatore dam- 
 rationis noftrae etiam gloriamur. Teriu//. Jp. cap. 'v. 
 
 Islerone imperante. . . . Qui dignus exftitit, qui perfecutio- 
 Jiem in Chriftianos primus inciperet. Su/p. Sev. Hiji. Sacr. 
 I. 2. cap, 3g. 
 
 Nam primus Romae Chriftianos fuppliciis et mortibus af« 
 fec^t. P. prof, I. 7. cap. 7. 
 
 Vid, et Eufeb. H. E. I, z, cap. 25. p. 67. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 359 
 
 Chriftians out of their governments, without 
 order from the Emperour. And that they 
 had no fuch order, is apparent. Neither 
 Jews nor Chriftians were molefted by them 
 at Ephefus^ as may be perceived from the 
 hiftorie in the nineteenth chapter of the Ads, 
 That they were not molefled by them at Co- 
 rinth^ appears from the preceding chapter. 
 6. St. 'John could not be banifhed from Ephe- 
 fus by Claudius J or theGovernours under him. 
 For he was not in that city during the reign 
 of that Emperour, nor in the former part of 
 the reign of Nero^ as has been (hewn. He 
 did not come thither, till near the end of the 
 reign of the lafl mentioned Emperour. 
 Therefore he could not be fooner banifhed 
 from Ephejus, 
 
 Thefe obfervations, if I am not miftaken, 
 are fufficient to confute the" opinion of Grc- 
 tlus. 
 
 Sir IJaac Newton was of opinion, that (b) 
 
 A a 4 St. 
 
 (b) ^\xlfaac Neivtoti's opinion is much the Hime with that 
 of John Hentenius of Mechlin^ confuted by Dwvui Blondel in 
 the fame work, and in the next chapter to that, in which he 
 confuted Groiius. Hentenius and Nenxitoti argue much alike. 
 It may be fufpecled, that Nenuton incautioufly borrowed fome 
 of his weak arguments. Says Blonde/ : " Jean Hentenius en 
 fa preface fur le Commentaire d'Arethas. . a Ic difcours, qui 
 
 fuit : 
 
360 St. John. Ch.IX:. 
 
 St. John was banlfhed into Fatmos, and that 
 the Revelation was feen in the reign oVNcro^ 
 before the dertrudion of Jerufalem. 
 
 ^^Eufebhis, fays (d) he, in his Chronicle, 
 *' andEccleiiaftical Fliftorie follows Irenaeus: 
 *' (who faidj the Apocalypfe was writ in the 
 ** time o^ Dojnitian:) But afterwards in his 
 ** Evangelical Demon ftration he conjoyns 
 " the banifliment of yofm into Patmos, with 
 " the deaths of Pefer and Pmi." 
 
 To which I aniwev J Jir/I, that fej the Ec- 
 cleiiaftical Hiflorie was not writ before the 
 Evangelical Demonftration, but after it. For 
 the Demonftration is referred to at the end of 
 the fecond chapter of the fiiil book of the 
 Eccleiiaftical HKlorie. Secondly, Eujebiiis in 
 
 his 
 
 fuit ; // me femble, qu£ Jean . . . a ejic relegue par Neron en 
 Pat??ws au mejme temps que celui la a tue dans Rome, . . . Pierie et 
 Paul. Tertullien, I'oijin des temps des mejmes Jpoftres, aJJ'eure 
 cela mefme en deux liev.x. Eujebe aujfi traitte la tne/me chofe an 
 tivre de la Demonjlration Ei-angelique, cotnhien quen fes Chro' 
 r.iques, et en riiijioire Ecclefiajliqiie il dit que cela eji arrinje fous 
 Domitien : ce que cujji Saint Hierome et plujieurs autres fid'vent. 
 Mais a ces li'vres cy, comme efcris is annees precedentes, Ji grande 
 authorite nejl pas attribuee, qu a celui de la Demonjlration Eiati- 
 gedque, meu- quil a cjie depuis, et plus corredetnent e labour e, 
 Blondel des Sibylles. I. 2. ch. i^v, p. 148. 149. 
 
 (d) Neivtotfs Objcr'vattons upon the Apocalypfe of St. John, 
 chap, /', p. 236. 
 
 (e) See in this ixork.Vol. 'viii. p. 47. Valef. Annot. in Eufeb* 
 /. 8. 9. Fabric. Bib, Gr. I, 5. cap. i'v. Tom. b.p.^"]. . . 59. 
 
Ch. IX. St. Job:?. 361 
 
 his Demondratlon is not different from him* 
 fclf in his Ecclefiaftical HiPiorie. In his De- 
 mondration, having fpoken of the imprifon- 
 ment of all the Apofties at yeruJaleWy and of 
 their being beaten, and of the ftoning of 
 Stephen, the belieading of yame& the fon of 
 Zebedee, and the imprifonment of Pcier, he 
 adds : " James (f) the Lord's brother, v/as 
 floned, Peter was crucified at Ro}?ie with his 
 head downward, and Paul was beheaded, and 
 yohn ba niched into an iiiand." But he does 
 not fiy, that all thefe things happened in the 
 time of one and the fame Emperour. It is 
 plain, that it is not his defign to mention ex- 
 actly the time of the fufferings of all thefe 
 perfons. Nothing hinders our fuppofing, 
 that the Apoftles Peter and Paul were put 
 to death by order of Nero^ and Jo/m baniHi- 
 ed by Dornitiany many years afterwards, a- 
 greeably to what himfelf writes in his Chro- 
 nicle and Hiftorie. 
 
 It follows in Sir Tfdac Neii'ton. " And 
 " (Z,) ^^ ^^ Tertullian, and PJcudo-Prccho' 
 *' rusy as well as the firft author, whoever he 
 
 '^ was. 
 
 'TtttvKoi re a.7ro7k[jMircLi, h::iivf\q n vfiffa 'jotfOiiiJ'oTAt. Dem, 
 E'v.L 3,/>. 116. 
 
 (g) Ai before, p. 236. 
 
362 Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 «* was, of that very ancient fable, that St. 
 " 'John was put by Nero into a veflel of hot 
 « oyl." 
 
 I place below (h) the words of l^ertulUan^ 
 to which Sir IJaac refers. And I anfwer : 
 It is true, that Tertiillian fpeaks of the death 
 of Veter and Taul^ and of Johns being caft 
 into boyling oyl, and then banifhed, all to- 
 gether. But he does not fay, that all hap- 
 pened in the fame reign. St. Joh?!'^ banifh- 
 ment is the laft thing mentioned by him. 
 And, probably, it happened not, till after the 
 death of Peter and Paul. It is likely, that 
 Tertullian fuppofed it to have been done by 
 the order oiDomitian. For in another place 
 he fpeaks of the perfecution of that Empe- 
 rour, as (i) confiding chiefly in banifliments. 
 *' . . . and Pfeudo- Prochorus," What place 
 of Prochorus, who pretended to be one of the 
 
 feven 
 
 (h) 10.3. quam felix ecclefia, ubi Petrus pafiioni Domini- 
 cac adaequatur : ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur : ubi 
 Apoftolus Joannes, pofteaquam in oleum igneum demerfus, 
 nihil pafTus eft, in infulam relegatur. De Fraefcr. cap. 36. 
 f. 245. 
 
 (i) Tentaverat et Domitianus ... fed qua et homo, facile 
 ceptum repreilit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. ApU 
 
Ch.IX. St, John, 363 
 
 Teven deacons, and is called by Baronius (k) 
 himfelf a great lyar, Sir Ifaac Newton refers , 
 to, 1 do not know. But in his hiftorie of St. 
 yohfi he is entirely againfb him. For (I) he 
 particularly relates the fufFerii)gs, which St. 
 yohi underwent in the fecond perfecution of 
 the Chriftians, which was raifed by Domi- 
 tian. That Emperour fent orders to the Pro- 
 conful at Ephefusy to apprehend the Apodle. 
 When the Proconful had got St. Jofm in his 
 power, he informed Domitian of it. Who 
 then commanded the Proconful to bring him 
 to Rome, When (m) he was come, the Em- 
 perour would not fee him, but ordered him 
 to be caft into a veffel of fcalding oyl, and 
 he came out unhurt. Then Domitian com- 
 manded the Proconful to have St. John back 
 again to Ephefus, Some time (n) after that, 
 
 by 
 
 (k) — in multls mendaciflimns hie auflor fuifie convincitiir. 
 jln. 92. num. i. 
 
 (I) Secundam vero perfecutionem Domitianus excitarat, 
 cujus temporibus Joannes Ephefi morabatur. Imperator au- 
 tem Domitianus epiltolam milit Ephefum ad Pioconfulerti 
 civitatis. . . Proch. de Vit. Joan. cap. 8. Ap. Bib. Patr. 
 Ltigd. T. 2. 
 
 (m) Audiens autem Domitianus de adventu ejus, noluit 
 impius Caefar videre faciem Apoftoli. Et juffit, ut Proconful 
 duceret ad Portam Latinam, et in ferventis olei dolium ilium 
 vivum dimitti. &c. lb. cap, 10. 
 
 (n) Ibid. cap. 14. 
 
364 Si\ John, Ch. IX. 
 
 by order of the fame Domitian, Johriy and o- 
 thers at EphefuSy were banifiied into Patmos, 
 Do?nitian (0) being dead, they returned to 
 Ejphefus with the leave of his fucceflbr, who 
 did not perfecute the Chriflians. So Pfeudo- 
 Prockorus, 
 
 Since the great Newton has been pleafed to 
 refer to fuch a writer, I fliall take notice of 
 another, of the hke fort. I mean Abdias^ who 
 affumed the charader of the firft biiLop of 
 Bahjlon, What he fays, is to this purpofe : 
 that (p) Jobn^ who furvived the other Apof- 
 
 tles, 
 
 (0) Mortuo autem Doniitiano, qui nos tranfmiferat, in ex- 
 ilium, fuccefibr ejus non prohibebat Chriftianos. Et cum 
 audifTet de bonitate et fandimonia Joannis, quodque fuiflet 
 injufte a praedecelTore fuo exiiio relegatus, per literas nos re- 
 vocavit ab exiiio. lb. cap. 45. 
 
 (p) Eft igitur et hoc ipfum amoris Salvatoris in beatum 
 Joannem indicium non vulgare, quod vita reliquos omnes fu- 
 peraverit, et, ut diftum eft, ad Domitiani Imperatoris aeta- 
 tem ufque in Afia vcrbum falutis populis adnunciarit, . . . 
 Cui Proconful loci cum edidtum Imperatoris, ut Chriftum 
 negaret, et a praedicatione cellaret, legilTet, Apoftolus in- 
 trepide refpondit. . . Ad cujus refponfionem motus Procon-. 
 fill juiTit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei demergi. 
 Qui ftatirn ut conjedtus in aeneo eft, veluti athleta un£lus, 
 non aduftus, de vafe exiit. Ad quod miraculum Proconful 
 ftupefadus, voluit eum libertati fuae reddere. Et feciflet, 
 nifi timuiflet edidum Caefaris. Mitiorem igitur poenam 
 cogitans, in exilium eum relegavit, in infulam, quae di- 
 
 citur 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 365 
 
 ties, lived to the time of Domt'n'anj preach- 
 ing the word to the people in ^fia. When 
 Domiiian's edidl" for perfecuting theChriftlans 
 was brought to EpbefuSj and Jo/m refufed to 
 deny Chrift, or to give over preaching, the 
 Proconful ordered, that he fliould be drown- 
 ed in a veffel of boy ling oyl. But Jcbn pre- 
 fently leaped out unhurt. The Proconful 
 would then have fet him at liberty, if he had 
 not feared to tranfgrefs the Emperour's edict. 
 He therefore baniflied Jolm into Patmos, 
 where he faw and wrote the Revelation. 
 After the death of Domitian^ his edi(5ls hav- 
 ing been abrogated by the Senate, they who 
 had been baniflied, returned to their homes. 
 And John came to Ephefus, where he had a 
 ^welling, and many friends. 
 
 Then follows an account of St. John's vifit- 
 ing the churches in the neighborhood of E- 
 phefus* Where is inferted alfo the ftorie, for- 
 merly taken notice of, concerning the young 
 
 man, 
 
 citur Patmos. In qua et Apocalypfin, quae ex nomine ejus 
 legitur, et vidit, et fcripfit. Poll mortem autem Domitiani, 
 quia omnia ejus decreta Senatus infringi ju/Terat, inter ce- 
 teros, qui ab eo relegati fuerant, et ad propria remeabant, 
 etiam funftus Joannes Ephefum rediit, ubi et hofpitiolum, et 
 multoe amicos liabebat, AbJ. Hiji. A^cjIoL cap. <v. ap, Fabr, 
 C:id. Jptcr.N, ?"./•. 533. ... 536. 
 
366 Sf' "John. Ch. IX. 
 
 man, as related by Eufebius from Clement of 
 Alexandria : and as happening, not after the 
 death of NerOy but of Domitian. 
 
 Newton proceeds : " as well as the firfl; 
 " author, whoever he was, of that very an- 
 <' cient fable, that John was put by Nero into 
 " a veffel of hot oyl, and coming out unhurt, 
 " was banifhed by him into Patjnos. Though 
 " this ftory bis no more than a fidlion, yet 
 *' it was founded on a tradition of the firft 
 " churches, that John was banifhed into Pat^ 
 " mos in the days of Nero.'' 
 
 Who was the firft author of that fable, I 
 do not know. But it does not appear, that 
 TertulUanj the firfl writer who has mention- 
 ed it, thought it to be in the time of Nero, 
 He might mean, and probably did mean, 
 Domitian^ the fame, who baniOied John into 
 ■ an iiland. As did alfo, the tvi^o writers juft 
 taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias^ to 
 whom we were led by Sir Ifaac. Jerome^ 
 who (q) in his books againft Jovi?iianj men- 
 tions this ftorie, as from Tertulliany according 
 
 to 
 
 (q) Vidit enim in Patmos infula, in qua fuerat a Domiti- 
 ano principe reldgatus, ApocalypHn. . . . Refert auteni Ter- 
 tullianus, quod Romae, [al. a Nerone] miffus in ferventis olei 
 dolium purior et vegetior exierit, quam iutravit. Jd-v. Jovi>u 
 L 1. 107)1. if. p, i6g. 
 
Ch.IX. St. John. 367 
 
 to fome copies, fays, it was done at Rome^ ac- 
 cording to others, in the time oi Nero. How- 
 ever in the fame place, as well as elfewhere, 
 yerome exprefily fays, that John was banifh- 
 ed into Pafmos by Domitian, And (r) in the 
 other place, where he mentions the cafting 
 St. John into boyling oyl, he fays : '* And 
 prefently afterwards he was banifhed into the 
 ifland PatmosJ' Therefore that other trials 
 which St. yobti met with, was in the fame 
 reign, that is, T>omitia}i^» And indeed Jerome 
 always fuppofes St. Johris banifhment to have 
 been in that reign : as he particularly relates 
 in the ninth chapter of his book of illuftrious 
 Men. Let me add, that if the ftorie of St. 
 yohn's being put into a veffel of fcalding oyl 
 be a fable, and a iidion, it mufi: be hazardous 
 to build an argument upon it. 
 
 It follows in Newton : " Epiphanim repre- 
 " fents the Gofpel of John as written in the 
 ** time oi Dotnitian^ and the Apocalypfe even 
 *' before that of Nero." I have already faid. 
 enough of Epiphanius in confidering the opi- 
 nion 
 
 (r)^ Sed fi legamus ecclefiafticas hiftorias, in quibus fertur, 
 quod et ipfe propter martyrium fit mifTus in ferventis olei do- 
 lium, et inde ad fufcipiendam coronam Chrifti athleta pro- 
 cefTerit, ftatimque relegatus in Patmos infulam fit. ^c. Comm. 
 in Matt, XX, 23. Tom, 4. P. i.p, 92. 
 
363 Sf. Jo/m. Ch. IX. 
 
 nlon of Grotitis, However, as one would 
 think. Sir IJ'aac Newton had little reafoh to 
 mention Epiphaniusy when he does not fol- 
 low him. He fiys, that St. John was ba- 
 niOiedinto Patvios in the time of Claudius : 
 Sir Ifaac^ not till near the end of the reign of 
 Nero. 
 
 " J^rethas, fays (s) Sir Ifaac^ in the be- 
 *' ginif'g of his Commentarie quotes tlie 
 *' opinion of Irenaciis from EufebiuSj but 
 *' does not follow it. For he afterwards af- 
 *' firms, that the Apocalypfe was written be- 
 *' fere the deftrudion of jerufakm, and thst 
 *' former Commentators had expounded the 
 *< fixth feal of that deftrudtion." 
 
 To which I anfwer. Arethas do^s indeed 
 fay, that (t) fome iiiterpreters had explained 
 tbine,s under the fixth feal, as relating to the 
 deUrudion of Jerufalcm by Vefpafian. But 
 they were fome only, not the molt. Yea, 
 he prefently afterwards fays, that the moft 
 interpreted it otherwife. Nor does he fay, 
 that any of tHofe Commentators were of 
 
 opinion, 
 
 (j) Js he/ore. p. 236. 
 
 {t) Tiv'ii J'i 7uvrcc ti« TtiV VTTo oviffTTsifflxv^ yiVo/Anv 
 'TrcXwfKlciV l^iXocCov '^rdvra. ra. eifmiva. rp'^oXoyntJOiVTEi. 
 'Oi <fc. ^rAtiroi t*v if[/.mivTay. h- A. J^retb, cap. 18. p. 
 yog. A, 
 
Ch.lX. St. John, 369 
 
 opinion, that the Apocalypfe was Writ be- 
 fore the deflrudion of yerufalem. Arethas 
 feems to- have been of opinion, that things, 
 wh'ch had come to pafs long before, might 
 be reprefcnted in the Revelation. Therefore 
 immediatly before that paffage, explaining 
 Rev. vi. 12. 13. he fays : *' What {u) is the 
 *' opening of the iixth feal ? It is the crolTe 
 " and death of the Lord, followed by his 
 " refurrection, deiirable to all faithful and 
 " underPcanding men. A7id lo, there ''was a 
 '''■ great earthquake. Manifeftly denoting, fays 
 ** he, the figns that happened during the 
 *' crucifixion, the (leaking of the earth, the 
 *' darknefle of the fun, the turning the moon 
 " into bloud. For when it was full moon, 
 *' being the fourteenth day, how was it pof- 
 ** fible, that the fun (liould be eclipfed by 
 *' it's interpofition ? " 
 
 However, I mud not conceal what he 
 fays afterwards, in another chapter of his (x) 
 Commentarie. He is explaining Rev. vii. 
 4. ... 8. " Thefe, fays he, who inPcruds tho 
 " Evangelift, will not partake in the calami- 
 
 dva^c'.iii. K. A. Cap. 18./. 708. CD. 
 (x) Cap. KJx, 713. 714. 
 
 Vol. I. * B b "ties 
 
370 St. John. Ch.IX. 
 
 *"« ties inflided by the RomanL For the de- 
 " ftrudlion caufed by the Romans had not 
 " fallen upon the Jews, when the Evange- 
 " lift received thefe inftrudions. Nor was 
 " he at Jeriifalem., but in Jonia, where is 
 *' Ephefus. For he ftaid at Jerufalem no 
 " more than fourteen years. . . And after the 
 " death of our Lord's mother, he left Judea, 
 '' and went to Ephefus, as (y) tradition fays : 
 " where alfo, as is faid, he had the reve- 
 ** lation of future things." But how can we 
 rely upon a writer of the fixth centurie 
 for thefe particulars ? that John did not ft ay 
 at Jerufalem more than fourteen years : that 
 he left Jtidea upon the death of our Lord's 
 mother, and then went to Ephefus : when 
 we can evidently perceive from the hiftorie 
 in the Ads, that in the fourteenth year after 
 our Lord's afcenfion, there were no Chrif- 
 tian converts at Ephefus ? and that the church 
 at Ephefus v/as not founded by St. Paul, till 
 feveral years afterwards. What avails it, to 
 refer to fuch pafiages as thefe ? Which 
 when looked into, and examined, contain 
 no certain aflurances of any thing. And Sir 
 
 Ifaac 
 
 (y) . . . tfAAtf '^sfli 'iipi7ov [j.ira.<;m'ot.i avrlv hoyoi. xaS' 
 W) «; £/f>jT<t/. kX, Hid, />. 714.. in. 
 
Ch. IX. St. Joh/h- 371 
 
 J/h^c Newton himfelf fays : " It fz) feems 
 •' to me, that Peter and John ftaid with 
 " their churches in Judea and Syria : till 
 *' the Romans made war upon their nation, 
 *' that is, till the twelfth year of Nero" or 
 A. D. 66. 
 
 We proceed with this great man's argu- 
 ments, who adds : ** With (a) the opinion 
 "of the firft commentators agrees the tra- 
 " dition of the churches of Syriaj preferved 
 ** to this day in the title of the Syriac ver- 
 " fion of the Apocalypfe, which title is 
 *' this : ^he Reveiatiorty which was made to 
 *' ^ohn the Evangelijl by God in the ijland 
 *' FatmoSj itifo which he was banified by 
 *' Nero CaejarT But how comes it to pafs, 
 that the tradition of the churches of Syria is 
 alleged here, when the Apocalypfe was not 
 generally received by them ? Moreover in 
 the titles of the books of the New Tefla- 
 ment received by them, there are manifefi: 
 errours. Nor (b) can we fay, when the 
 Syriac verlion of the Apocalypfe was made. 
 
 B b 2 Nor 
 
 fz) As before, ^.243. 
 
 ^fl) P. 236. 237. 
 
 (b) Ad Nercnis imperium hoc cxilium Syrus refert. Ve- 
 rum incerta eft quam maxime hujus verfionis aetas, nulloque 
 gaudet focio. Lamp, Prolegil, i. cap. 4. §. "jH. 
 
 Qiiapropter 
 
372 Si. Job?2. Ch. IX". 
 
 Nor (c) is it impoffible, that the authors of 
 that title might mean Domitian by Nero. 
 It is not a greater errour, than that of fup- 
 pofing the epiftle of James to have been writ 
 by James the fon of Zebedee. 
 
 Again, fays the celebrated Newfo?i : " The 
 ** (dj fame is confirmed by a ftory told by 
 " Eufebius out of C/emens Alexandrinus^ and 
 ** other ancient authors, concerning a youth, 
 *' whom St. John fome time after his return 
 " from Patrnos committed to the care of the 
 " Bi(hop of a certain city. This is a ftory 
 *' of many years, and requires, that Joh?i 
 <' (liould have returned from Patrnos rather 
 " at the death of Nero^ than at that of Do- 
 " mitian'' 
 
 But 
 
 I 
 
 Quapropter nihil in hifce eft, quod Syrum ab erroris culpa 
 liberare poiTit: quemadmodum nee fupra erat, quod Epipha- 
 nium in nomine Claudii tueretur. Iliud tantummodo adno- 
 tatum volo, Syriacam Apocalypfeos verfionem haud aequalem 
 ceteroiLim librorum interpretationi videri, uti nee primi co- 
 dices in Europam adlati appofitam habuerunt, quam demum 
 Ludovicus de Dieu MDCXXVII. in lucem primum pro- 
 daxit. &c. Ch. Ccllarius de feptem ecckfiis AJiae num. xhjU. 
 p. 428. 
 
 (c) Sed forfan aliquis, honoris interpretis Syri folicitus 
 et cupidus, pofTet in illius gratiam afTerere, ilium non Nero- 
 nem, fed Domitianurn, alteram Neronem, feu portionem 
 Neronis, ut vocatur TertuUiano. &c. Ls Myne. Far, Sacr. ' 
 7om. 2. p. 1019. 
 
 (d) Ai abo've.p. 237. 
 
Ch. IX. St. yohn: 37^ 
 
 But, Jirp.^ if this be only a feigned ftorie, 
 or apologue, as fome have thought, con- 
 trived to convey moral inftrudion j circum- 
 flances ought not to be ftrained, nor the 
 truth of hiftorie be founded upon it. Secondly ^ 
 we muft take the ftorie, as it is related by 
 Clement, and other ancient authors. Clement 
 placeth it after the death of the tyrant, by 
 whom John had been banifhed. And Eu' 
 febe (e) fuppofeth him to mean Domitian, 
 thirdly y if St. John lived in jifia two, or 
 three, or four years, after his return from 
 Patmos, that is time enough for the events 
 of this ftorie. 
 
 Sir Ifaac adds in the fame place : " And 
 " John in his old age was fo infirm, as to 
 " be carried to church, dying above ninety 
 " years old : and therefore could not be 
 " then fuppofed able to ride after the thief." 
 Neverthelefs in the original account, which 
 we have of this affair, St. yohn is exprefsly 
 called (f) an old man. Sir Ifaac therefore 
 has no right to make him young. For that 
 
 B b 3 would 
 
 (e} H. E. l. 'I,, cap. 23. 
 
 rlv yviMov, Tc'j yifoVTct i 'Tr^offiX^'ovra. /e tow yi^ovra. •a'SfiS" 
 haQiV. K.X> Clm. ap. Eufeb. H. E. /. 3. c. 23. p. 93. 
 
374 S^' J^^^^' Ch. IX, 
 
 would be making a new florle. If a man 
 allows himfelf fo to do, and argues upon it i 
 the neceflarie confequence is, that he de- 
 ceives himfelf, and others. 
 
 Upon the whole, I fee not much weight 
 in any of thefe arguments of Sir I/aac New* 
 ion. And muft adhere to the common 
 opinion, that St. jobn was bani(hed into P^t- 
 f?JOSy in the reign of Domitia?tj and by vir- 
 tue of his edids for perfecuting the Chri- 
 flians, in the later part of his reign. Says 
 Mr. Lanipe : " All fg) Antiquity is agreed, 
 that St. Johns banifliment was by order of 
 
 Ho'wkng VI. We fhould now inquire, when St. 
 thereT John was relcafed, or how long his banifh- 
 ment laded. 
 
 According to TertuUiany Domitia?2's per- 
 fecution (h) was very (hort, and the Empe- 
 rour himfelf, before he died, recalled thofe, 
 whom he had baniflied. IJegeJjppus like- 
 
 wifq 
 
 (g) Tota antiqukas in eo abunde confentit, quod Do- 
 jnkianus exilii Joannis audlor fuerit. Lamp. Prokg. I. i. cap, 
 
 (h) . . ceptum repreflit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. 
 Jpo/. cap. 'V. nj'id. Supr. p. 355. mte (h). 
 
Cb. IX. Sf. John. 375 
 
 wife fays, that (i) Domitiafi by an edl^ft put 
 an end to the perfecution, which he had or- 
 dered. 
 
 Eufebe fays, '* that (k) after the death of 
 Domitia7U John returned from his banifli- 
 ment." And before, in another chapter of 
 the fame book, he faid more largely : " Af- 
 " ter (I) 'Domitian had reigned fifteen years, 
 <* Newa fucceded him, and the Roman 
 " Senate decreed, that the honorable tides 
 ** beftowed upon Domitian fhould be abro- 
 " gated, and moreover, that they who had 
 " been banifhed by him might return to 
 " their homes, and repoflefs their goods, of 
 *' which they had been unjuftly deprived. 
 '' This we learn from fuch as have writ 
 " the hiftorie of thofe times. Then there- 
 " fore, as our anceftors fay, the Apoftle John 
 " returned from his banifhment, and again 
 " took up his abode at Ephefus'' v 
 
 B b 4 Jerome y 
 
 ey.y.T'.w'KfA J'tayiAOV- Ap. Eufeb. H,' E. I, 3, cap. 20. p. 90. B. 
 
 i-s^xvsK^a>v (fvyt)<;. Eu/. H. E.l. 3. cap. 23, //;, 
 (l) H. E. I. 3. cap. 20. p. 90. B. C. 
 
376 S^- ^ohn. Ch. IX. 
 
 Jerome^ in his book of lUuRrious Men, 
 fays : '' When (m) Domitian had been killed, 
 and his edids had been repealed, by the Se- 
 nate, becaufe of their exceffive cruelty, John 
 returned to Ephcfus in the time of the Em- 
 perour Nerval 
 
 I place below a pafTage of (n) the Mar- 
 tyrdom of 'Timothie in Photius, and another 
 (o) of Suidas, faying, that after Domitiajis 
 death, when Nerva was Emperour, St. John 
 returned from his banilhment. 
 
 This is alfo agreeable to the general ac- 
 counts in (p) Dion Cajim^ and (q) the Au- 
 thor of the Deaths of Perfecutors. 
 
 Indeed, Hegefippus and Tertullian^ as be- 
 fore obferved, intimate, that the perfecution 
 of Domitian ended before his death. But it 
 is very remarkable, that Eufebius (r) having 
 quoted both of them, gives a different ac- 
 count, 
 
 (a:) See Vol. x. p. lOO. 
 
 (fij NepCa di Tu peoy.oitKK Kpcnm to ffHU'WTpov dvocJ^tJ^iy- 
 yivcv, di'of^gyoi ''luavvm mm VTrs^o^'m (pvyiig ff^fSe^j netTuy^Tut 
 -arf i? 'g?£3"or, «? kcLI -arpoTspov {{■aro (Poy.tTtM'n 'SFOpoyciJ'suTO' Ap^ 
 ^hot.Cod. zl\.p.\i^o\. 
 
 (o) Vid, Suid. fvoce Ni.fCai. 
 
 (p) Ka/ vifouai 7«j t« k^ivoiAvh \'V aaiQe.d. a(piiKi, J^ 
 ^Kf oivycvTdi KdTiiyayi' K- A. Dio. I. 6z, in. p. yS^. 
 
 (q)De M,P.cap. 3. 
 
 fr) JJ. E. I. I. cap. 20. 
 
Ch. IX. SL 'John, 377 
 
 count, as we faw juft now. And, as learned 
 
 men have obferved, it is a great prejudice to 
 
 their authority in this point, that Eufehiui 
 
 does not follow them, but prefently after- "^ 
 
 wards differs from them. 
 
 It feems probable therefore, that St. 'John 
 
 and other exils, did not return from their ba- 
 niOiment, untill after the death of Domitian, 
 Which (s) is the opinion of Bafnage^ and 
 likewife of (t) Cellarius. 
 
 Domitian (u) is computed to have died 
 Sept. 18. A. D. 96. after having reigned fif- 
 teen years, and fome days. JNerva (x) died 
 the 27, day of Jan. 98. after having reigned 
 one year four months, and nine days. There- 
 fore Trajan began his reign Jan. 27. A. D, 98. 
 
 If 
 
 (s) Utrum Domitianus decretum revocarit, difficills quaef- 
 tio eft. Sic enim antiquorum nonnullis vifum. Hegefippus 
 . . . Hegefippo afTentitur et TertuUianus . . . Contra vero no- 
 bilis hiftoricus Dio, qui rerum Romanaium Hegeiippo peri- 
 tior erat, et Tertulliano, diiertiiTime teftatur, Nervae indul- 
 gentia revocatos fuifie Chrillianos : Ncrnja autem eos qui dam- 
 fiati eranf i?npietatis ahfolvit, exulefque rejlituit. Neque alia 
 mens Ladantio de Mort. Perf. cap. 3. Bafnag. ann. 96, 
 num. i'v. 
 
 (t) Cellar, de Septem. ecclejlis Afiae. cap. x'vii. . . xx, 
 
 (u) Bafnag. ann. 96. ». xiii. 
 
 frxj Bajn. A. D. 98. /. Fagi ann, 98. ii. 
 
378 Sl Jo/m. Ch. IX. 
 
 If the perfecution of Bomitian began in 
 the fourteenth year of his reign, and St. John 
 was fent to Patmos that year, and reftored 
 in the begining of the reign of Nerva, his 
 (y) exile could not laft more than two years, 
 perhaps not much above a year. 
 
 If St. John's life reached to the third year 
 of the reign of Trajan, which is the opi- 
 nion of Cave (z) and many others, he lived 
 three years after his return from Patmos : 
 if it reached to the fourth year o( Trajan y as 
 (a) Bajhage thought, he mull have lived four 
 
 years after his return. 
 
 Or, 
 
 (y) In alterum tantnm annum ad fumnmm duravit, quando 
 Nerva fuccedcns Domitiano exules revcxravit, et cum eis Jo- 
 annem, uti ex vetuftiorum fide refert Eufebius. 1. 3. H. E. 
 cap. 20. . . Quae quid em eo majorem fidcm merentur, quia 
 ipfe Dio, feu ex eo Xipliilinus, revocationem exulum Chrif- 
 tianoium Nervae tribuit. Lampe Prol. I. i. cap. 4. §. ix, Vid, 
 et Cellar, uhifupra cap. x-vii. 
 
 (z) Interfedo Domitiano Ephefum redlit ann. chr. 97. in 
 
 qua, ut et in regionibus circumvicinis, reliquum vitae tranf- 
 
 egit, et . . . anno Chr. 100. Trajani 3. juxta Eufebium et 
 
 Hieronymum, anno uno aut altero centenario major ... in 
 
 1 Domino placide obdormivit. Cau. H. L.T, i. p. 16. 
 
 (a) Ceterum cum ex antiqua traditione hauftum videatur, 
 Joannem fenio confeflum, 68, pofl: pafiionem anno mortuum 
 efTe, quae in 33, aerae noftrae incidit,probabilis efl: conjeclura, 
 Joannem anno labente finem hujus lucis invenifle. Ba/n, A^ 
 101. K. iL 
 
Ch. IX. St. 'John, " 379 
 
 Or, in other v/ords : if St. John returned 
 about the end of the year 96. or the begin- 
 ing of 97. and did not die, till the year loi. 
 he lived four years in Alia, after his return 
 from Patmos, If he died in the year 100. he 
 lived three years after his return. 
 
 VII. Having novv' faid of St. John all that ^ .. . 
 is needful by way of hificrie, we come to tohiiGof- 
 his writings, of which there are five ge- 
 nerally afcribed to him : a Gofpel, three 
 Epiftles, and the Revelation : two of which, 
 the Gofpel, and the firft Epiftle, are univer- 
 lally received as genuine. 
 
 Now I fpeak of the Gofpel only. And 
 here in the firft place I fhall recite the ac- 
 counts of the ancients, but chiefly fuch, 
 as concern the time when it was writ. 
 Omitting many other teftimonies, as not 
 neceflarie to be mentioned now, though 
 very valuable in themfelves. After which 
 we will obferve the judgements of learned 
 moderns concerning the fame point : 1 mean, 
 the time, when it was writ. 
 
 Irej2aeus\\zv\:\g fpoken of the Gofpels of 
 Matthew^ Mark, and Luke, adds : *' Afrer- 
 " wards (b) John the difciple of the Lord, 
 
 " who 
 
 (b) S(z Vol, i. p. 354, 
 
380 St. John. Ch IX. 
 
 ** who alfo leaned upon his breadj he like- 
 '* wife publiflied a Gofpe!, whilft he dwelled 
 *' at Epkefus in JJa,'" 
 
 In another place he fays : *' ydm (c) the 
 " difciple of the Lord declaring this faith, 
 " and by the publication of the Gofpel de- 
 ** figning to root out the errour, which had 
 " been fown among men by Cerinthus^ and 
 " long before by thofe who are called A/V- 
 *' colaitam . . . thus began in the doctrine, 
 " which is according to the gofpel : In the 
 ** begining was the Wordy 
 
 In another place of the fame ancient wri- 
 ter are thefe expreffions : '* As (d) 'John the 
 " difciple of the Lord aiTures us, faying : 
 *' But thefe are written, that ye might believe, 
 
 '-'that 
 
 (c) Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini difcipulus, vo- 
 lens per Evangelii annuntiationem auierre eum, qui a Cerin- 
 tho inieminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his 
 qui dicuntur Nicolaitae, qui funt vulfio ejus, quae falfo cog- 
 nominatur fcientia .... Sic inchoavit in ea quae ell fecundum 
 evangelium doclrina. In pi-iucipio erat 'verbum. l^c. Ad-v. 
 Haer. I. 3. cap. xi. p. 188. Bencd. 
 
 (d) . . . quemadmodum Joannes Domini difcipulus con- 
 firmat, dicens : Haec autem fcripta funt, ut credatis, quoniam. 
 "Jefus eji Filius Dei, et ut credentes 'vitam aeterr.am habeatis in 
 nomine ejus : providens has blafphemas regulas, quae divi- 
 dant Dominum, quantum ex ipfis attinet, ex altera et altera 
 fubftantia dicentes eum fadum. Jdv. Haer, I, 3. cap, \6. ft, 
 z.p. Z06. 
 
Ch. IX. Sl Jo/m. 381 
 
 " that 'Jefiii is the Chriji^ the fin of Gody mid 
 *' that believing ye might have life through his 
 •' 77ame. [ch. xx. 30.] Forefeeing thefe blaf- 
 " phemous notions, that divide the Lord, 
 *' To far as it is in their power." 
 
 In the preceding padage Irenaeus fpeaks, as 
 if St. Johu'i, Gofpel was writ after the rife of 
 Ceriuthiis, and other herefies. Bat here he 
 feems to fay^ that it was writ before them, 
 and forefeeing them. In like manner after- 
 wards, in the fame chapter, he fays of Paul: 
 ** as (e) he fays : // is Chriji that died] yea 
 " rather that is rifen, who is at the right 
 ** hand of God, Rom. viii. 34. And again, 
 " Knowing that Chriji being rai fed from the 
 " deadj dies no more. vi. 9. For he alfo 
 " forefeeing by the Spirit the divifions of 
 " evil teachers, and being dedrous to cut off 
 ** from them all occafion of dilTenfion, fays 
 " what has been jud quoted. 
 
 Clemeiit, of jllexaiidria^ fpeaking of the 
 order of the Gofpels, according to what he 
 
 had 
 
 (e) .... quemadmodum ipfe ait : ^Imul aiticm Chrifius 
 mortinis eft^ immo et rejurrexit . . Et iterum : Scienies quonlam 
 Chrijius refurgens a mortuis, jam tion moritur. Praevidens enim 
 et ipfe per Spiritum fubdivifiones malorum magillrorum, et 
 omnem ipforum occanonem diflenfionis volcns abltindere, ait 
 quae praedi€la funC. U>U. n,. 9./. 207. 
 
382 Sf. Jolm. Ch. IX. 
 
 had received from Preibyters of more ancient 
 times, fays : " Lad ffj of all Jcbn obferving, 
 " that in the other Gofpels thofe things were 
 *' related, which concern the humanity of 
 *' Chrift, and being perfuadcd by his friends, 
 ** and alfo moved by the fpirit of God, he 
 " wrote a fpiritual Gofpel." Here it is fup- 
 pofed, not only, that St. jo/m wrote the lad 
 of the four, but likewife, that he had (ccn 
 the Gofpels of the other three Evangelifts. 
 
 Origen (g) fpeaks of all the four Gofpels 
 in our prefent order, that is, Matthews firft, 
 and yohis lafb. 
 
 A long pafTage of Eiifebe concerning St. 
 yohns Gofpel may be feen vol. viii. p. go. . . 
 96. It cannot be omitted here. But it fhall 
 be abridged. " And that it has been juftly 
 " placed by the ancients the fourth in order, 
 *' nnd after the other three, may be made evi- 
 " dent. . . . For Matthew delivered his Gof- 
 ** pel to the Hebrews. . . . And when Mark 
 *' and Luke alfo had publiflicd the Gofpels 
 " according to them, it is faid, that John 
 <' who all this while had preached byword 
 *• of mouth, was at length induced to write 
 
 " for 
 
 (f) See Vol. a. p. ij;. 
 
 (g) See Vol. Hi. p. 235. 236, 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 3S3 
 
 *' for this reafon. The three firfl: written 
 " Gofpels being now delivered to all men, 
 " and to John himfelf, it is faid, that he ap- 
 " proved them, and confirmed the truth of 
 ** their narration by his own teftimonie, fay- 
 " ing : There was only wanting a written ac- 
 " count of the things donfe by Chrift, in the 
 *' former part, and near the begining of his 
 " preaching. . . And, certainly, that oblerva- 
 " tion is true. . . ." 
 
 EpipJoaniits (h) fpeaks of St. yofms Gofpel, 
 as the laft of the four. He alfo fays, that St. 
 John wrote it, after he had long declined fo 
 doing through humility, when he was ninety 
 years of age, and when he had lived in A/ia 
 many years, after his return thither from Pat- \ 
 moSy in the time of the Emperour Claudius. 
 He moreover fays in feveral places, that this 
 Gofpel was occaiioned by the errours of the 
 Ebionites^ the CcrinthianSy and other heretics. 
 
 According to (i) the Syrian churches, St. 
 ^ohn wrote his Gofpel at Ephefus, 
 
 My readers are again referred to the noble 
 paiTage {k) of T^hcodore, Bifhop of MopfueJUay 
 
 con- 
 
 (h) See Vol. <vni.p. 306. 307. 
 
 (i) See Fol. ix. p. 2 1 7. 
 
 (k) Vol. ix.p. 403, . . . 407. 
 
3^4 St, John. Ch. IX, 
 
 conceoning the four Gofpels, and to the re- 
 marks upon it. 
 
 Jerofne^ in his book of lUuftrious Men^ 
 fays : " John (I) the ApoQIe wrote a Gofpel 
 *' at the defire of the Bi(hops of AJia, againft 
 *^ Cerinthus^ and other heretics, and efpecially 
 *' the dodrine of the EhioniteSj then fpring- 
 " ing up, who fay, that ChriH: did not exid 
 " before his birth of Marie. For which rea- 
 " fon he was obliged to declare his Divine 
 ** nativity. Another reafon of his writing 
 " is alfo mentioned. Which is, that after 
 " having read the volumes of MattheWy 
 " Marky and Ldilie^ he expreffed his approba- 
 " tion of their hiftorie, as true : but obferved, 
 " that they had recorded an account of but 
 " one year of our Lord's miniftrie, even the 
 •* iaft, after the imprifonment of John^ in 
 " which alfo he fuilTered. Omitting there- 
 " fore [very much] that year, the hiilorie of 
 *' which had been writ by the other three, 
 ** he related the A£][s of the preceding time, 
 " before John was fliut up in prifon. As may 
 *' appear to thofe, who read the four Evan- 
 " gehfts. Which may be of ufe, to account 
 •* for the feeming difference between John 
 " and the red." 
 
 According 
 
 (I) Vol, X. p.<)S. 
 

 C]]. IX. S/. Johi, 385 
 
 According to {m) Augnjlini St. John is the 
 lad: of the four Evangelills. 
 
 Chryfofiom {n) affigning the reafons of St, 
 ^yohn% writing his Gofpel, fuppofeth, that 
 he did not write till after the deftrudiion of 
 'Jerufalem. 
 
 PauU?2us fays : '* it {p) had been handed 
 " down by tradition, that Jobi furvlved all 
 
 the other Apoftles, and wrote the laft of 
 ' the four Evangelifls, and fo as to confirm 
 *' their mofc certain hiftorie." And he ob- 
 ferves, *' that (p) in the begining of St. Johft^ 
 Gofpel all heretics are confuted, particularly, 
 iritis, Sabelliusy Marcion and the Mani" 
 cbea?2S. 
 
 Cofmas oi Alexandria^ fays, ** that (q) when 
 ** Jobt dwelled at EphefiiSy there were deli- 
 *' vered to him by the faithfull the writings 
 ** of the other three Evaneelifts. Receiviri'r 
 " them he faid, that what they had writ was 
 *' well writ : but fome things were omitted 
 ** by them, which were needfull to be related. 
 *• And being defired by the faithfull, he alfo 
 " publiihed his writing, as a kind of fupple- 
 
 [m) Vol. x.p. 228. 
 {«) ^oAAr./. 315. 320. 321. 
 (o)Vol.xi.p.^li (p)P.i4. 
 
 {^) Vol.xi. p. 268. 269. 
 
 Vol. L ^ C c "ment 
 
386 ^t.yhn, Ch. IX. 
 
 *' ment to the reft, containing fuch things as 
 *' thefe : the wedding at Cana^ the hiftorie of 
 ** Nicodemus^ the woman oi Samaria, the no- 
 " bleman, [or Courtier, John iv. 46. . . 54.] 
 ** the man blind from his hixih, Lazarus, the 
 " indignation of Judas, at the woman that 
 " anointed the Lord with ointment, the 
 <* Greeks that came to Jefus, his wafhing the 
 " difciples feet, and fuitable inftrudions upon 
 " feverM occalions, and the promife of the 
 " Comforter, and concerning the Deity of 
 «' Chrift, expreiHy, and clearly, at the begin- 
 *' ing, and premifmg that, as the foundation 
 " of his work. All which things had been 
 " omitted by the reft." 
 
 IJidore of Seville, fays, that (r) John wrote 
 the laft in j^fia, 
 
 TheophylaB computed, that [s) St. John 
 wrote about two and thirty years after Chrift's 
 afcenfion. 
 
 Euthymius, that (^) it was not wrif, untill 
 many years after the deftrudion of Jeru- 
 falem. 
 
 ISicephorus CalHJli fays, that [u) John 
 
 wrote 
 
 (/•) Vol. xi. p. 367. (s) P. 424, 
 
 (OP. 438. («)i'. 442. 
 
Ch. IX. Si. John, 387 
 
 wrote lad of all, about fix and thirty years af- 
 ter the Lord's afcenfion to heaven. 
 
 Vlll. Having feen thefe teftimonies of Judgments 
 the ancients to St. 'John\ Gofpel, and the time ^^^^^ \jje 
 of it, I would now obferve the judgements of '^''■"^ "-/''• 
 learned moderns. 
 
 According to (x) MilH computation St. 
 ^ohn wrote his Gofpel at Ephefus, in the year 
 of Chrift 97. about one year before his death . 
 
 Fabricim (y) fpeaks to the like purpofe. 
 
 Le Clerc (s) likewife placeth the writing 
 of this Gofpel in the year 97. 
 
 Mr. yones argues, that [a) it was writ a- 
 bout the year 98. and not before 97, 
 
 The late Mr. JVetftein thought, that [b) this 
 
 C c 2 Gofpel 
 
 (z) Et quidem Ephefum ab rxilio reverfus Joannes iino 
 ante mortem anno fcni)fit Evangelium. Mill. Prol.num. i8i. 
 
 (y) Evangelium Graece edidit Epliefi, omnium poilrenius, 
 jam nonagenario major, cum e Patmo reverfus e/Tet poll Do- 
 mitiani necem, quae anno 96. contigit. Bib. Gr. I. 4. cap. <v. 
 T.^.p. 139. 
 
 (z) Hiji. E. An. 97. num. i. ' 
 
 (a) Ne-T-j and Full Method, Vol. 3. /• I 39. 
 
 (b) Hinc etiam confequitur, Evangelium Joannis non ab 
 CO decrepito, et fere centenarlo, et poll mortem Clementis, 
 fed diu antea fuifle editum, adeoque infcriptionem Codicum 
 Graecornm, qui illud Evangelium anno tricefuno fecundo 
 port afcenfionem Chriili, fcriptum fuiffe teilantur, ad varum 
 proprius accedere : praccipue cum ratio nulla fit, cur Joan- 
 nes fcriftlonem in tam longum tempus dilFerre debuerit. 
 IFetJ}. Pro/eg. ad duas Ckmtlitt. Ep, fub Jin. 
 
388 Sl John. Ch. IX. 
 
 Gofpel might be writ about the year 32. after 
 our Lord's afcenfion : and dillikes the fuppo- 
 fition, that it was writ by St. jfobn in decrepit 
 old age. 
 
 Baf?2age (c) was inclined to think, that this 
 Gofpel was writ before the deftrudlion of 
 yeriifalem. His reafons will be alleged, and 
 confidered by and by. 
 
 Mr. Lampe was of opinion, that (d) this 
 Gofpel was writ in the later part of the 
 reign of Nero^ before the deftrudion of Je- 
 rujalem, 
 
 That it IX. I fhali now propofe an argument con- 
 
 T^lrT'tL cerning the date of this Gofpel. 
 
 Dejhuaion There are two confiderations, principally, 
 
 of jeyuuz- . i i / 
 
 Urn. which lead me to think, that St. JohrC% Gof- 
 
 pel was writ before the deflrudlion of Jeru- 
 JaleiUy or about the time of that event. Thefe 
 I (hall firfi: mention, and then take notice of 
 divers others, obfervable in learned moderns. 
 I . It is likely, that St. John wrote in a \hoxt 
 time after the other Evangehfts. Their Gof- 
 
 pels 
 
 (c) Ann. 97, num. xli. 
 
 (d) Putem ergo non contemnandas effe rationes, quae ante 
 excidium JrJitrorolyn'itanum Evangelium noflrum fub ex- 
 tremis foite Nero, lis teniporibus confcriptum efie perfuadent. 
 Proleg, /. 2. cap. z. num. ix. 
 
Ch. IX. St. 'John, • 389 
 
 pels were foon brought to him. And if he 
 thought fit to confirm them, or to write any 
 thing by way of fijpplement, he would do it 
 in a fhort time. The firft three Gofpels, 
 very probably, were writ and publiflied be- 
 fore the end of the year 64. or in 65. at the 
 fartheft. If they were brought to St. John 
 in 65. or 66. he would not defer more, or 
 not much more, than a year, or two, to pub- 
 li(h his hiftorie of Jefus, and make the ac- 
 count compleat. 
 
 I do not prefume to fay exadly the year, 
 in which this Gofpel was writ. But I think, 
 it might be writ, and publifhed, in the year 
 68. 
 
 This argument off^ered itfelf to Mr. ^hif- 
 ton\ thoughts, and is thus exprefied by him : 
 ** That (e) occafion of yohns writing his 
 " Gofpel, mentioned by the ancients, viz. the 
 *' bringing the other three Gofpels to him, 
 " and his obferving their deficience, as to the 
 " a(5ts of Chrift before the Baptifl's imprifon- 
 '' ment, does much better agree with this 
 " time, jull: after the publication of thofe 
 *' Gofpels, than with that above thirty years 
 
 C c 3 *' later, 
 
 (e) EJfay on the Apojlolical Confiltutions, f. 38. 39, 
 
390 • •5'/. John, Ch. IX. 
 
 " later, to which it's writing is now ordinarily 
 *' afcribed." 
 
 And is it not a (Irange fuppofition, that all 
 the other three Gofpels fhould have been writ 
 by the year 60. or thereabout, and St. Johns 
 not till the year 97. or 98. that is, more than 
 thirty years after the others ? When likewife 
 he muft have been of a very great age, and 
 fcarcely fit for fuch a work as this. 
 
 2. The fecond confideration is the fuitable- 
 nelTe of St. yoZ;;2'sGofpel to the circumftances 
 of things before the overthrow of the Jews, 
 or about that time. 
 
 Mr. Lampe has obferved, that (f) the great 
 defign of St. John in writing his Gofpel fcems 
 to have been, to fliew, how inexcufable the 
 Jews were in not receiving Jefus as theChrift, 
 and to vindicate the Providence of God in 
 the calamities already befallen, or now com- 
 
 ing 
 
 (f) Totam porro oeconomiam hujus Evangelii ita efle di- 
 geftam, ut ad convincendos ac avawoKoyniHi reddendos Ju- 
 daeos fpedaret, capite fequenti ollendemus. Prolegom. in 
 'Joan, I. 2. cap.' 3. §. //. 
 
 Imminens etiatn Judaeae pernicies occafionem maxime 
 opportunam confcribcndo llhro dabat, in quo Joannis animus 
 erat hujus ipfius judicii imminentis aequitatem defenderc, 
 et tentare, an Judaei ex hoc Reipublicae naufragio magno 
 agmine in Afxam enatantes, ad recipiendum unicum mundi 
 Salvatorem hoc medio permoveri poffint. Ibid, I. 2. cap, z, 
 §. :w. Fid. et It 2, cap, 3. imtn. Hi. not, (I? J, 
 
Ch.IX. St. John, 391 
 
 ing upon them. If that appear to be the de- 
 fign of St. John in writing his Gofpel, it will 
 very much ftrengtben the luppofitionj that it 
 was writ, before the deftrudion of yeriijalem 
 was compleated. 
 
 St. JoJm fays ch. xx. 31. l^hefe things are 
 written^ that ye might believe^ that 'Jefus is the 
 Chrijiy the Son of God, and that believing ye 
 might have life through his name. That is, 
 *' This hidorie has been writ, that they who 
 " believe, may be confirmed in their faith, 
 ** and that all others, who yet believe not, 
 " may believe in Jefus, as the Chrift, the Son 
 " of God, and obtain that life, which he pro- 
 ** mifeth to thofe, who believe in him, and 
 " obey him." 
 
 That is the defign of all the Evangelifts. 
 And their hiilories are a fufficient ground and 
 reafon of this belief. But St. Johns Gofpel 
 contains an ample confirmation of all that 
 they have faid, with valuable additions, and 
 more plain and frequent afl'urances, that Je- 
 fus is not only a Prophet, and ineficnger of 
 God, but the Chrifl, the Son of God, or 
 that great Prophet, that fliould come into the 
 world : whereby all are rendred inexcufable 
 in rejecting him, and efpeciaily the Jev/s, 
 among whom he preached, and wrought 
 
 C c 4 many 
 
392 Sf.JShn. Ch.IX. 
 
 many miracles, and whom he often called to 
 receive him, as the Clirift. This (^^jruns 
 through St. Jofm?, Gofpel from the beglning 
 to the end, or near the end, of the twelfth 
 chapter. 
 
 Even in the introdudion he fays. ch. i. 7. 
 yolm came for a witfiejje^ to bear witnefje of the 
 light y that all men through him might believe. 
 S. He was jwt that light. But was fent to bear 
 ivitnefje of that light, 9. T^hat was the true 
 lights which lighteth every man, that cometh 
 into the world. " That is, he was defigned 
 • ?' to be an univerfal bleffing: And he has 
 
 ?' doneallthatwasfit to be done, to enlighten 
 
 ^«aU 
 
 (g) Priora duodecim capita evidentiffime ea commcmo- 
 rant, quae feverum et tremendum illud Dei in Judaeos ju- 
 dicium defendunt. Talia enim fadia et dicla continue or- 
 dine proponunt, quae non in obfcuro angulo, fed coram tota 
 gente Judaica edita funt, nullamque exceptionem pati- 
 untur. . . . Atque haec eft ratio, cur Joannes fecundum fefta 
 Judaeorum hiftoriam evangelicam digerat. Inde enim in- 
 notefcit, lefum ea diligenter frequentafie, atque in iis publice 
 poram toto populo Judaico fe fatis fuperque manifeftafle. 
 Iftud enim Evangeliftae noftro plane privum eft, ut ea potif- 
 fimum narret, quae a Domino noftro Hierofolymis, quin in 
 iipfo tempio gefta atque dida funt : paucis tantum interjec- 
 tis, quae eum etiarn Judaeam, Samariam, Galilaeam, radii* 
 gloriae fuae coeleftis abunde illuftraffe, atque ita nuUam par- 
 tem regionis Judaeorum vacuani reliquifTe, probant. Lampe, 
 Ibid, L 2. cap. 4. nuTTi. xxxiii. xxxii'. 
 
Ch. IX. Sl JgIj.'!. 
 
 ** all men in the knowledge of God, and true 
 *' religion." Ver. i^. And we beheld his glo- 
 rie, we his difciplcs, and all who impartially 
 attended, beheld his glorie, the glorie, as of the 
 only begotten of the Father : that is, theglorie, 
 peculiar to the promiied Mefiiah. Again, at 
 Ver. 1 8. he fliles him the only begotten fin. 
 Here St. John may be fLippofed to declare his 
 prefent faith, or to make a profeffion of the 
 faith, which he had at the time of his wri- 
 ting. Having fo done, he proceeds in the 
 hiftorie. Ver. 19. 20. And this is there- 
 cord of John, when the Jews fent Priefls and 
 Levitesfrofn Jeriifalern^ to ask him^ Who art 
 thou. He anfwered, that he was not the 
 Chrift, but his harbinger, or fore-runner, the 
 perfon fpoken of by Ifaiah. And he declares 
 the tranfcendent greatnelTe of him, who was 
 about to appear, and was already among 
 them. Ver. 21.... 28. Then at ver. 29. 
 The next day John feet h Jcfus coiring unto him, 
 and faith : Behold the lamb oj God, that taketh 
 away the fin of the world. Undoubtedly, by 
 that charader meaning the Meffiah, and un- 
 derftood by all, fo to mean. See alfo ver. 
 30. 31. 32. 33. Then at ver. 34. And I 
 Jaw J and bare record, that this is the Son of 
 God : or the Chrifi:. And ver. 35. 36. A- 
 
 gain. 
 
 393 
 
St. Jo/m. Ch. IX. 
 
 gt?in, the next day after John jioody and two. 
 cf his difcipks. And looking upon Jefits^ as 
 he walked J he faith : Behold the lamb of God, 
 He tells every body, that Jefus is the Chrift, 
 though not always in the fame terms. And, 
 to finifli our account oijohn the Baptift. In 
 ch. iii. 25. . . 36. is the laft teftimonie, bore 
 by him to Jefus. And it is very ftrong, and 
 full. He declares, he was not himfelf the 
 Chrift, but was fent before him. To him, fays 
 he, Godgiveth not the Spirit by meafure. The 
 Father loveth the Son^ and hath put all things 
 into his hands. . . He that believeth on the Son, 
 hath e^cerlafiing life. And he that belie'veth 
 not the Son J fiall not fee life. But the wrath 
 of God abideth on him. 
 
 Having gone through the Baptift's tefti- 
 monie, as here recorded, we look back to ch. 
 i. 4. . . 42. where Andrew finds his brother 
 Simon, and fays to him: We have Joimd the 
 Mefjiah. Then ver. 45. ..51. Philip find- 
 eth Nathanael, and faith to him : We have 
 found him, of whom Mojes in the Law, and 
 the Prophets did write, Jefus of Na-zareth, 
 ISfathanael likewife is convinced, and fays : 
 Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God. Thou art 
 the King ofljrael. So writes St. John, fliew- 
 ing, that the pious, and well difpofed among 
 
 the 
 
Ch. IX. SL John. 395 
 
 the Jews, readily received Jefus as the Chrid;. 
 And thereby (hewing likewife the great un- 
 rearonablenefie, and extreme perverfnefTe of 
 thofe who did not believe in him after all the 
 proofs, which he fet before them in the 
 courfe of his moft powerful miniftric. As 
 the EvangeliO: moft jaftly fays, near the con- 
 clufion of this part of his Gofpel. Ch. xii, 
 37. But fhugh be had done fo many miracles 
 amo?ig them, yet they believed not o?2 him. And 
 fee what follows there. 
 
 Chi ii. II. After the account of the mira- 
 cle at Cana. This begining of miracles did 
 jfefus in Cana of Galileey and ?nanifejled forth 
 hisglorie : that is, the glorie of the Meffiah. 
 And his dijcipks believed on him : or were 
 confirmed in their belief, that he was the 
 Chrift. 
 
 Soon after this Jefus went up to yernjd" 
 km, at a PaiTover, and cleanfed the temple, 
 faying : Make 720t my Father's hoiife an houfe 
 cf merchdndife, ch. ii. 13. . . 17. By the 
 work itfelf, and by his words, maniftfting 
 himfelf to be the Meffiah. I omit other 
 things in the remaining part of that chapter, 
 which an attentive reader will take notice 
 of. 
 
 Then, 
 
396 St, John. Ch. IX. 
 
 Then, ch. iil. i. .. 21. is the hlftorie of 
 Nicodemus, who, whilft Jefus was this time 
 at yerufalem^ made him a private viiit. He 
 immediath^ profefieth faith in him, as a Pro- 
 phet. But our Lord tells him plainly, that 
 he was the Mefiiah, and demands a fuitable 
 regard from him. Ke likevv'ife fets before 
 Nicode?mis the nature of his defign, for pre- 
 venting, or for removing all worldly expeda- 
 tions from him. He likewife intimates the 
 pall of the Gentils, and the judgements com- 
 ing upon the Jewitn People, if they (hould 
 perfift in unbelief For, fays he, as Mofes 
 lift up the Jer pent in the wildernejfe^ fo mufi 
 the Son of man be lifted up : that wkcfoever 
 believeth in him might not peri (Jo ^ but have ever-- 
 lajiing life. . . . For God fent not his Son, the 
 Meffiah, into the ivorldy to condemn the world: 
 but that through him the 'world, Gentils as well 
 as Jews, jjtight be faved. And what there 
 follows. 
 
 Jefus going through Samaria from Jerufa- 
 km, in his way to Galike, meets with a wo- 
 man of that countrey. Ch. iv. 19. The wo- 
 man faith unto him : Sir, I perceive, that 
 thou art a Prophet, . . . And ver. 25. 26. The 
 woman faith unto him : I know, that the Mef 
 fiah cometh, or is foon to appear ^ . . . Jefus 
 
 faith 
 
Ch. IX. St. John, 397 
 
 faith unto her : I that jpcak unto thee am he. . . ^ 
 
 The woman left himj and went into the city, 
 and faith unto the men : Come., fee a man that 
 has told me all things that ever I did. Is not 
 this the Chriji? Afterwards, ver. 42. Mafjy of 
 that place faid unto the woman : Now we be- 
 lieve , not becaufe oj thy faying. For we have 
 feen him ourfehes, and know^ that this is indeed 
 the Chrijl, the Saviour of the world. Here is 
 another inftance of our Lord's freely decla- 
 ring himfelf to be the Chrift, and of his ac- 
 cepting a profeffion of faith in himfelf, as 
 fuch. And the ready faith of thefe Samari- 
 tans aggravates the continued unbelief of the 
 Jews, on whom more culture had been be- 
 ftowed. 
 
 Ch. V. I . After this there was a feafl of the 
 yews. And fefus went up to ferufalem. By 
 many this is thought to be PalTover. By 
 others it is reckoned fome other feait between 
 the laft mentioned and the next Paflbver of 
 our Lord's miniftrie. However that may be, 
 at this feafon our Lord healed the lame man 
 at the pool of Bethefda, on the Sabbath-day, 
 and bid him carry his bed, and go home. 
 therefore did the Jews perfecute ^efus, and 
 fought to flay him^ becaufe he had done thefe 
 things on the Sabbath Das. But Jefus anfwer- 
 
 ed 
 
39^ ^t.'Jobn. Ch.IX. 
 
 ed them : My Father worketh hitherto. And 
 I work. ver. i6. 17. The Jews charge him 
 with blarphemie. Our Lord vindicates him- 
 felf, and claims the charader of the Meffiah 
 in high terms. And afTures them, that all 
 judgement had been committed unto the Son^ 
 meaning himfelf, the Meffiah: that all men 
 might honor the Son^ eveji as they honor the Fa- 
 ther, ver. 2 1... 23. And, for proof, he 
 refers to their .fcriptures, the teftimonie of 
 yohn, and the works, which he had wrought 
 among them, in the Father's name. ver. 24. 
 • . . 47* 
 
 Ch. vi. I- . . 3. We perceive, our Lord to 
 be in Galilee^ whither he had gone from Ju- 
 dea. Then at ver. 4. And the Pajfover^ a 
 feajl of the Jeivs, was nigh. After which 
 follows the miracle of the five loaves and two 
 fiQ}es, for feeding five thou fan d. Tben^ thofe 
 »7(?«, when they had feen the miracle, which 
 Jefus did, /aid: This is of a truth that Pro- 
 phety which Jhould come into the world: or, 
 the expected Meffiah. Their notion of the 
 kingdom, belonging to that character, being 
 worldly and carnal, and they looking for 
 worldly advantages, would have come, and 
 ' taken him by force ^ to make him a King. So 
 that our Lord found it needful to depart into 
 
 a mouu' 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 099 
 
 a mountain himjelf alofie. The difclples in 
 the mean time took fliipping, and he came 
 to them walking upon the fea. When they 
 had received him, immediatly thefiip was at 
 the land, whither they were going, ver. 14... 
 21. The people having been difuppointed, 
 came to him as foon as they could at Caper- 
 naum, Where our Lord takes an opportu- 
 nity to reprove their carnal temper, and in- 
 ftrui5ts them in the delign of the MePiiah, and 
 the nature of his kingdom. And ftiil taking 
 upon himfelf that charatlier, and requiring 
 faith in him as fach, he fays : lam the bread 
 of life. . . And ibis is the will of him that fent 
 me^ that every one which feeth the Son, and be- 
 Ue'veth on him, may have e'verlafiijig life. . . . 
 / am the living bread, which came down from 
 heaven. If any man eat this bread, he Jkall 
 live for ever. And the bread that I will give 
 him is my jlepi, which 1 will give for the life of 
 the world. . . Many therefore of his difciples 
 went backy and walked no more with him. But 
 Peter, in the name of the Twelve, and pof- 
 fibly, in the name alfo of fome others, fol- 
 lowers of Jefus, faid : To whom flmll we go ^ 
 Thou haft the words of eternal life. And we 
 believe, and are fure, that thou art the Chrift, 
 the Son of tke Uvi?ig God, ven 22. . . 69. 
 
 Ch. 
 
40O Sl Jo/m. 'Ch. IX. 
 
 Ch. vli. I. 2. y^fter thefe things J ejus walk- 
 ed in Galilee, For he would not walk in ^ ti- 
 de a, becaufe the Jews fought to kill him. Now 
 the Jewsfeaji of Tabernacles was at hand. . . 
 14. Now about the midji of the feaji, Jefus 
 went up into the temple^ and taught. Ver. 2 5. 
 26. Then Jaid fome of them of feriifalem . . , 
 Do the rulers know indeed^ that this is the very 
 Chrift^ Vtv. 1^1. And tnaJiy of the people be- 
 lieved on him., and faid : When Cbriji comcth^ 
 will he do more miracles than thefe^ which this 
 man has done"^ Ver. 37. 38. In the laft daVy 
 the great day of the feaft, fefus floods and 
 cried : If any man thirji^ let him come to me 3 
 and drink. . . He fpeaks of himfelf in the 
 charader of the Meffiah, and calls on all men 
 to come to him, as fuch, and receive the 
 great bleiTings, which he is able to beftow. 
 And at ver. 40. 41. Many of the people there - 
 fore^ when they heard this faying., faid : ' This 
 is the Prophet. Others faid: This is the 
 
 i i. 
 
 Ch. viii. 12. . . 23. Our Lord is flill at je- 
 rufdlem. And at ver. 12. Then fpake Jefus 
 unto them J faying : I am the light of the world : 
 claiming the charader of the Meffiah, and 
 declaring alfo the advantages of believing in 
 him, and the fad confequence of not receiv- 
 ing 
 
Ch.lX. Sf.yobn, 401 
 
 ing him. Ver. 21. Tbenfiid Jefus again mi" 
 to them. I go jjiy way, and ye flail fcek me, 
 and f: all die in your fins. Ver. 24, I J aid 
 therefore unto you, that ye fiall die in your fins. 
 For, if ye believe not, that I am he, the Mti- 
 fiah, yeJJjalldie in your fins : that is, ye will 
 bring upon yourfelves heavie judgements and 
 calamities. Ver. 47. He that is of God, hear- 
 eth God's words, Te therefore hear them not, 
 hecauie ye are not of God. , , Ver. 56. your fa^ 
 tber Abraham rejoyced to fee my day. . . . Does 
 not our Lord in all this propofe himfelf to 
 them, as the Meffiah, require their faith in 
 him, as fuch, and plainly intimate the cala- 
 mities, that would befall them, if they (liould 
 continue to rejc(5t him ? 
 
 Nor is there any inconfifience In what is ' 
 here obferved, and the accounts of the other 
 Evangelifls. After Peter had made a pro- 
 feffion of his faith, it is faid Matt. xvi. 20. 
 'Jhen charged he his difciples, that they fiould 
 tell 720 man, that he was the Chr if. And com- 
 pare Mark viii. 30. and Luke ix. 21. Ne- 
 verthelefSjhe was not unwilling to be thought 
 of in that charaCrer. When Simon Peter 
 had faid by way of anfwer to the queftion 
 that had been put to the difciples, thou art the 
 Chr if, the Son oj the living God : our Lord 
 
 Vol. L * D d was 
 
402 St. John. Ch.IX. 
 
 was greatly pleafed, and pronounced him 
 bleiled upon that account. And he was de- 
 firous, that all fhould receive him, as the 
 Meffiah. It was the defign of his own, and 
 his fore-runner's preaching, as recorded in all 
 the Evangelifts, the firfl three, as well as St. 
 yohn. They called upon all men to repent y 
 Jor the kingdom of heaven^ or of God, by the 
 Meffiah, is at hand. So Mark i. 14. 15. 
 And himfelf fays : Matt. xii. 28. If 1 caft out 
 demons by the Spirit of Godj then is the kingdom 
 of God come unto you. And Luke xvii. 21. 
 Beholdj the kingdom of God is among you^ or in 
 the midft of you, not within you, as we ren- 
 der it. Bat he tells them, that the kingdom 
 of the Meffiah was already begun to be fet up 
 among them. When our Lord was bap- 
 tized, there came a 'ooice from heaven, faying : 
 *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleafed. Or, this is the Meffiah. As record- 
 ed by all the firfl: three Evangelifts. Matt. iii. 
 17. Mark 1. 1 1. Luke iii. 22. And in them 
 ourLord accepts applications to him, and con- 
 feffions of faith in him, in the charad:er oithe 
 , So?i of David, and the Son of God, both which 
 are the fame as. the Meffiah. Of the former 
 there are many inftances. Of the later I 
 mention one. Matt. xiv. 33. Ihen they that 
 
 were 
 
Ch. IX. Sf, "John. 403 
 
 *were in the Jljip, came^ and worfiiped hlm^ 
 faying : Thou art the Son of God. And when 
 he entred into feritfalem^ he apcepted the 
 acclamations of the multitude, which cried : 
 Hcfanna to the Son of David : BleJJ'ed is he 
 that Cometh in the Jiame of the Lord : Bleffed is 
 the King that cometh in the name of the Lord, 
 Matth. xxi. i . . . 1 6. Mark xi. i . . . 11. Luke 
 xix. 28. . . 40. He fometimes laments the 
 fmall fuccelTe of his preaching, and that fo 
 few received him. But acquiefceth in the 
 event. As in Luke vii. 31. . . . 35. Matth, 
 xi. lb, . . 26. Luke x. 21. . . 24. And he 
 even exprelTeth a furprize, that the Pharifees, 
 and others, did not difcern the figns of the 
 time. Matt. xvi. i. . . 4. Mark viii. 1 1. . . 13. 
 Luke xii. 54. . . t^j. And every one may 
 eafily perceive the reafon, why he did not al- 
 low the difciples, or fome others, to fay pub- 
 licly, that he was the Mefliah. For conli- 
 dering that the Jewifh People in general, and 
 the difciples themfelves, expeded a worldly 
 kingdom, and worldly advantages from the 
 Meffiah ; there needed fome difcretion, leaft 
 men {hould have been led to make tumults 
 and difturbances, which might have been of- 
 fenfive to the magiftratc. But when our 
 Lord fpoke of himfelf, as the Meffiah, he al- 
 
 D d 2 ways 
 
404 St.Jchn. Ch. IX. 
 
 ways inculcated the true defign of his coming, 
 and gave alTurances of fpiritual and heavenly 
 bleflings, and fuch only. 
 
 Our Lord ftill continues at Jerufalenh 
 Ch. ix. I.. .41. is the hiflorie of the man 
 blind from his birth, whom our Lord healed, 
 anointing his eyes with clay, moiftened with 
 his fpittle. And it ivas the Sabbath- day ^ when 
 Jefus made the clay, and opened his eyes. The 
 man being brought before the Pharifees, and 
 examined by them, faid, that he who had 
 opened his eyes was a Prophet. A?id they 
 cafi him out, Jefus heard, that they had caft 
 him out. And when he had found him, he faid 
 unto him : Doefi thou believe on the Son of God? 
 He anfwered, and faid : Who is he. Lord, that 
 I might believe on him ? Jefusfaid unto him : 
 *Thou hajl both feen him, and it is he that talk- 
 eth with thee. And he faid: Lord, I believe, 
 and he worfhiped him. All this needs no 
 comment. Afterwards at ver. 39. . . 41. are 
 intimations given to the Pharifees of the fad 
 confequences of rejeding him. And indeed 
 in this hiftoriethe bad temper of the Jewifli 
 Rulers is very manifeft. 
 
 Ch. X. Our Lord fpeaks of himfelf as the 
 true ffoepherd, or the Meiriiih.. Ver. 1 1. I am 
 the goodfiepherd. T^he goodJJjepherd giveth his 
 
 life 
 
Ch. IX. St. jfobm 40 c 
 
 life for the Jheep, Ver. 16. And other fie ep 1 
 have, isohich are not of this fold. Ver. 22. . . 
 24. And it was at feriifalem the feaft of the 
 Dedication. And it was ivinter. Andfefus 
 walked in the te?Jtple, in Solomon s porch. Then 
 came the Jews round about him, and [aid unto 
 hi?n : Hoiv long doefi thou make lis to doubt I If 
 thou be the Chrifl, tell us plainly. 'J ejus an^ 
 fwered them : I told you, and ye believed not, 
 The works that I do in my Father's name bear 
 witnejje of me. A very proper anfwer, cer- 
 tainly. And v/hat follows to ver. 38. deferves 
 to be confidted. 
 
 Ch.x.39...42. Therefore they fought again 
 to take him, but he efcaped out of their hand. 
 And went away beyond for dan, imto the place, 
 where fohn at fr/t baptized. And there ^- 
 bode. And many reforted unto him, andfaid : 
 fohn did no miracles. But all things, that 
 fohnfpake of this man, were true. And many 
 believed on him there. 
 
 I fuppofe this retreat of our Lord to a place • 
 beyond Jordan, to be the fame that is mention- 
 ed Matt. xlx. I. and Mark x. i. upon which 
 fome remarks were made (h) many years ago. 
 
 D d 3 What 
 
 (h) See the Vindication of our Saviour's three Miracles of rat' 
 fmg the dead. Ch. i. p. l8, . . 2Z» firfi ed. p. 32. . . 37. 2d edit. 
 
to6 Sf. John. Cli. IX. 
 
 What paffed during that Interval in that 
 countrey, is recorded Matt. xix. i. . .-. . to 
 -XX. I. . . . 1 6. and Mark x. i. . . 31. Nor 
 was St. Luke unacquainted with this retreat. 
 For he has inferted in his Gofpel at ch. xviii. 
 15. . . 30. fome of the fame difcourfes, which 
 are in the other two Evangelifts, whilft our 
 Lord was there. I fay, I fuppofe, that St. 
 yohn and the other Evangelifts fpeak of one 
 and the fame recefle. But St. John feems to 
 mention more particularly the occafion of it, 
 in the verfes juft recited. 
 
 In this place, and interval, our Lord lived 
 fome what more privatly, than he had done 
 before. He received all who came to him, 
 either for inftrudion, or to be healed by him. 
 But he did not go about the cities and villa- 
 ges of Judea^ preaching publicly, as he had 
 done for fome while before. 
 
 I always fuppofed, that our Lord's living 
 thus, in that place, at no great diftance from 
 yeriifulemi had in it a kind defign. He in- 
 tended thereby to afford to the Jewifh People, 
 efpecially, their Priefts and Rulers at Jeru- 
 falem, an opportunity to confider, and calmly 
 refle6l upon all the wonderful things that had 
 happened among them in the fpace of a few 
 years, the preaching and baptifm oi John^ and 
 
 all 
 
Ch. IX. ' St. John. 407 
 
 all the things faid and done by himfelf in the 
 courfe of his minillrie, particularly, the mi- 
 racles which he had wrought among them, 
 the claims, which he had made of being the 
 promifed Meliiah, whom all ought to receive, 
 and the intimations that had been given of 
 impending ruin and miferie. 
 
 Here our Lord waited, willing to reft the 
 proof of his miffion upon the teftimonies, that 
 had been given to it. And if the Rulers of 
 the Jewifh People had now come, and fo- 
 lemnly owned him in the character, he bore, 
 and with which God had clothed him, how 
 joyfully would they have been received ! But 
 they vi^ere not fo difpofed. Great multitudes 
 of the people came to him there, and he 
 healed them. The Pharifees alfo came unto 
 hm. But it was tempting him, Matth. xix. 
 I. 2. 3. Mark x. i. 2. 
 
 But befide what is recorded by the other 
 Evangelifts, St. '^ohn afTures us, that in this 
 interval our Lord came to Bcthanie, about fif- 
 teen furlongs, or two miles, from Jenifalem, 
 and there raifed Lazarus to life. ch. xi. r. 
 . . . 44. Then many of the Jews^ which came 
 to Marie ^ and hadfeen the things which Jefus 
 did, believed on him : that is, that he was the 
 Chrift. But fome of them wei2t their way to the 
 
 D d 4 Pha^ 
 
4o8 Si. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 PbarifeeSy and told theniy what things Jefus 
 had done, ver. 45'. 46. Then gathered they a 
 CoimciL . . . Then from that day forth^ they 
 took CGimfel together, for to put him to death. 
 ver. 47. . . 53« This fhews, that they were 
 inflexiblej and not to be gained by any confi- 
 derations. 
 
 It follows in v£r. 54. Jefus therefore walked 
 no viore openly among the Jews : but went 
 thence into a coiintrey near the wtlderneffe, into 
 a city called Ephraim. And there continued 
 with his difciples. Which (*) I fuppofe, was 
 not far from the place, from which our Lord 
 came laft. And from this city, called E- 
 phfaim, our Lord came to Bethanie again, by 
 the way of Jerichoy a (hort time before the 
 next Palibver, as related by the other Evan-r 
 gelifls. We proceed. 
 
 Says St. jobn ch. ?ii. ^^. . . ^j. And the 
 Jews Pajfover was now at hand. . . ISJow Both 
 the Chief' Priefis and the Pharifees hadgii:en a 
 commandment y that if any knew where-he nsoas^ 
 Joe fiould fiew it, that they might take him. 
 That is a proof of a determined purpofe to 
 accomplidi their evil deligns againft Jefus. 
 
 The 
 
 (*) Fid. Retard. Palaeft. I. i. cap. 56. 7om. i. p. 377. et hen- 
 f ant fur S. Jean, ch. xi. 'ver, 54. 
 
Ch. IX. St. yohn, 409 
 
 The wlicle following xii. chapter of this 
 Gofpel deferves attentive regard. 1 mud 
 tranfcribe a part, though it adds to the length 
 of thefe extrads. Tbeii "Jefus^ fix days before 
 the PaJJbver^ came to Betbanie^ where Lazarus 
 wasy who had been dead^ whom he rai fed from 
 the dead. xii. i. Much people of the Jews ' 
 therefore knew^ that he was there. And they 
 came^ notforjefusfake only^ but that they might 
 fee Lazarus alfo^ whom he had ralfedfrom the 
 dead. But theChief-PrieJls confultedy that they 
 might put Lazarus alfo to death : hecaufe that 
 by reafon of him many of the 'Jews went away^ 
 and believed on Jefus. ver. 9. . . 1 1. And here 
 is an account of fome Greeks^ or Gentils, who 
 were defirous to fee Jefus. ver. 20. . . .22. 
 Whofe readinelTe, accompanied with humili- 
 ty, may be reafgnably underftood to caft a re- 
 flexion upon the pride and obftinacie of thofe, 
 who were unmoved by the moft povv'erful 
 arguments, and the mod gracious invitations. 
 The remainder of that chapter, from ver. 35. 
 to 50. is a moft proper conciufion of this part 
 of the Gofpel, in which are thefe things very 
 obfervable. 1he?i Jejus faid ii?tto them : TeC 
 a little while the light is with you. Walk while 
 ye have the light, Icaft darhiefje come upon you, 
 f , . While ye have the light j believe in the light, 
 
 that 
 
4IO Sl John. ~ Ch. IX. 
 
 that ye may be the children of light. , . . But 
 
 though he had done Jo many miracles before them, 
 
 yet they believed not on him : that the faying of 
 
 Efaias might be julfdled. . . . Jefus cried, and 
 
 /aid : He that bclieveth on jne, believeth not on 
 
 me, but on him that fent me. lam come a light 
 
 into the worlds that whojoever believeth on me, 
 
 JJjoiild not abide in darknejj'e. . . I have notfpoken 
 
 oj my-felf. But the Father which fent me^ he 
 
 gave me a commandment, what I fiould fpeak. 
 
 And I know, that his commandment is life ever- 
 
 lajling. Whatfoever Ifpeak therefore, even as 
 
 the Father f aid unto me^fo I f peak. 
 
 Then in the xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. and xvil. 
 chapters our Lord inflruds and comforts, 
 prays with and for his difciples : (hewing (i) 
 tokens of the tendered affeftion, and the mod 
 faithful concern for thofe, who had paid a due 
 regard to the evidences of his miffion, and 
 adhered to him under difficulties and difcou- 
 ragements. So begins the next, that is, the 
 
 thir- 
 
 (i) Sicut vero haftenus feveritatem Domini in Judaeos de- 
 fendit Evangelifta, ita in fequentibus a capite xiii. ad finem 
 iifque fidelitatem Chrifti illibatam, quam difcipulis fuis ad- 
 dixit, ex ultimis verbis adferit. Haec intentio haud obfcure 
 addifcitur ex nova, quae alteri hujus Evangelii parte praefigi- 
 tur, praefatiuncula, cap. xiii. i. . . . Lam^. Prol. I. 2, c. 4. 
 »«w, xxxvi. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John. 411 
 
 thirteenth chapter: Now before the fenft of the 
 PciJJover^ when Jefus knew, that his hour ivas 
 come, that he fhould depart out of the world 
 unto the Father : having loved his own, which 
 were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 
 
 And indeed it was very natural for the E- 
 vangeHft, who had largely fliewn the unrea- 
 jfonableneffe, and the aggravated guilt of the 
 Jews, who did not believe in Jefus, but re- 
 jeded him, to give alfo a particular account 
 of our Lord's kind acceptance of thofe who 
 believed in him, and perfevered In their faith. 
 
 So that the defign of fliewing, how inex- 
 cufable the JewiQi People were, in rejeding 
 Jefus, and of vindicating Divine Providence 
 in the calamities brought upon them, is what 
 produced the whole order and economie of 
 this Gofpel. 
 
 The tv^^o following chapters, the xviii. and 
 xlx. contain the account of our Lord's profe- 
 cution, condemnation, death, and interment. 
 In the two laft chapters the xx. and the xxi. 
 are the accounts of our Lord's refurredion, 
 and the evidences of it, with many tokens of 
 kind regard for his difciples, who had follow- 
 ed him in the time of his abode on this earth, 
 axid were now to be his witnelTes in the world, 
 
 and 
 
412 Sf. yoh2. Ch. IX. 
 
 and to preach, under many difficulties, the 
 fame dodrine, which he had taught. 
 
 There is another thing, which may induce 
 us to think, that one great defign of St. jfobfz 
 in writing his Gofpel was to (hew the unrea- 
 fonableneiTe, and the great giiilt of the Jews, 
 in rejecting Jefus : that in his Gofpel are in- 
 ferted more indances of their attempts upon 
 our Lord's life, than in the other Gofpels. 
 Some facli things there are in them. Ac- 
 counts of the Pharifees confulting, how they 
 might dePtroy Jefus, may be feen in Matt. xii. 
 14. Mark iii. 6. Luke vi. 11. befide their laft 
 attempt : when they v/ere permitted to ac- 
 complifh their evil defign. But there are 
 more fuch inflances in St. Jo/m's, than in any 
 of the other Gofpels. As John vii. i. y^/fer 
 ihefe things Jefus 'walked in Galilee. For he 
 imuld 7ict walk in Jiidea^ hecaufe the yews 
 fought to kill him. However, he came up to 
 Jerufalem at the next feaftof Tabernacles, 
 ver. 2. And their defigns were renewed. Ch. 
 vii. 25. Then f aid fome of them at Jerufalem : 
 Is not this he^ whom they feek to kill? . . . Ver. 
 31.32. And many cf the people believed on himy 
 andfaid : When the Chriji cometh^ will he do 
 more miracles^ than thefe, which this man has 
 done ^ The Pharifees heard ^ that they murmured 
 
 fuch 
 
Ch. IX. Sl John. 413 
 
 fuch things concerning him. And the Thari' 
 fees and Cljicf-Prieji fcnt officers to take him. 
 But the officers, overcome by the excellence 
 of his difcourfes, could not perfuade them- 
 felves to apprehend him. For which they 
 were reproached by the Council in a mod 
 outrageous manner. But Nicodemns drove to 
 allay their refentment. ver. 45. . . 52. And 
 ch. viii. 20. Jhefe words /pake Jefus, in the 
 treafurie^ as he taught in the temple. And no 
 7nan laid hands on him, hecaiife his time was not 
 yet come. . . Ver. 37. 1 know, that ye are A' 
 braham's feed. But yefeek to kill me, a man 
 which has told you the truth, which 1 have heard 
 of God. This did not Abraham, Ver 59. 
 T^hen took they up jlones to caft at him. ... And 
 ch. X. 39. 40. Therefore they fought again to 
 take him : but he efcaped out of their hand. 
 And went away beyond Jordan. And when 
 our Lord propofed to go to Bethanie, upon 
 occaiion of the ficknefle and death of Laza- 
 rus, the difciples go unwillingly, and would 
 have diffuaded him from that journey, be- 
 ing apprehenfive of the imminent danger 
 therein both to him and themfelves. ch. xi. 7. 
 ... 16. See likewife ver. 45. . . ^y. All 
 thefe are things quite omitted by the other 
 Evangelids. As is alfo what is faid. ch. xii. 
 
 10. 
 
414 ' 'S'/. 'John. Ch. IX. 
 
 10. 1 1. And in their lafl: perfecution of Je- 
 fus before Pilate there are fome very aggra- 
 vating particulars mentioned by St. John, 
 which the other Evangelifts have not taken 
 notice of. Seech, xviii. 29. ... 32. xix. i. 
 . .15. 
 
 , Our blefTed Lord, preparing his difciples 
 for afflictions, reconciling their minds to them, 
 and encouraging them to endure them pa- 
 tiently, fays, ch. xv. 21. . . . 24. All ihefe 
 things will they do unto you for my name's fake, 
 becaufe they know not him that fent me. If I 
 had not come, and fpoken unto them, they had 
 not had fin. But now they have no exciife for 
 their fin. He that hatetb me, hateth my Fa- 
 ther alfo. If I had not done among them the 
 works, which no other man did, they had not had 
 fin. But now have they both feen, and hated 
 both me and my Father, That is a flrong, but 
 juft and true reprefentation of the heinouf- 
 neffe of the guilt of the Jewifli People. For 
 which reafon I could not forbear to allege it 
 here, though it (liould be thought out of 
 place. 
 
 And now having, as I fuppofe, fhewn this 
 defign of the Evangelift, let me mention an 
 obfervation, or two, by way of corollarie. 
 
 Firfi, 
 
Ch.IX. St. John. 415 
 
 Firji. We fee the reafon of St. Johtis re- 
 cording the miracle of railing Lazarus^ omit- 
 ted by th€ other Evangelifts. There was no 
 neceffity, that they fhould mention it. For 
 without it they have recorded fufficient evi- 
 dences of our Lord's miffion and charadler. 
 Nor was it poffible, without an improper pro- 
 lixity to record all our Saviour's difcourfes 
 and miracles, as St. Johfi himfelf has obferved. 
 Moreover the firft three Evangeliflis have 
 chiefly mfifted upon the moft public part of 
 our Lord's miniftrie. For which reafon this 
 miracle did not come fo diredly in their way. 
 But St. Johfj could not omit it. His defign 
 neceflarily led him to relate this great miracle, 
 done fo near Jerufakm^ and with all it's cir- 
 cumftances. For it manifeftly (hews the per- 
 verfe and incorrigible temper of the Jewifh 
 Priefts and Rulers. 
 
 Secondly. None ought any more to make a 
 queftion, whether our Lord twice cleanfed 
 the temple, or once only. It was cleanfed 
 by him at the time of his lafl: Paflbver, as re- 
 lated by the firfc three Evangelifls. But it 
 was very proper for St. yoh?2 to record that 
 done at the firfl: Paflover of our Lord's mi- 
 niftrie : it affording an alarming evidence of 
 his being the expedled Meffiah, which fliould 
 
 have 
 
41 6 St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 hnve been taken notice of by the Jewl(h Ru- 
 leis at Jerufalem. It was an early and open 
 claim of the charader of the MelTiah. And 
 their negleding that, and fo many other 
 claims and evidences of the fame great trnth 
 afterwards, manifefis the obftinacie of their 
 unbelief. Which was fitly flievyn by this 
 Evangelid. 
 
 I now proceed to feme other arguments. 
 
 3. One argument, that St. John's Gofpel 
 was writ before the deftruflion of Jenifalem^ 
 is taken from ch. v. 2. Now there is at Je- 
 rufalem^ by the fieep-market^ or Sheep-Gate, 
 a pool^ which is called in the Hebrew tongue 
 Bethejcla, bavi7Jg Jive porches. 
 
 On this patfage infift both (k) Bafnage 
 and (I) hampe. St John does not fay, as 
 
 they 
 
 (h) Porro quod tani fero fcriptum Joannis Evangeliuih 
 tradamus, id ex fententia potius vcterum, quam ex rei veritata 
 fecimus. .Ex ipfo quippc Evangelio nafcitur argumentum ad 
 exitlimanduni, lucem prius aipexiile, quam Hierofolyma ever- 
 teretiir. £/?, inquit, Hierofolymis ad portent oi'inm fifcina. 
 StetifTe ergo videtur urbs fanda, Joanne ea verba fcribente. 
 Secus, non praefens, eji, Wi, fed praeteiitum adhibuiil'et. 
 Bafn. An. 97. n. xii. 
 
 (I) Habetur igitur hie non tantum mentio portae o-vium, 
 tanquam tunc adhuc exilantisj cnm fcriberet Evangelifca, fed 
 etiam aedilicii ex quinqiie porticibus conftantis, quales iiruc- 
 turae port dirutam a Romanis Hierofolymam illic fruftra ef- 
 fent quaefitae. Licet cnim plfcinam fuperefie velint itinera- 
 
 ria. 
 
ch. IX. Sf. joU 
 
 they obferve, There ivas, but fbere is, And 
 though the pool might remahi, it could not 
 be faid after the ruin of the city, that the^i;^ 
 f'orches ftill fubfifled. 
 
 Mr. Whijicn argues in this manner. " St. 
 ** Jolm's (m) fpeaking of the Poolof Bethefda 
 ** in the prefent tenfe better agrees to the 
 *' time here affigned, A. D. 63. before the 
 " dedrucftion of "Jerujalemy when that Pool 
 *' and Porch were certainly in being, than to 
 " the time afterwards, when probably both 
 ** were deflroyed." 
 
 Dr. Wbithy likewife was fomewhat afFeded 
 by this text, and fays : ''If there is be the 
 " true reading, as the confent of almofl all 
 " the Greek copies argues, it feems to inti- 
 " mate, that ^eriifalem and this Pool were 
 ** {landing, when St. "John wrote his Gofpel : 
 " and therefore, that it was written, as Theo- 
 phyhB, and others fay, before the deftruc- 
 
 tion of yeriijalemi and not, as the more an- 
 *' cient Fathers thought, long after." 
 
 ri:i, portae tamen ac rauri folo aequata erant. Inde igitur 
 colligimus, ftetifTe urbem fanftam, Joanne ca verba fcribente. 
 Secus non praefens ej, fed praeteritum adhibuiilet, Lampi 
 Prol. I. 2. cap, 2. num. xi, 
 
 (tn) Effay on the Conjiituiionf. ch* /. /. 38, 
 
 Vot. I. * E e But 
 
 4'7 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 
41 8 Sf.John. Ch. IX. 
 
 But Mr. Jones, befide other things, fays, 
 " that (n) in all probability the Pool was not 
 *' filled up, but was ftill in the fame ftate, af- 
 *' ter the deftrudtion oijenifalem, as before." 
 To which, however, it might be anfwered, 
 that fuppofing the Pool not to have been filled 
 up, it would not be reafonable to think, that 
 the porches and the gate flill fubfifted, after 
 the deftrudion of the city. But then Mr. 
 Jones adds : " Suppofing the Pool was def- 
 " troyed, and St. John to have known it, there 
 " is no impropriety in ufing the verb is : 
 «* nothing being more common among wri- 
 " ters, than to ufe verbs in the prefent tenfe, 
 " to denote the preterperfedl." 
 
 Having reprcfented this argument, as it 
 has appeared to divers learned men, I leave 
 every one to judge of it. 
 
 4. in ch. xxi. 18. 19. Chrift foretells, that 
 Peter would die by martyrdom. Then it is 
 
 added : This /pake he, Jig^ify^f^S^ h 'z^'^^^ 
 death he JJjould glorify God. Some may hence 
 argue, that (0) Peter was not yet dead, when 
 
 this 
 
 (n) Nenv and Full Method, 'vol, 3 . />. 141. 
 
 (a) Poll Petri martyriuni editum effe Joannis Evangelium 
 confenfus eft Patrum omnium. Fit tamen in ea re fcrupulus. 
 Petro Chrirtus mortem -diferte portendit, cap. xxi. .18. . . . 
 
 Quae 
 
Ch. IX. St.yoh?2. ^ig 
 
 this was writ : or that St. John did not then 
 know of it. But others may be of opinion, 
 that (p) though Peter had fufFered maityr- 
 dom a good while before, and St. John knew 
 it very well ; yet he was not obliged to take 
 notice of it, but might write as he does. 
 
 Indeed, 1 am of opinion, that Si^John could 
 not take notice of Peters death. It v/as not 
 a thing within his province. As an Evange- 
 lift, he wrote the hiftorie of our Saviour, not 
 of his Apoftles. 
 
 5. A like argument may be taken from the 
 following verfes. 20. 21. 22. Peter feeing 
 yohtty jaith to Jefus : Lord, and what fiall 
 this man do? J ejus faith unto him : If I will, 
 that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? 
 Follow thcu me. T^hen went this faying abroad, 
 that this difciple fmdd not die. Tet Jefiisfaid 
 not unto him, he Jhall not die : but if I will, 
 
 E e 2 that 
 
 Quae fi fcfipta funt, jam mifib ad mortem Petro, injici de ea 
 re mentio debebat, ut et completi oraculi cognitio caperetur, 
 et martyri Chriiti laus fua concederetur, Bcfnag. Exercit p. 
 
 384- 
 
 (p) Locus ex Joh. xxi. 18. non magni in hac caufTa mo^ 
 menti eft. Nullam enim video neceffitatem, cur mortem Pe- 
 tri commemoraret, fi vel aftu notitiam ejus habuifTet, qyia fic 
 per fe fatis Veritas praedi«5lionis lefu innotuiflet. kc. Lampi 
 ib. I. 2, c. 2. §. xin'. 
 
420 Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 thaf he tarry ^ till I come^ what is that to thee ? 
 If by Chrift's coming be here intended the 
 overthrow of Jerufaie?n, as many think, it 
 may be fuppofed reafonable by fome to ex- 
 pedt, that St. John fliould have taken fome 
 notice of it here, if he v^^rote after that event. 
 Neverthelffs 1 humbly apprehend, that this 
 is not an ar«^omeDt of much weight. I do 
 noi: think, that as an EvangeUft he was obhged 
 lo eJve an account of the fulfilment of Chrift's 
 predidion, though he had been a.witneffe 
 
 of it. 
 
 6. This is the difciple, that tejlijieth thefe 
 things^ and wrote thefe things. And we know, 
 that his t^ftimonie is true. By thefe laft words 
 Mr. Lani^e (q) fuppofeth, to be meant fome , 
 Jews, then living in Afia, who were eye-wit- 
 ' neffes of our Lord, and his miniftrie : which 
 might well be, if St. Jcbi\ Gofpel was writ 
 before the deftrudion of Jerufalem : but 
 would not be reckoned likely, if it was writ 
 not before the year of the vulgar epoch 97. 
 or 98. They who confirm the teftimonie of 
 another, ought to have the fame certain know- 
 le'dge of the thing teftified, as he who fpeaks, 
 or writes. But after the deftrudion of jfe- 
 
 rufalem, 
 
 (q) Ibid. 1, z.cap. 2. mm. ix. 
 
Ch. IX. St,yoJm, 421 
 
 riifalem^ it is not reafonable to think, there 
 were many to bear witnefTe to things done 
 forty or fiity years before. Thcfe Jews, eye- 
 witnefles of our Lord, Mr. Lampe fuppofeth 
 to have been believers of that nation, who 
 accompanied Johii into JJiay when he left 
 yudea. 
 
 I have thought it proper, not to omit this 
 argument of that learned writer. But it de- 
 pends upon his interpretation of this verfe. 
 Which is not certain. For fome have fup- 
 pofed, that (r) it is the church of Ephefus, 
 which here fpeaks. And others think it to 
 be (s) St, yo/m himfelf. The change of num- 
 ber and perfon, of we for I, is no valid ob- 
 jection . So I. John i. I. ... 5. Tbat ivhicb 
 we have heardy which we have feen with our 
 eyes. . . . 3. ^/'. 1 2. Tea^ and we alfo bear re- 
 cord. And ye know^ that our record is true. 
 And St. Fatd i. ThefT. ii. 18. Wherefore we 
 would have come unto you, even I Paul, once 
 
 E e 3 and 
 
 (r) Et fcimus.'] Loquitur ecclefia Ephefina, Scimus, aiunt, 
 fde dignutn, ex vitae fcilicet puritate, et miraculis ab eo editis. 
 Grot, in loc. ^ 
 
 (s) " The Evangelift had faid before ch. xix. 35. He knonv- 
 ethy that he fays true. Here in this place he changeth the 
 perfon, faying : We kno'w, that his tejlinionie is triieT Light- 
 foot upon John xxi. 24. 'vol. 2. /. 627. 5ee likenvife Whitby, 
 Lenfautf and Doddridge upon the place. 
 
422 Sf. 'John. Ch. IX. 
 
 and again. But Satan hindred us. Chryfof- 
 tom (t) and Jheophyla5i (u) underftood St. 
 yohn to fpeak here of himfelf, as an eye- wit- 
 neflcj wA^o had been prefent at almoft every 
 thing, related by him in his hiflorie. 
 
 7. It is faid : " The three epiftles of St. 
 *' John do ever fuppofe, the Gofpel of St. 
 " John to have been written long before, and 
 <* to be well known by thofe, to whom he 
 /' wrote. And they are written with a con- 
 ** (lant view and regard to the contents of the 
 " fame Gofpel." That is an argument (x) 
 of Mv, Whijiony which, with what he adds by 
 way of confirmation^ is referred to the read- 
 er's confideration. 
 
 8. Some have argued for an early date of 
 this Gofpel, or at left, that it was writ before 
 the Revelation, which was fecn in PatmoSi 
 
 becaufe 
 
 (t) Ts.ai oiXd, (pmtv, on ahUjii er/v « Ae^-ei. . .' . K«/ 'sract 
 
 X«?ie«. C^O'A ^■">»^- 88. «/. 87. T. 8. p. 588. C. D. E. 
 
 (u) \i(U oiJ^d, ipmiv, oTi d?\.iiS'ii Xiye>, t«t«V/. tsrAnpo^opn- 
 
 fiiA; iyp(x.'\'Oi, a s^/fc^ot, &.7B 'sta.ai <srapa)V, sy Toli 'i^yoi?, )^ 
 
 joii hoyoii, n^ To7? "zrciSfjr/, x] to7? luru rm dvd^ao'iv. Aya.- 
 
 ^ w«Ti; ydp tium, ^ ovk d'^iXtij.zirccv'oum, ccn i^ixppmid^oy.oct, 
 
 39 'Tnp] i/y.avr'ti Xkya, or/ aM^ivi-). Theophyl. in jfo. Tom. i. p. 
 
 .847- 
 
 (x) See his Commentarie upon St. Johns three Catholic Epijiles, 
 p. 8. ^'c. 
 
Ch. IX. Sl John. 423 
 
 becaufe (y) it is faid at the begining of that 
 book, ch. i. I. 2. . . Who bare record of the 
 word of God J and of the tefiimonie of J ejus 
 Chriji, and of all things^ which he faw. They 
 fuppofe, that therein St. John refers to his 
 Gofpel, and what he had writ in it. But to 
 me themofi: reafonable account of thofe words 
 appears to be that, which (z) was given for- 
 merly : That they are mo ft properly under- 
 flood of that very book, the Revelation, and 
 the things contained in it. The writer there 
 fays, very pertinently, in his introduction, that 
 in that book he had difcharged the office, af- 
 iigned him: having therein faithfully recorded 
 the word of God, received from Jefus Chrifl:, 
 and all the vilions, which he had feen. 
 
 9. Once more, it is argued from infcrip- 
 tlons, at the end of this Gofpel, in divers ma- 
 nufcripts, that it was writ before the deftruc- 
 tion of Jenifalem : it being there faid, that 
 
 E e 4 this 
 
 (y) Ipfum porro audiamus Evangeliftam Idem non obfcure, 
 uti nobis videtur, fubindicantem, quando Apoc. i. 2. fe ita 
 circumfcribit : «? l{^.apTVf>Mi tIv h'oyov Ta SfK. . . Et verfu 9. 
 . . . Plurimi optinii interpretes in eo confentiimt, quod in his 
 verbis ad Evangelium refpiciatur, licet in modo demonftrandi 
 differant &c. Lamp. Prol. I. 2, (a^, 2. ^. 'viii, 
 
 (zj See VoJ. iv, p. 703. 
 
.424 St. John, Ch.IX. 
 
 this Gofpel was writ in the time of Nero, 
 at thirty years, or about two and thirty years 
 after our Saviour's afcenfion. Upon thefe 
 iniifted (a) Mr. Wetjlein in a paffige quoted 
 from him fome while ago. Upon them 
 like wile infifts (b) Mr. hampe. 
 
 For my own part, I lay not any ftrefle at 
 all upon thefe inlcriptions, at the end of 
 Greeks or Arabic^ or other manufcripts of the 
 New Teftament, writ in the ninth, or tenth 
 centurie, or later. They (c) are of no au- 
 thority. For there is no proof, that this 
 account was derived from the teftimonie, or 
 tradition of ancient authors. The early date 
 of the Gofpels was popular. Some having 
 
 without 
 
 (a) See before p. 387. 
 
 (b) Accedit multarum gloflarum et verfionum in id con- 
 fenfus, quod fub Ncrone Evangel! um fit exaratiim. Licet 
 enim authoritates hae fequioris aevi fait, ob earum tamen 
 frequentiam et harmoniam valde ell credibile, quod in an- 
 tiquiori traditione fundatae fint. ... Id tamen obfervavi dif- 
 crinien, ut quaedam numero rotundo XXX poft Chrifli ad- 
 fcenfionem, aliae XXXII nominent. Lampe ibid. I. 2. cap. 2. 
 num. xii. Vid. et num. xi'v. 
 
 (c) Neque ordo, qui nunc receptus eft epiilolarum, fequi- 
 tur ordinem temporis, neque antiqua funt ilia, quae fub finem 
 funt addita, ad fignificandum, unde et per quos niifTae funt. 
 . . et illae in fine annotatiunculae ferae funt, ex conjedlura, 
 aut tenui fama. Grot, Ccmm. in loca quaedam N. T./ub in. Totji, 
 3r/>- 457' 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. Job;?. 425 
 
 without reafon determined the time of writln<r 
 the other Gofpels at eight, or ten^ or fifteen 
 years after our Lord's afcenfion, pitched upon 
 the year 30. or 32. for the time of St. yoktis 
 Gofpel. But it was done upon no other 
 ground and foundation, but mere fanfie and 
 conjedure. 
 
 X. It is upon the two firfl mentioned ar- oijeaicns, 
 guments, that I chiefly relye. However, 
 there are objedions, which deferve to be con- 
 fidered. 
 
 1. Obj. Chryfojiom was of opinion, that St. 
 John did not write, till after the deliruction 
 of Jerufalem. For in a homilie upon Matth. 
 xxiv. he fays : " John (d) writes not of any 
 ** of thefe things, leafl: it (hould be thought, 
 *' that he took an advantage from the event. 
 " For he was living a good whilt after the 
 *' defirudion of 'Jerufalem. But the other 
 " Evangelifts, who died before the deftruc- 
 " tion of Jerufalem^ and faw none of thofe 
 *' things, record thefe predidions." 
 
 To which I anfwer, that St. John's omit- 
 ting our Saviour's predictions concerning the 
 deftrudion oi Jenifalem, which are recorded 
 by the other Evangelifts, is no proof, that he 
 
 did 
 
 (d) See Vol. x.p, 321, 
 
426 iSV. 'John, Ch. IX. 
 
 did not write, untill after they were fulfilled. 
 For if he wrote at the time fuppofed by \is, 
 when that event was near j it is very likely, 
 that he would omit thefe predidions : efpe- 
 cially, having obferved, that they were fuffi- 
 ciently recorded already. And we plainly 
 fee, that it is not St. Johns method, to repeat 
 what had been recorded before. However, 
 he has inferted in his Gofpel divers expreffi- 
 ons, containing warnings and intimations of 
 the miferies coming upon the Jewifh People, 
 if they did not receive the Lord Jefus as the 
 Meffiah. John the Baptift may be fuppofed 
 to intend this in words, recorded John iii. 36. 
 Our Lord intimates it in his difcourfe with 
 JSlicodemus.m, 18. 19. and upon divers other 
 occafions, already taken notice of by us, in 
 this Gofpel. ch. viii. 12. 21. 24. ix. 39. . . . 
 4i.xii. 35. 36. 
 
 2. Obj. Mr. Whijion in (e) his Short View 
 of the Harmonic of the Evangelifts, fays, 
 ** that St. John ufeth the Roman or Julian be- 
 gining of the day in his Gofpel, the fame that 
 we ufe at prefent,and reckons the hours from 
 midnight and noon. He refers to John i. 3 9. 
 xix. 14. and xx. 19. Which he reckons an 
 
 argument, 
 
 (e)?. 115, 116. 
 
Ch. IX". St. Jobn, 427 
 
 argument, that Si.yGtrn wrote his Gofpel long 
 after the deftrudlion of 'Jerufakm, and the 
 period of the Jewifh polity, at Ephefiis^ a place 
 remote from Judcdj and under the Roman 
 government." 
 
 To which I anfvver i . It does not appear to 
 me, that St. John computes the hours of the 
 day after the Roman, but rather after the Jew- 
 i(h manner. 2. Suppofing St. John to have 
 ufed the Roman method of computation, it 
 does not follow, that he wrote after the de- 
 ftrudion of Jerufalem^ and the period of the 
 Jewiih polity. We allov/, that St. Johns 
 Gofpel was writ at EphefiiSy at a diftance from 
 Judea. And, if he thought fit, he might ufe 
 the Roman way of reckoning, efpecially, when 
 the period of the JewKh commonwealth was 
 near, though not quite accompli(hed. 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to folve this ob- 
 je£lion. What was Mr. Whijlons own folu- 
 tion, I do not know. But I fuppofe, that he 
 afterwards overcame this difficulty. For in 
 his later writings he maintains a very different 
 fentiment concerning the date of St. Jobjs 
 Gofpel, pleading, that it was writ about the 
 year of Chrifl 63. a good while before the 
 deftru(!tiou of Jenijakm. So he argues in 
 
 his 
 
428 St. 'John, Ch. IX. 
 
 his Edliy upon the Apoftolical Conftltutions, 
 publiihed, in 171 1. and in his Commentarie 
 upon St. John^ Epiftles, publifhed in 17 19. 
 His Harmonic of the four Evangehfls was 
 printed at Cambridge in the year 1702. 
 
 3. Obj. It is farther cbjeded, that many an- 
 cient writers fpeak of a late date of St. yA's 
 Gofpel, and that he wrote with a defign to 
 confute divers heretics : who cannot be fup- 
 pofed to have appeared, till after the deflruc- 
 tion of yerufakm^ and the overthrow of the 
 Jewlfli People. 
 
 To which I anfwer, that this may have 
 been owing to a miftaken apprehenfion. 
 Many heretics, they faw, might be confuted 
 by St. yohi's Gofpel. Therefore they con- 
 cluded, that he did not write, till after they 
 had appeared in the world : whilft the truth 
 might be no more than this, that fuch and 
 fuch heretics might be confuted out of his 
 Gofpel : though they had not appeared in the 
 world, till long after. Paulimis fays, ** that 
 " (f) m the begining of St. Jolm^ Gofpel all 
 ** heretics are confuted, particularly, AyhiSy 
 " SabelliuSi Fhotinus, Marciofi, and the Ma- 
 *' nicheans." And in Mr. U'^etjleinh preface 
 
 to 
 
 {f) See Vol, xi. p. 44. 
 
/ 
 
 Ch. IX. St. John, 429 
 
 to St. yA's Gofpel, writ not long ago, in our 
 time, are thefe expreflions. Having before 
 quoted Ire?iaeus, he adds : " Which (g) if 
 " they be compared v/ith thofe things, Vv'hich 
 *' Carpocrates, Menajider, Cerdo, Saturninus^ 
 " Bafilides, Valentin, and Marcion^ have faid 
 " of angels, and aeons : among whom were 
 " Charis Grace, Alethea Truth, Monogenes 
 *« Only begotten. Logos Word, Zoe Life: it 
 " mufl be manifeft, that 'John fo oppofed his 
 ** dodlrlne to them, as to ufe the forms of ex- 
 " preffion, received by them." Surely, this 
 is very incautious, and inaccurate. Mufl: it 
 not be fo, to fay, that St. 'John oppofed thofe 
 heretics, mod of which are heretics of the 
 fecond centurie ? If St. John^ gofpel be ge- 
 nuine, it muft have been writ before the end 
 of the firfl centurie. Yea, Mr. Wetjlein fays, 
 it was writ at about two and thirty years after 
 Chrifl's afceniion. How then could St. John 
 oppofe them, or write againft them, but in 
 the way of prophecie, or prevention \ But to 
 
 fay, 
 
 ^^j Quae fi comparentur cum as, quae Carpocrates, Me- 
 nander, Cerdo, Saturninus, Bafilides, V'alcntinus, et Mar- 
 cion de angelis et aeonibus, inter quos erant Charis, Alethea, 
 Monogenes, Logos, Zoe, item de Chrifto, non vere, fed 
 cTaxtWei pafTo, tradiderunt : fatis raanifeilum erit, Joannem 
 dodtrinam fuam illis ita opponere, ut loquendi formulis apud 
 4I0S receptis utatur. Weiji, Teji, Gr, Tom. i.p, 832. 
 
45*^ 'S'/. 'john. . Ch. IX. 
 
 fay, he oppofed his doSlrine to them, or wrote 
 £gainft them, does not feem very proper. 
 And if" the ancient writers fpeak not mere ac- 
 curatiy, than this learned modern i an argu- 
 ment taken from them, upon this head, can- 
 not be of much weight. 
 
 It is the teflimonie of Irenaem^ which 
 ought principally to be regarded by us, upon 
 account of his antiquity, and his having been 
 acquainted with Poljcarp in the early part of 
 his life. He fays, as before tranfcribed, " that 
 " by the publication of his Gofpel John de- 
 " figned to root out the errour, that had been 
 " fown among men by Ctrinthiisy But it 
 is obfervabie, that in another place, alfo tran- 
 fcribed above, he fays : " "John forefeeing 
 ** thofe blafphemous notions, that divide the 
 *' Lord, fo far as it is in their power," wrote 
 his Gofpel. For this paflage I am indebted 
 to Mr. Whiftofi, who argues, that St. Johiis 
 Gofpel was writ about the year 63. and before 
 this Apoftle's three epi files. '' Nor, fays (h) 
 " he, fhail I need to fupport this obfervation 
 " from any other argument, than that from 
 ** Irenaeus^ who fuppofeth this Gofpel, and 
 " St. Pmirs, epiftle to the Roma?iS, ancienter, 
 
 " and 
 
 (h) Commentarie upon St. John's epijlks. p. 8. 
 
Ch.IX. St. John. 431 
 
 " and thefe epiflles later, than the rife of the 
 ** hereiie of Ceriiithus." Referring to the 
 palTage of Irenaeus, before taken notice of 
 Dy us. 
 
 If then we put together the feveral paflages 
 of Ire?2aeus, he does not contradid; the fup- 
 polition of an early date of St. yob?2's Gofpel : 
 or, that it was writ before the rife of thofe 
 herefies, which may be confuted by it. 
 
 It may be judged prefumptuous to oppofe 
 the prevailing opinion of learned men, who 
 have fuppofed, that fome heretics were par- 
 ticularly flruck at in the begining of this Gof- 
 pel. Neverthelefs Mx.Lampe (i) whom I have 
 often quoted, has prefumed to oppofe this 
 opinion, and has largely argued, that St. John 
 did not write againfl: Cerinthus, or other here- 
 tics 
 
 (i) Nos ut falva, quam viris magnis, . . . debemus. exifti- 
 matione, libere animi fenfa proferamus, an Evangelic fuo Jo- 
 annes Gontrovcrfiamtradlare, haereticofque in Ecclefia fui aevi 
 ullos refutare voluerit, dubitamus admodum. Neque enim id 
 titulus generalis E-vangelii libro praefixus admittit, neque id 
 commode per librum ad methodum hiftoriae compofitum fieri 
 potuit, neque illius rei vel vola vel veftigium ullum apparet : 
 quod tamen et fcriptoribus elenchticis in more conftanti pofi- 
 tum eft, et e re admodum erat, ut eo certius tela ferirent, et 
 eo evidentius argumentorum patefccret robur. Lampe Prole- 
 gom, in Joafin, I. 2. cap. 3, num. xiii. Fid. ib. num.xi'V, xv. 
 fivi, et feq. 
 
432 Sf. ^John, Ch. IX. 
 
 tics In his Gofpel. And though another 
 learned German (k) has fince Vwiit againft 
 Mr. LanipCj 1 cannot fay, ihat he has ccn- 
 futed him. 
 
 I (hall therefore take the liberty to men- 
 tion fome thoughts relating to this matter, 
 which offer themfelves to my mind. 
 
 Firjl : To me it feems below an Evange- 
 lld, to write againft heretics in the hiftorie of 
 his Lord and Maftcr. Nor do any of the 
 Evangelifls enter into a particular account of 
 things after our Lord's afcenfion. St. John 
 proceeds no farther than his refurre(flion, and 
 the evidences of it, without particularly men- 
 tioning his afcenfion. Nor has St. Matthew 
 proceeded any farther. However, undoubt- 
 edly, it is implied in what they write, ihat 
 our Lord was raifed up to an endlefs life, and 
 to univerfal power in heaven and on earth. 
 St. Mark ch.xvi, 19. and St. Luke xxiv. 50, 
 CI. relate our Saviour's afcenfion to heaven. 
 This has oftentimes appeared to me ex- 
 ceeding remarkable, that none of the Evange- 
 lifts fhould in thei;- Gofpels give an account 
 
 of 
 
 (k) G. L. Oederus de fcopo E'vangelii S.Jo. Ap, certljjime Hae- 
 reft Cerinthi et Ebionis oppojtti, Ad'verfui V, C. Fr. Ad, Lampc 
 hipfiae 1732. 
 
Ch. IX. St, Joki. 43 3 
 
 of the preaching of the Apoflles after our 
 Lord's afcenfion, and the defcentof the Holy 
 Ghoft upon them. Take the earlieft date of 
 the Gofpels, that can be thought of, or affign- 
 ed by any : all muft allow, that before any 
 of them were writ, many miracles had been 
 performed by the Apoftles, and many con- 
 verts mud have been made from among Jews, 
 if not alfo from among Gentils : and many 
 promifes of our Lord muft have been accom- 
 plifhed. And we can perceive from their 
 Gofpels, that they had a knowledge of fuch 
 things. Neverthelefs there is no particular 
 account of them in any of the Gofpels. St. 
 Mark is the only Evangelifl:, that has faid any 
 thing in his Gofpel of the minifirie of the 
 Apoftles. And he enters not into any de- 
 tail. His whole account is in a few words 
 only, the lad: verfe of his Gofpel. 
 
 Confidering this method of all the Evan- 
 gelifts in their hiflories of our Lord and Sa- 
 viour, it appears to me probable, that though 
 St. John had not writ his Gofpel before the 
 year 96. or 97. as fome have fuppofed; he 
 would not have taken notice of heretics, or 
 vouchfafed to argue with them. St. Jobn 
 did not write the hifiorie of the Apoftles, as 
 
 Vol. L * F f is 
 
434 St. John. Ch.IX: 
 
 is evident. How then could he take notice ' 
 of heretics. 
 
 Secondly, Another thing of no fmall mo- 
 ment is this. I fee nothing of this kind in 
 the reft of St. JoJm^ Gofpel. Why (I) then 
 ihould v/e imagine, that there is any fuch 
 thing in the introdudion ? If St. John's Gof- 
 pel is not writ agalnft heretics, why (liould 
 the begining of it be fo ? What St. John fays 
 in the introdudion, appears to me agreeable to 
 the main defign of his Gofpel, as it has been 
 before largely reprefented. He therein fliews, 
 that Jefus came, and aded by the authority 
 of God, the Creator of the world, the God, 
 and fupreme Lawgiver of the Jewifli People. 
 The (m) eternal word, reafon, wifdom, power 
 
 of 
 
 (I) Ex quibiis clare, ut putamus, patet, in prologo com- 
 pendium ccntineri rerum, quas Evangelifla toto Evangelio 
 demonllirare volebat, nempe lefum nontantum efie Filium Dei 
 et redemtorem mundi. Ver. i. . .4. Sed etiam qua talem ita 
 plene in mundo demonftratum e/Te, ut ab una parte Judaei 
 plane rediti fuerint dvcfTraXoy-ino]. ver. 4. . . 11. ab altera 
 autem fideles fufEciens fidei firmamentum acceperint. ver. 1 2. 
 . . , l8. Lamp. Prol. 1. 2. cap. 4. num. xx<v. 
 
 (m) Quaeris veramhujus nominis interpretationem, de qua 
 variae exflant eruditorum virorum fententiae ? Non vindico 
 mihi ejus rei arbitrium : tantum, quod hie fentio, modefte, 
 falva difTentientium exiftimatione et amicitia, profero. Ver- 
 tenduni elTe hoc nomen Ratio ^ vel Sapientia Dei : etli recep- 
 
 tara 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. John, 
 
 of God, which is God himfelf, by which 
 the world had been made, by which he 
 dwelled among the Jews in the tabernacle, 
 and the temple, (n) dwelled, and refided in 
 Jefus, in the fullefl: manner : fo (o) that we 
 his difciples, and others who believed in him, 
 faw, and clearly difcerned him to be the pro- 
 miied MeiHah, the great Prophet, that fliould 
 come into the world. 
 
 The Apoftles in their addrefles to the Jew- 
 i(li People never fail to give alTurances, that 
 Jefus Chrift had ad:cd by the authority of the 
 one true God, the God of their anceflors. 
 
 F f 2 So 
 
 tarn phrafim Sermonls Dei, m vcrfione retinendam cenfuerim. 
 . . . Conllat cuiqae, prologum Evangelii legend, alludere 
 Joannem in toto illo prologo . . ad caput oftavum Proverbi- 
 orum Salomonis, . . . ut proinde talem ellgere oporteat inter- 
 pretationem, quae affinis fit voci Sapientiae. Vitring. in Jpoc, 
 cap, xix. 'uer. i^-p. I109. 
 
 (uj Ut celebratiffimo loco legitur : Kai Aoyo<; o-«j?^ lyi' 
 »«To. Quod refte redditur : Ei Verbwn, five fermo, hmnofaC' 
 tus eft, five humanam naturam induit. Et «^ 2^yaM y'oijM i 
 tTiKdHco^creTcii niasa. cap^ : i. e. homo quifquam. Rom. iii. 20. 
 ut Pf. cxliv. 22. al, cxlv. zi. ;^ euAo^«Tfi> niasx fUf.^ 70 
 oyoy.Oi uv7<i. Pearfon. Prolegom. ad I'erjion. Ixx. Cantab, p. 1 3, 
 
 (0) " We faw his glorie, as what became the only begotten 
 Son of God. He did not glitter in any worldly pomp and 
 grandeur, according to what the Jevvilh nation fondly dream- 
 ed their Mefliah would do : but he v/as decked with the glo- 
 rie of holineffe, grace, truth, and the power of miracles.'' 
 Lightfoots Exsrdtations upon St. John, 'vol, 2, p. 521. 
 
436 St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 So Ads ii. 22. Te men of Ifrael^ hear fhefe 
 words : Jefus of Nazareth^ a man approved , 
 of God among you by miracles . . . which God 
 did by him in the midji of you. And iii. 13. 
 The God of Abraham, of Ifaac, and facob^ 
 The God of our father s, has glorified his Son^ 
 yefus. . .. See alio ver. 22. . . 26. ch. v. 30. 
 The God of our fathers has raifed up fefus. . . . 
 The epiftle to the Hebrews begins in this 
 manner : God, who at fundry times, and in 
 divers manners, (pake in tifne pa ft unto the fa- 
 thers by the Prophet s, has in thefe laji days fpo • 
 ken unto us by his Son, 
 
 Indeed, this is neceflarie for the fatisfadion 
 of all men, both Jews and Gentils. For 
 there is no other God, but one, even the God 
 of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Nor can any 
 true revelation come from any, but him. 
 
 In all the Gofpels our Lord afcribes all his 
 miracles, and all his authority, to the one 
 God, his Father^ who is in heaven. Matt, xii, 
 28. If I caji out demons by the Spirit of God y 
 then is the ki?2gdom of God come unto you. Luke 
 xi. 20. If I by the finger of God caft out de- 
 mons y no doubt the kijigdofn of God is come unto 
 youi Matt. xi. 27. All things are delivered 
 unto me by my Father. . . Comp. Luke x. 22. 
 Matt. xii. 13. Every plant y which my hea- 
 venly 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 437 
 
 venly Father has not planted^ fiall be rooted up. 
 Matt. xvi. 27. For the Son of man fiall come 
 in the glorie oj his Father. . . . Conip. Mark 
 viii. 38. And the like In many other places. 
 But in none of the Gofpels does our Lord 
 fo frequently, and expreflly, afcribe all his 
 authority to God the Father, as in St. John's 
 Gofpel : thereby plainly fhewing the guilt of 
 thofe, who did not receive him. John v. 19. 
 The Son can do nothing oj himfelfy but ui^hat he 
 
 feeth the Father do Ver. 30. 7 feek not 
 
 my own will, but the will of the Father, who 
 hath fent me. Ver. 36. 37. But I have greater 
 witnejfe, than that of John, For the works, 
 which the Father hath given me to finijh^ the 
 fame works that I do, bear witnefje oj me, that 
 the Father hath fent me. . . . I am come in mj 
 
 Father's name. And ye receive me not 
 
 And at ver. 45. . . 47. our Lord appeals to 
 Mofes and his writings, which were allowed 
 to be of divine original, as bearing teftimonie 
 to him. Then ch. vi. 27. . . . him hath God 
 the Father fealed. vii. 16. 1 am not alone. But 
 J, and the Father, that fent me. x. 36. Say ye 
 of him, whom the Father hath fanSlifed, and 
 fent into the world : 'Jbou blajphemeji : be- 
 caiife Ifaid, I am the Son of God ? And, to 
 add no more. Ch. xi. 41. 42. When he 
 
 F f 3 wrought 
 
438 Sf. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 UTought that great miracle of raifing Lazarus 
 from the dead, Jefus lijt up his e'yes^ andjaid: 
 Father^ I thank thee^ that thou haft heard me^ 
 And 1 kne'Wy that thou heare/i me always. But 
 becaufe of the people which ft and by^ I faid it, 
 that they may believe^ that thou haft fent me, 
 
 Agreeable to all this is the introdudion, 
 where, befide other, are thefe expreflions : 
 He came to his own. And his own received 
 him net. . . . The Word was made ftefto^ and 
 dwelled amotig us. . . . And we faw his glorie^ 
 the glorie, as of the only begotten of the Father, 
 '. . The law was given by Mofes. But grace 
 and truth came by fefus Chrifi, No man hath 
 Jeen God at any time. The only begotten Son^ 
 who is in the bofom of the Father^ he 1ms de- 
 clared him. So ends the introdudion. And 
 it is what St. John has largely and fully fhewn 
 in his Gofpel. 
 
 But it will be a&ed : Whence came it to 
 pafs, that St. John made ufe of that term, the 
 Word ? 
 
 1 anfwer : I am of opinion, that it was 
 not out of regard to Philoy or any Platonic 
 writers. But I fuppofe, this (p) way of 
 
 fpeak- 
 
 (p) Plerique obfervant, fimilem locutionem frequenter OC' 
 currere in Paraphrafibus Chaldaicis, quae veterum Hebraeo- 
 
 rum 
 
Ch. IX. 6V. John. ' 439 
 
 fpeaking to have been very common with the 
 Jewifli People, and, perhaps, more efpecial- 
 ly with thofe of them, who were moft zea- 
 lous for the law, and moft exempt from fo- 
 reign, and philofophical fpeculations. Who 
 by the Word, or the Word of God, underftood, 
 not a fpirit, feparate from God, and inferior 
 to him, but God himfelf, as St. john (q) 
 does. 
 
 Numb. 
 
 rum catechefin, et ar.tiquas loquendi formulas, exhibent. 
 Quoties de Deo nobiicum converfante fermo eft, toties vero 
 Targumiflae, pro Deo, vel Jehova, fubftituenint 'verbum Je- 
 ho'vae. Pro exemplo haec paucula ex innumeris funto. Gen. 
 xxi. 20. Deusfuit CU771 lllo. Onkelos. Verbum Domini fu\t ilU 
 auxilio. lb. comm. 22. J)eus eft tecum. Onkelos. Verbum 
 Domini enim tibi fubfidio. Dent. xx. i. JV^ timeto ah eis. 
 Nam Deus tuns tecum eji. Onkelos. . . eo quod Jehova Dens 
 tuusy Verbum ejus auxilio tibi eft, quod eduxit te ex terra ^egypti. 
 Num. xi. 22. Eo quod reprobafti "Jeho'vam. Onkelos. Eo quod 
 faftidiftis Vcrbtiin Domini, cijus Skechiiiah Di'vina Majeflas ha- 
 bitat in niobis. Exod. xvi. 8. Nou centra nos murmurationes 'vef- 
 trae, fed contra Jeho'vam. Onkelos. . . fed contra Verbum Je- 
 <vae. Infinita funt fimilia. Unde colligitur, receptum eo 
 tempore Hebraeis fuiftcj ut Deum, quatenus cum populo fuo 
 agit, Verbum vocaverint : cui ea attribuerunt, quae Dei funt. 
 Witf. Mijcell. Sacr. Tom. 2. />. 88. 89. Exercita. iii. ^ep/ t» 
 Ao^8. §. ii. 
 
 (q) Omnia igitur talia confcribere volens difcipulus 
 Domini, et regulam veritatis conftitucrc in Ecclefia quia eft 
 unus Deus Omnipotens, qui per Verbum fuum omnia fecit, 
 e^ vifibilia, et invifibilia : fignificans quo que, quoniam per 
 
 F f 4 Verbum, 
 
440 ' Sf. Joht. Gh. IX. 
 
 Numb, xxiii. 8. Hozv fiall I curfe, whom 
 God has not cur fed? or, how pjall I defy , whom 
 the Lord has net defied? Upon which verfe 
 Patrick lays : " In the Jerufalem Targum 
 *' this verfe is thus paraphrafed : How fi a II I 
 " curfe the boufe of Ifrael^ when the Word of 
 *' the Lord has blejjed them? Or, how JJ: all I 
 " diminijh thejamilie of Ifrael, when the Word 
 *' of the Lord has multiplied them ?" 
 
 It is well known, that in the Chaldee Pa- 
 raphrafes, it is very common, to put Mimra 
 Jehovah^ the Word of the Lord, for Jehovah^ 
 or God, When thofe Parnphrafes were 
 made, is not certain.: whether before, or 
 after the time of our Saviour. But their 
 great antiquity is generally allowed. And it 
 
 is 
 
 Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit conditionem, in hoc et falti- 
 tem his qui in conditione funt, praeftitit hominibus : fic in- 
 choavit in ea, quae eft fecundum Evangelium, do<Srina : I/: 
 frinczpio erat Verbum. Iren. /. 3. cap, xi. in Majj'uet. 
 
 Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Afia, non a primo Deo 
 fadum effe munduni docuit, fed a Virtute quadam valde fe- 
 parata, et diftante ab ea Principalitate, quae eft fuper omnia. 
 Id. I, I. cap. xx'V. at. 26. in. 
 
 Deus autem totus exiftens mens, et totus exiftens logos, 
 quod cogitat, hoc et loquitur : et quod loquitur, id et cogi- 
 tat. Cogitatio enim ejus logos, et logos mens, et omnia 
 concludens mens, ipfe et Pater. Id. I. 2. cap. xx'viii. n. ^. p. 
 
 iS7' 
 
Ch. IX. Sl Jobfi. 441 
 
 is very probable, that this way of fpeaking 
 was common, and much ufed before. " It 
 " is likely, fays a learned friend, that Mimra 
 ** Jehovah was ufed before the Paraphrafes 
 ** were committed to writing, becaufe it 
 ** would be an unreafonable thing to ufe a 
 '' phrafe, which the common people did not 
 " underftand. For it is fuppofed, that the 
 " Paraphrafes were chiefly made for them." 
 
 Let me add, that the ufe of this phrafe, 
 the Word of Gody or the Word of the Lord^ as • 
 equivalent to Go^himfelf, feems to be found- 
 ed in the original language of the Old Tefla- 
 ment. In behalf of which I would allege 
 the following texts. Gen. i. i. In the begining 
 God created the hea^cem and the earth, Ver. 3. 
 God f aid : Let there be light. And there 'was 
 light. Comp. Pf. xxxiii. 6. By the word of 
 the Lord were the heavens made, and all the 
 hojl of them by the breath of his mouth. And 
 Pf. cv. 19. Untill the time that his word came : 
 the Word of the Lord tried him. 
 
 When St. fohn fays ch. i. i. 2.3. In the be- 
 gining was the Word^ and the Word was with 
 God. And the Word was God. The fame was 
 in the begining with God. All things were 
 fnade by him. And without him was not any 
 
 thing 
 
 etd 
 
443 St: John, ' Ch. IX. 
 
 thing made that was made. He fecms to al- 
 lude to (r) what Solomon fays of Wifdom in 
 the book of Proverbs, particularly, the eighth 
 chapter. And how Wifdom ought to be 
 underftood, as fpoken of by Solomon, was 
 (hewn formerly, if I may be allowed to fay 
 fo, in (s) a difcourfe upon Prov. viii. 17. 
 Moreover the begin ing of St. Johns Gofpel 
 fhould be compared with the begining of his 
 firft Epiftle, particularly, ch. i. ver. i. 2. 
 
 According to the account now given, what 
 St. John fays at the begining, is a very proper 
 introdudion to his Gofpel : where he largely 
 {hews the guilt of thofe, who rejeded the 
 manifeftation (t) of the Wifdom, the Word, 
 the Will of God, in the perfon of Jefus. 
 
 Upon the whole, I fee no reafon to think, 
 that, in the introdudion to his Gofpel, St. 
 John oppofed any Chriftian herefies, or had 
 any regard to them. 
 
 Confequently, the foregoing argument, 
 that St. John2, Gofpel was writ before the 
 
 deflruc- 
 
 (r) See the paffage of Vitringa quoted juji nonv, at noti (m) 
 
 f' 434- 
 
 (s) See Sermons upon <various JuhjeSis, p. 113. ^V. 
 
 (t) See ch. xliii. "uol, 4. p. 602. . . 604. 
 
Ch. IX. St. John, .443 
 
 deftrudion of Jerufalem^ or about the time 
 of that event, remains entire. 
 
 XI. I Hiall now mention fome obfervations ohfewa- 
 
 .1 • r^ r 1 tions upon 
 
 upon this Gofpel. thisGofi.eL 
 
 I . There is no need to flaew here, particu- 
 larly, from the Gofpel itfelf, as we did of the 
 former Evangeliftsjihat St. yA did not write 
 his Gofpel, till after converts had been made 
 from, among Gentils : becaufe it is allowed by 
 all, that St. John did not write, till after the 
 other Evangelifts, about the time of the de- 
 flirudion of Jerufalem, or afterwards : before 
 which time the ApoPdes mufl have left Ju~ 
 de.a^ to go abroad, and preach to Gentils. Ne- 
 verthelefs one fignal paffage may be here ta- 
 ken notice of, which is not far from the be- 
 gining of this Gofpel. Ch. i. 11. 12. 13. 
 He came to his own^ and his own received him 
 not : but as tnany as received him^ to them 
 gave he power to become the Jons of God ^ even 
 to them that believe on his name. Which were 
 horn not of bkud, nor of the will of the feJJj, 
 nor of the will of man, but of God, That is, 
 ** he came to the Jews, and firft appeared, 
 " and taught among them, and they generally 
 " rejeded him. But upon all who believed 
 " in him, whether Jews or Gentils, of what- 
 ** ever countrey, or nation, or people, they 
 
 5' were. 
 
444 '^^- 7^-^'^^- ^'h IX. 
 
 " were, he beftov/ed the privilege of being 
 *' the people of God, and all the bleffingsap- 
 *• pertaining to them." 
 
 2. Eufebe fays : " The (t) other three E- 
 " vangelifts have recorded the actions of our 
 ** Saviour for one year only, after the impri- 
 " fonment of John the Baptift." Jerome 
 fpeaks to the like purpofe in his book of II- 
 luftrious Men,jufi: now (^z/J tranfcribed. But 
 it fliould have been faid : '' one year, and 
 fomewhat more :" meaning the time and ac- 
 tions of our Lord's moft public miniftrie. For 
 it fcems to me, that the ancients fuppofed our 
 Lord's miniftrie, to have lailed, in the whole, 
 fomewhat more than two years. As was 
 fliewn Vol. ili. p. 136. . . 138. Evfcbe indeed 
 computed (x) our Lord's miniftrie to have 
 confifted of three years and a half: and fup- 
 pofed St, Johns Gofpel to have in it four 
 Paflovers. He feems to have been the firft: 
 Chriftian, who advanced that opinion. And 
 he is now generally followed by harmonizers 
 of the Gofpels, and by ecclefiaftical hiftorians. 
 Sir Ifaac ISewton (y) however computes five 
 
 Pailovers 
 
 (t) See iwl. 'viii. /. 93- 
 
 (u) See before p. 384. 
 
 (x) See vol. 'viii.p. 138. 
 
 (y) Objervatio7is u^on Daniel, p. 156. 157. 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. John. 445 
 
 Eaflbvers in our Saviour's miniftrie : as does 
 likewife Dr. Edward Wells m his Hiftorical 
 Geographic of the New Teftament. And 
 others may be of the fame opinion, or make 
 more. But none of thefe opinions appear to 
 me, to have any foundation in the Gofpels. 
 The opinion oiEiifebc, and thofe who follow 
 him, is much more probable, than theirs, 
 who yet farther enlarge the number of the 
 PalTovers of our Saviour's miniftrie. The firft 
 Paflbver in St. 'John is that mentioned by him 
 ch. ii. 13. At ch. v. i. it is faid : After 
 this there was afeaft of the feivs. And Jefus 
 went up to ferufalem. They who follow Ku- 
 jsbe^ and make four PafTovers in our Lord's 
 miniftrie, reckon this feaft to be a FafTover.. 
 But they who compute his miniftrie to have 
 lafted only two years, and fomewhat more, 
 fuppofe this to be fome other feaft, poffibly, 
 the feaft of Tabernacles, next fucceding the 
 Paflbver, mentioned ch. ii. 13. At ch. vi. 
 4. And the Pafover, a feafl of the Jews was 
 7iigh. This, according to different computa- 
 tions, is either the fecond, or the third Paflb- 
 ver in our Lord's miniftrie. The third, or, 
 according to others, the fourth, is that men- 
 tioned by all the Evangelifts, at which our 
 
 Lord 
 
446 ^f' "John. Ch. IX. 
 
 Lord fuflfered. It is mentioned by St. ^John 
 ch. xi. 55. and xii. i. 
 
 3. St. 'John has omitted the greateft part of 
 thofe things, v/hich are recorded by the other 
 Evangelifts. Which much confirms the tef- 
 timonie of ancient writers, that the firft three 
 Gofpels were written, and pubHfhed among 
 the faithful, before St. 'John wrote : that they 
 were brought to him, and that he affirmed 
 the truth of their relations, but faid, that fome 
 difcourfes and miracles of our Saviour were 
 omitted by them, which might be ufefully 
 recorded. 
 
 Indeed, there is little or nothing in his Gof- 
 pel, which is not new and additional, except 
 the account of our Saviour's profecution, 
 death, and refurrection, where all four coin- 
 cide in many particulars : though even here 
 alfo St. 'John has divers things peculiar, to 
 himfelf. In St. 'Johns Gofpel is no account 
 of our Saviour's nativity, nor of bis baptifin 
 by John : though, undoubtedly, it is there 
 fuppofed, and referred to. He takes no no- 
 tice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilder* 
 nefle, nor of the call, or names of the tv^'elve 
 Apoftles, nor of their miffion, in our Sa- 
 viour's life time, nor of our Lord's parables, 
 or other difcourfes of his, recorded by them, 
 
 nor 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. "jchn. 447 
 
 nor of our Saviour's journeys, of which they 
 give an account, nor any of thole predidlions, 
 relating to the defolations o^ yerufaletn^ which 
 are in Matthew^ Mark, and Luke. Nor has 
 he any miracles recorded by them, excepting 
 only, that one of the multiplication of fmall 
 provifion for feeding five thoufand, with the 
 extraordinarie circumftances of the return to 
 Capernawn from the countrey, where that 
 miracle had been wrought, ch. vi. 4. ... 21. 
 And it is likely, that this miracle was record- 
 ed by him, for the fake of the difcourfes, to 
 which it gave occaiion, and which follow 
 there, ver. 22. . . 71. 
 
 However, it fhould be obferved, that he 
 has one thing recorded by all the Evangelifts, 
 Vetera ftriking a fervant of the High-Priefl, 
 and cutting off his ear. ch. xviii. 10. T^hen 
 Simon Peter having a fword^ drew it^ and 
 fmote the High-Prieji's ferva?2ty and ait off his 
 right ear, I'he Jerva?ii's name was Malchus, 
 Which, as St. Luke informs us, Jefus touched, 
 and healed, ch. xxii. 51. Peters adion is 
 mentioned by all the three Evangelifts. Matt. 
 xxvi. 51. Mark xiii. 47. Luke xxii. 51. 
 But St. John alone mentions Peter by name, 
 and the name of the fervant. I thought pro- 
 per to take notice of chi?, though St. John 
 
 does 
 
44^ Sf. Jokn. Ch. IX. 
 
 does not particularly mention the miracle of 
 healing. 
 
 St. John likewife ch. ii. 14. . . 22. gives an 
 account of our Lord's cleanfing the temple at 
 his firft Paffover, when he went to Jenifa- 
 km. All the other Evangelifts have a like 
 account of our Lord's cleaniiing the temple at 
 his laft Paffover. Matt, xxi. 12. 13. Markxi. 
 15. 16. Luke xix. 45. 46. But I fuppofe 
 them to be quite different adtions, and that 
 our bleffed Lord twice cleanfed the temple, 
 as already fhewn. 
 
 4. Though the iirfl three Evangelifls have 
 not particularly recorded our Saviour's feve- 
 ral journeys io Jerufdlefn, as St. John has done, 
 but have only given a particular account of 
 his preaching there at his laft Paffover, they 
 were not unacquainted with them. 
 
 This may be concluded from divers 
 things in their hiftories. To thofe, who 
 came to apprehend him, our Lord faid : I fat 
 daily with you teaching iti the temple, and ye 
 laid no hold on me. Matt. xxvi. ^^. And 
 compare Mark xiv. 49. Luke xxii. 53. And 
 among the accufations brought againft him 
 by the JewiQi Rulers before Pilate^ tliey fay : 
 He ftirreth up the people, teaching throughout 
 all Judea, begining from Galilee to this place, 
 
 Luke 
 
Cli.IX. St. John. 449 
 
 Luke xxiii. 5. Peter preaching at yerlifalem, 
 foon after our Lord's afcenfion, fays : yefiis 
 of Naznreih, a man approved of God among 
 yen by miracles^ and wonders^ and figns : which 
 God did by him in the midji of you^ as yourjehes 
 alfo know. Ads ii. 32. And at the houfe of 
 Cornelius, in Cefarea : That word, you biow, 
 which was publified throughout aWJudea, and 
 began from Galilee. Ads x. 37. . . . And we 
 are witnejjes of all things, which he did, both 
 in the land of the fews, and at ferufalem. ver. 
 39. And it appears from their hiftories, that 
 our Lord's fame had early reached ferufalem. 
 Many attended him in Galilee, from thence, 
 and from other parts. Says St. Matthew : 
 And there followed him great multitudes of peo- 
 ple from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from 
 fudea, a fid from beyond for dan. iv. 25. 
 Comp. Mark iii. 7. 8. Again : And the ' 
 Scribes, which came from ferufalem, /aid : He 
 has Belzebub, . . Mark iii. 22. . . 30. Com- 
 pare Matt. ix. 34. Luke xi. 14. . . 26. Then 
 came to fefus Scribes and Pharifees, which 
 were of ferifalem. Matt. xv. i. Compare 
 Mark vii. i. And fays St. Luke ch. v, 17. 
 And it came to pafs on a certain day, as he was 
 teaching, that there were Pharifees, and Doc- 
 tors of the Law Jilting by, which were come out 
 Vol. I. *Gg ef 
 
450 St. John. Ch. IX. 
 
 of every town of Galilee ^ and J tide a ^ and Jeru- 
 falem. And the power of the Lord was prefent 
 to heal them. And in every one of the Evan- 
 gelifts we may meet with Scribes and Phari- 
 fees, oppoling our Lord, watching his words 
 and adions, cavilling with him, and refleding 
 upon him, and his difciples. 
 
 Moreover in St. Luke ch. ix. 51. . . 56. is 
 an account of a remarkable incident, when 
 our Lord was .going from Galilee through 
 Samaria, to Jerufalem, at one of their feafts : 
 fuppofed by (z) fome to be the feaft of Ta- 
 bernacles, by others (a) the feaft of Dedicati- 
 on, preceding his laft PafTover. See likewife 
 Luke xiii. 22. and xvii. 11. 
 
 However, after all, I do not think it was 
 needful, that our Lord fliould go often to 
 Jerufalem, or that all his journeys thither, 
 and difcourfes there, {hould be recorded. It 
 was indeed highly expedient, that his minif- 
 trie fliould be public. So it might be, with- 
 out going often Xoferufalem, John the Bap- 
 tift was a man of great reputation, though he 
 never went up to ferufalem during the time 
 Luke i. of his fJkwing himfelf unto Jfrael, that we 
 
 know 
 
 (z) Vld. Clerk. Harmon, p. 234. 235. 
 (aJSc^e Dr. Dji/rkidge's Fawi/j Extofitor. Se£i. 127. Vol. 2. p. 
 S83, 
 
Ch. IX. St.Johru 451 
 
 know of. And it is manifeH: from the 
 firft three Evangel iftsj as well as fi'om St. 
 yohn^ that our Lord's miniftrie was very pub- 
 lic, and well known in all parts oi'Judea^ and 
 the regions round about, and to men of all 
 ranks therein. In them we find our Lord 
 to have been notified before- bajid |)y 'John the 
 Baptift. He fent out once his twelve Apof- 
 tles, and then feventy other difciples, two by 
 two^ to go before him^ and prepare men for him^ 
 in every city and place ^ where he fiould come. 
 In them we find him teaching in fynagogues, 
 in cities, and villages, and defert places, 
 crouded by throngs, attended by multitudes 
 of people, and miraculoufly feeding at one 
 time five thoufand, at another four thoufand 
 men, befide women and children. 
 
 It was fit, that our Lord's minircrie (hould 
 be very public. It is manifefl from all the 
 four Evangelifts, that it was fo. Which can- 
 not but be the ground of great fatisfadion 
 to us. 
 
 5. The gcnuinnefie of the xxi. or lail 
 chapter of St. Johns Gofpel ought not tot)e 
 con te (led. 
 
 Grotius indeed was of opinion, that (b) St. 
 G g 2 John 
 
 (h) Omnino arbitror, quae hie fequuntur conclufionem efle 
 
 totius 
 
452 St. John. Ch IX. . 
 
 yohn concluded his Gofpel with the words, 
 which are at the end of the xx. chapter : and 
 that what is in the xxi. chapter was added af- 
 ter St.Jobns death by the church of Epbfus. 
 Againft that opinion the general, or fcj 
 even univerfal confent of manufcripts and 
 verlions is a great objedion. For it is very 
 probable, that this Gofpel was publifhed be- 
 fore St. Johns death. And if there had been 
 an edition without this chapter, it is very 
 likely, that it would have been wanting in 
 fome copies. To which may be added, that 
 we do not find, that any of the ancient 
 Chriftian writers ever made a queftion, whe- 
 ther this chapter was compofed by St. yob?2j 
 
 or 
 
 totlus operis, et ibi finifTe JoKannem librum, quern edidit. 
 At ficut caput ultimum Pentateuch!, et caput ultimum Jofuae 
 poft Mofis et Jofuae mortem additum eft a Synedrio Hebraeo- 
 rum : ita et caput quod fequitur poft mortem Johannis addi- 
 tum ab Ecclefia Ephefina, hoc maxirae fine, ut oftenderetur 
 impletum quod de longaevitate ac non violenta morte Johannis 
 Dominus pracdixerat. &:c. Grot, adyoh. xx. 30. 
 
 (c) Ceterum in tanto codicuni et verfionuni confenfu, eoquc 
 prorfus univerfali, cogitari non debebat, caput hoc ab Eccle- 
 fia demura Ephefma acceffifte. Quis enim negate tuto poteft, 
 Evangelium Johannis ante ipfius obitum, adeoque ante addi- 
 tum hoc, quod creditur, fupplementum accefliire ? Et quis 
 crcdiderit, vel fic omnes codices in exhibendo ifto capite tam 
 conftanter confcntire potuifie ? Wolf, in Job. cap. xxi. in. 
 
Ch. IX. Sf. Jobfu 453 
 
 or by another. Finally, (dj the ftile is St. 
 yobn's. In chapter xix. 35. ^nd he that faw 
 it bare record. And his record is true. And 
 he kno"Jceih^ that he fays true. Here xxi. 24. 
 This is the difciple, 'which tejiijietb of thcfe 
 ihingSy and wrote thefe things. And we know, 
 that his teftimonie is true. Compare like wife 
 ver. 7. and 20. The lall words of the chap- 
 ter, at ver. 25. are thefe : And there are alfo 
 many other things ^ which Jefus did : the which 
 if they Jhould be written every one, I fuppofe, 
 that even the world itfelf could not contain the 
 books that Pdould be written. Which claufe 
 evidently Is from the fame perfon, who wrote 
 ver. 30. and 31. of ch. xx. Here the Evan- 
 gelift feems to check himfelf, and to deter- 
 mine, not to proceed a»ny farther. For if he 
 
 G g 3 fbould 
 
 (d) Rejicimus hie fententiam eorum, qui ah alia manu, 
 quam ipfius Johannis Evangeliflae hoc caput eflc adjeflum pu- 
 tant. Nam ita clare ftilum redolet Apolloli, ut fi aliquis alius 
 id adjeciflet, non fine impoilura iftud facere potuiflet. Neq«e 
 enim fe Joannetn vocat, fed more fuo difcipulum, quern lefus 
 amabat. ver. 7. 20. Turn haec addit : Hie ejl dlfcipdus tile, qui 
 de his tejlatur, et haec fcriffit , ver. 24. Quae defendi non pofliint 
 a mendacio, fi quifquam alius praeter Apoftolum hoc caput 
 adjecifiTet. Adde, quod diligentiflimi circa tales circumftantias 
 Patres, Eufebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, noji itaplcnefilen- 
 tio id involviffent. &c. ¥r. Lamp, in Jo. E'vang. cap. xxi. loin, 
 3./>. 720. 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. 349. 250. 
 
454 ^^' >^^^^^ Ch. IX. 
 
 (liould attempt to commit to writing every 
 thing which Jefus had faid and done, he 
 fhould never come to an end. 
 
 Says Dr. Whitby upon ch. xx. 3 If. " Some 
 *' think, that St. John here ended his Gofpel, 
 ^* and that the following chapter was written 
 " by fome other hands. But theffe Words 
 " give no ground for that imagination : fince 
 '* other Apoftles, after they feem to have con- 
 " eluded their epiftles, add fome new matter: 
 " as may be ittn in the conclufions of the 
 ** epiftles to the Romans^ and to \htHt' brews'' 
 V See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi. Hebr. xiii. 21. . . 
 
 25. I would likewife refer to Mr. Lehfant's 
 note upon ch. xxi. 24. Who alfo afTerts the 
 genuinneffe of this lad chapter. 
 
 
 CHAP. 
 
455' 
 
 t~i>!^ 5^i&> 'W**" '■^tji'' T9>.*r«5\ _^«'?^^5^'&'^ -'SjefP jwi 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Tbe ^eflion confidered^ whether afjy one of the 
 Jir/i three EvaJtgeli/is hadfeen the Gofpeh of 
 th'e otlxrs^ before he wrote. 
 
 rM^)^"^ERE 1 {hall In the firfl place 
 Q TT Q mention the different fentiments 
 )^ M of learned moderns concerning 
 
 tiM.^M,M this point. And then I intend 
 to confider the merits of the queftion. 
 
 Calvi?i (a) In the preface to his Harmonic 
 of the Gofpels of Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke, declares it to be his opinion, that St. 
 Mark was fo far from having abridged St. 
 
 G g 4 Matthew'^ 
 
 (a) Mihi certe magls probabile eft, et ex re ipfa conjicere 
 licet, numquam librum Matthaei fuilTe ab eo infpedum, cum 
 ipfe fuum fcriberet: tantum abeft, ut in compendium ex pro- 
 fefTo redigere voluerit. Idem et de Luca judicium facio. 
 Calvin, argum. in Eimngel. {^c. ^ 
 
456 Whether any of the firfl three Eijangellfts Ch . X . 
 
 Matthew 'i, Golpel, that he thinks he had ne- 
 ver fcen it. Which he alfo fuppoles to have 
 been St. Luke's cafe. 
 
 This like wile muil have been the opinion 
 of Bafr/age. Fur he fuppotetli (i>) St. Luke's 
 to have been the firft written of all the 
 Gofpels. Confequcntjy this Evangelift could 
 not borrow either from St. Matthew, or St. 
 Mark. 
 
 Mr. Whijion in (c) his Harmonic of the 
 four Evangeliils calkd St. Mark the epiiomi- 
 zer of St. Matthew, ^wjoiies^ in his Vindi- 
 cation of St. Matthews Gofpel, well, and 
 largely argued againft th it opinion, 
 
 Mr. Dc^'tc;^// declared his opinion upon this 
 fubjed after this manner. *' That (d) none 
 
 " of 
 
 (h) Bafn. Ann. 60. num. xxxi. 
 (c)P.iOZ. 
 
 (d) Sic latuerant in illis terrarum angulis, in qulbus fcripta 
 fuerant, Evangelia, ut ne quidem refciverint recentiores 
 Evangeliftae, quid fcripfiiTent de iifdem rebus antiquiores. 
 Aliter foret ne tot eflent i.vAV7iO(poc)m, quae fere a prima ufque 
 canonis conftitutione eruditorum hominum ino-enia exercuerint. 
 Certe S. Lucas li genealogiam illam Domini in Matthaeo vi- 
 difet, non aliam ipfe, nihilque fere habentem commune, pro- 
 duxiffet, ne quidem minima confilii tarn diverfi edjta rations* 
 S. Matthaeus, qui folus e noftris Luca erat antiquior, ipfe 
 erat etvTOTSTHj. . . . S. Joannes Luca longo erat intervallo in 
 
 fcriptione 
 
(C 
 
 Ch. X. hadfcen each others Go/pels ? ^^y 
 
 " of the firft three Evangelifts had feen the 
 others Gofpels. Otherwife there could not 
 ** have been in them fo many Teeming con- 
 *' traditions, which have exercifed the 
 *' thoughts of inquilitive men ahnoll ever 
 *' fince the forming of the canon of the New 
 •^ Teflament. Certainly, if St. Luke had fcQn 
 *' the genealogie of our Lord, which is in St. 
 " Matthew, he would not have publiflied 
 *' another fo very different, without affiorningf 
 *' any reafon for it. , . St. Matthew is the only 
 ** one of our Evangelifls, who wrote before 
 ** St. Luke. . . St. John did not write till long 
 " after St. Luke. Nor did Mark write till af- 
 *' ter St. Luke, if he wrote his Gofpel in the 
 " fam.e year that he finillied the Acls of the 
 ** Apoftles. Which feems to me very pro- 
 ** bable. For the Ads are the fecond book of 
 *' the fame work. As is evident from what 
 
 *' himfelf 
 
 fcriptione junior. Junior etiam S. Marcus, fi quidem S Lucas 
 eo fcripferit anno Evangelium, quo Ada terminavit Apofto ■ 
 lorum. Quod ego fane puto verifiminimum. Sunt enini 
 A<^a XivTifo; ejufdem operis \'oyo<;, cujus -srpwTov ^'oycv ipfe 
 fuum agnoicit Evangelium. Ad. i. i. . . Ita quo anno fcrip- 
 tum eft a S. Luca Evangelium fecundus fluxerit Apollolo 
 Paulo annus captivitatis Romanae. Eo enim ufque Aftorum 
 hiftoria perducla eft. S. autem IVIarcus, feu poft obitum Petri, 
 feu non multo antea, fcripfifle videtur. Dodvj, Dijf. Iren. i, 
 num. xxxix. 
 
458 Whether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X, 
 
 " himfelf fays Ads i. i. St. Luke\ Gofpel 
 " thLfefore was writ in the fecond year of the 
 *' Apoftle Pcaih imprifonment at Rofne. For 
 '* fo far the hiftorie of the Ads reaches. But 
 " St. Mark feems not to have writ untill af- 
 " ter the death of St. Peter ^ or not long before 
 ** it." This then is the order of the four E- 
 vangelifts, according to Mr. Dodwell : Mat' 
 thew the iirft, Luke the fecond, Mark the 
 third, and 'John the fourth. 
 
 How Mr. LeClerc argued on the fame fide, 
 was feen (ej formerly. 
 
 On the other hand, Grotius fays, it (f) is 
 manifeft from comparing their Gofpels, that 
 Mark made ufe of Matthew. 
 
 Mill has fpoken largely to this point in his 
 
 . Prolegomena. " He fays, it (g) was not the 
 
 " defign of St. Mark, to make an abridge- 
 
 " ment 
 
 (e) See Vol. .v.p.2^1.... 235. 
 
 {/J Ufum effe Marcum Matthaei Evangelic apertum facit 
 collatio. Grof. ad Marc. cap. i, 'uer. i. 
 
 (g) Ipfam Eva«gelii flrufturam quod attinet, neutiquam 
 Marco inflitutum fuit, quod nonnullis videtur, Evangeliuiu 
 Matthaei in epitomen redigere. Practerquam enim quod fer- 
 vatum a Matthaeo ordinem non ubique fequatur, quod fane 
 epitomatoris foret, in ejufdem rei narratione Matthaeo haud 
 raro prolixior eft, ac plurima pafiim inferta habet, eaque 
 fubinde magni ad elucidandam hiiloriam momenti, froleg, 
 num. 103. 
 
Gh. X. hadfecn each others Gcfpeh ? 459 
 
 ** ment of St. Matthew's Gofpel, as forhe have 
 " fuppofed. For he does not always follo^S 
 " St. Matthew'^ order, as an abridger wbuld 
 ** have done. And he is oftentimes more 
 *' prolix in his hiftories of the fame thing 
 ^' than St. MattheWy and has inferted many 
 " additional things, and fome of great mo- 
 *' ment for illuflrating the evangelical hif^orie. 
 *' ... Nay (h) To far was Mark from in tend - 
 " ing tb abbreviate SX.Matthew'% Gofpel, that 
 *^ there ha\^e been men of great fame, as Cal- 
 " iiiny arid our Dodweil, who we're of opi- 
 '* nion, that St. Mark and Luke had never feen 
 ** Matthews Gofpel. However, Grciws was 
 " of a different opinion. Ahd indeed the 
 " d:reat reftmblance of the ftile and comoofi- 
 *' tion of thefe tv^o Evangelifts manifefls the 
 " truth of it.'* 
 
 Of St. Luke Mili fays : '' Nothing (i) h 
 
 " more 
 
 (h) Imd cferte adeo nihil Marco erat in animo d'e abbrevi- 
 ando Matthaei Evangelio, ut haud defint magni nominis 
 auflores, qui exiftimant, a Marco ne quidem vifum fui/Te E- 
 vangelium Matthaei. . . . Ceterum contrarium evincit, Evan- 
 gelium imprimis Matthaei et Marci quod attinet, iftorum 
 phrafeos, ipfiufque contextus firailitudo. Ibid. n. 107. 
 
 (i) Certe evulgatum fuifTe illud pofl: editionem Evangelio- 
 rum Matthaei et Marci, ex collatione trium horum inte'r fe 
 luce clarius apparet. Nihil fcilicet evidentius, quam D. Lu- 
 
460 Whether any of the fir ft three Evangeltjis Ch. X. 
 *' more evident, than that he made ufe of the 
 "•* Gofpels of Matthew and Mark. For he has 
 '' borrowed from them many phrafes and ex- 
 " preffions, and even whole paragraphs word 
 " for word." 
 
 But there Is not fufficient foundation for 
 fuch ftrong alTertions, in the account, which 
 Mill himfelf gives of the time of writing the 
 firft three Gofpels. For, according to him, 
 ^i, Matthew 2^ Gofpel was publilhed in (k) the 
 year 61. St. Mark\ (I) in 63. hi. Luke's (m) 
 in 64. Which is but one year later. Nor 
 has -M/// made it out, that ^i.Mark's was pub- 
 liftied fo foon as the year 63. For he owns, 
 that it was not writ, till after Peters and 
 Paul's departure from Rome. Which could 
 not be, till after the year 63. How then 
 could ^i.Luke make fomuch ufeof St.iW^r/^'s 
 Gofpel, as is pretended ? 
 
 I allege but one author more, relating to 
 this point. Mr. Wetftein fays, that (n) Mark 
 made ufe of Matthew. And of St. Luke he 
 
 fays, 
 
 cam Enangeliorum Matthaei et Marci ipfus pt^jrtif, phrafes et 
 locutiones, imo vero totas pericopas, in fuum nonnunquam 
 ctfToAf^ei traduxifle. Ib.num. i\6. 
 
 (k) Proleg. num. 6i. (I) Ihid. num. lOI. 
 
 (m) Ibid. num. 1 1 2 . 
 
 (n) De Marco ap. T. Gr. T. i, p. S^2. 
 
Ch.X. had feejt each others Gofpeh ? 461 
 
 fays, " that (0) he tranfcribed many things 
 from Matthew, and yet more from Mark!* 
 But may I not fay, that before Mr. IVet^ 
 Jiein aiTerted fuch things, he (hould have 
 given at left: fome tolerable account of the 
 times, when the Evangellfts wrote, and that St. 
 Mark was prior in time to Luke? Which I 
 do not perceive him to have done. St. Mat' 
 thew% Gofpel, indeed, he fuppofes to have 
 been writ (p) in the eighth year after our 
 Lord's afcenfion. But of St. Luke he obferves, 
 that (q) ecclefiafliical writers fay, he pub- 
 liflied his Gofpel at about fifteen, or as others 
 about two and twenty years after our Sa- 
 viour's afcenfion. Plis account of St. Mark 
 is, " that (r) he was with Feter at Babylon, 
 *' Thence he came to Rome, and was with 
 " St. Paul during his captivity there. Col. iv. 
 
 ** 10. 
 
 (0) Lucam multa ex Matthaeo, ex Marco plura defcripfifTe, 
 ex colladone patet. De Luca ibid, p, 643. 
 
 (p) Ibid p. 223. 
 
 (q) Ibid p. 643. 
 
 (r) Poftea videtur Petro adhaefiffe, et cum eo Babylone 
 fuifle. 1 . Pet. V. 13. Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum 
 mvifit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad CoIofTenfes abiit, a 
 quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2. Tim. iv. 1 1. ubi Evan- 
 gelium confcripfifle, et Matthaeum quidem in compendium 
 redegUTe, nonnuHa vero, quae a Petro audiverat, adjeciffe di- 
 citur, Ibid.t, 551. 
 
462 Whether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X, 
 
 " 10. Philem. 23. Then he went to Colojje, 
 ** Afterwards at the defire of the Apoltle 
 " he came to him thence to Rofne, 2 Tim. iv. 
 ** II. Where he is faid to have writ his 
 " Gofpel, abridging St. Matthew, and adding 
 " fome things, which he had heard from 
 " Peter'' A very fine charader of pur E- 
 vangelift, truly ! But according to this ac- 
 count of St. Mark\ travels, ^nd of the place, 
 where his Gofpel was writ, it coulcj not be 
 publlflied before the year 64. or 65. How 
 then could St. Luke make ufe of it, if he wrote 
 fo foon 2.% fifteen or two and twe?ity yean after 
 Chrii]:'s afcenfion ? 
 
 I proceed now to fpeak mqre diilindly to 
 the merits of the quell ion. 
 
 I. It does not appear, that any of the learn ^ 
 ed ancient Chriftian writers had a fufpicion, 
 that any of the firft three Evangelifls had (ctw 
 the others hiflories, before they wrote. 
 
 They fay indeed, " that when the three 
 firft written Gofpels had been delivered to all 
 men, they were alfo brought to St. Johuy and 
 that he confirmed the truth of their narrati- 
 on : but faid, there were fome things omitted 
 by them, which might be profitably related :" 
 or, *' that he wrote laft, fupplying fome 
 things, which had been omitted by the for- 
 mer 
 
Ch. X. hadjeen each others Go/pels ? 463 
 
 mer Evangelifts.*' After this manner fpeak 
 (s) Eufebiiis of Cefarea^ ft) Epipbaniu^, (u) 
 Theodore of Mopfueftiay and (x) 'Jerome, Not 
 now to mention any others. Augujiin indeed 
 about the end of the fourth centurie, or the 
 begining of the fifth, fuppofeth (y) the firfl 
 three Evangehfts not to have been totally ig- 
 norant of each others labours, and confiders 
 Mark's Gofpel as an abridgement of St. Mat- 
 thew\. But, as (z) formerly obferved, fo 
 far as I know, he is the firft, in which that 
 opinion is found. Nor does it appear, that 
 he was followed by fucceding writers. 
 
 2. It is not fuitable to the characfter of any 
 of the Evangelifts, that they fiiould abridge, 
 or tranfcribe another hiilorian. 
 
 St. Matthew was an Apoftle, and eye-wit- 
 nelTe. Confequently, he was able to write of 
 his own knowledge. Or, if there were any 
 parts of our Lord's miniflrie, at which he 
 was not prefent, he might obtain informati- 
 on from his fellow-apod les, or other eye-wit- 
 neffes. And as for other things, which hap- 
 pened before the Apoftles were called to fol- 
 low 
 
 (i) See Fol. <viii. p. ^t. (t) P.^oj. 
 
 (u) Vol. ix. p. 404, (x) Vol. x.p.gS. 99. 
 
 (jj Vol, X. p. 229. (zj P. 236. 
 
464 whether any of the Jirjl three 'Evangelifts Ch. X. 
 
 low him, concerning his nativity, infance, and 
 youth : as Augiijlin (a) fays, thefe the Apof- 
 tles might know from Chrift himfelf, or from 
 his parents, or his friends and acquaintance, 
 who were to be depended upon. 
 
 St. Marky if he was not one of Chrlll's fe- 
 venty difciples, was an early Jewifli believer, 
 acquainted with all the Apoft les, P^/^r in par- 
 ticular, and with many other eye-witneffes. 
 Confequently, well qualified to write a Gof- 
 pel.' Mill (b) himfelf has been fo good, as 
 to acknowledge this. 
 
 St. Liike^ if he was not one of Chrifl's fe- 
 venty difciples, nor an eye-witneffe, was a 
 difciple, and companion of Apoftles, efpeci- 
 ally, of PW, as is univerfally allowed. And 
 
 he 
 
 (a) See Vol. x. p. zzj. 
 
 (h) Marcus il.le, qulfquis fuerit, ad Evangelium confcriben- 
 dum abunde inftrudlus accedebat. Si enim filius fuit Mariae, 
 civis iftius Hierofolymitanae . . . ei fane jam a tempore con- 
 verfionis tarn frequens iuterceflerat, ac plane familiare cum 
 ipfis Apoflolis commercium, ut vix aliqua aetatis fuae pars 
 ipforum confortio vacarit : ita ut quotidie ab illis petere licu- 
 erit de diftis ac fadlis Domini 'pra^ctJ'offeii, quas conferret in 
 commentarium. Sane, quifquis fuerit hie Marcus, apud Ve- 
 teres plane convenit, fuiffe eum D. Petri comitem et inter- 
 pretem : ipfumque comitatum fuiffe Romam ufque . . . adeo 
 ut ex Apoftoli Knpva'ffoy.kvoii acceperit neceffe fit pleniiTimam 
 et exaftiffimam hiftoriae totius evangelicae cognitionem. Mi// 
 Pro/eg. ». 102. 
 
Cli. X. had feen each others Go/pels F 465 
 
 he mufl: therefore have been well quaHficd to 
 write a Gofpel. Moreover, as (c) has hecii 
 fhewn, it is manifeft from J»is introdudiion, 
 that he knew not of any authentic hiftorie of 
 JefusChrid, that had been yet written. And 
 he exprelHy fays of hiinfelf, that he had per- 
 JeB underftanding of all things from the very 
 jirji, and he profefTeth to "write of them to Thc' 
 ophiliis in order. After all this to {-d.^, that 
 he tranfcribed many things from one hiftori- 
 an, and yet more from another, fo far as I am 
 able to judge, is no lefs than a contradidion 
 of the EvangeliH: himfelf. 
 
 3. The nature and deHgn of the firft three 
 Gofpels maniieftly rtiew, that the Evangelifts 
 had not feen any authentic written hiftorie of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 This is one of the obfervations of Le Clerc 
 relating to this point : " We (d) can fcarcely 
 "doubt, whether 'St. John had feen the other 
 " three Gofpels. For as he is faid to have 
 *' lived to a great age, fo'it. appears from his 
 " Gofpel itfelf, that he took care not to repeat 
 " things related by them, except a fcv/on!y, 
 *' and thofe neceffarie things. But I do not 
 
 (c) See before p. So. , . 85. 
 
 (d) See Vol. X, p, 7,11. 234. 
 
 Vol. I. * H h ** fee, 
 
466 Whether any ofthefirji three Eva?:geUJis Ch. -X. 
 
 *' fee, how it can be reckoned certain, that 
 ** Mark knew of Matthew 2> having writ a 
 *' Gofpel before him : or that Ltike knew, 
 " that they two had writGofpels before him. 
 " If Mark had feen.the work oi Matthew ^ it 
 *' is hkely, that he would have remained fa- 
 " tisfied with it, as being the work of an A- 
 ** poftle of Chrifl:, that is, an eye-witnefle, 
 " which he was not." And what there fol- 
 lows. 
 
 I muft enlarge upon this obfervation. I 
 forbear to infift nowonthe genealogies, which 
 are in St. Matthew and St. Luke only. But I 
 fay, that the writings of all and each one of 
 thefe three Evangelifts contain an entire Gof- 
 pel, or a compleat hiflorie of the miniftrie of 
 Jefus Chrifl : or, to borrow St. Luke's expref- 
 iions, Ads i. i. 2. a hiftorie of ^// that Jefus 
 both did and taught^ iintillthe day, in the which 
 he was taken up to heaven. For in all and every 
 one of them is the hiftorie of cur Lord's fore- 
 runner, his baptifm, preaching, and death, 
 and of our Lord's being baptized by him : 
 when by a voice from heaven he was pro- 
 claimed to be the Meffiah. Then follows 
 our Lord's temptation in the wildernelTe. 
 After which is an account of our Lord's 
 preaching, and his begining to gather dif- 
 
 cipleSj * 
 
Ch. X. hadfecn each others Gofpcls f 467 
 
 ciples, the choice of the twelve Apoftles, and 
 their names : and our Lord's going over the 
 land of Ifrael, preaching the dodrine of the 
 kingdom, attended by his twelve Apoftlcs, in 
 fynagogues, and in cities and villages, v/ork- 
 ing all kinds of healing and faving miracles, 
 upon all forts of perfons, in all places, in the 
 prefence of multitudes, and before Scribes, 
 and Pharifees, as well as others. A particu- 
 lar mifiion of his Apoftles, in the land of 
 IfraeL Our Lord's tran figuration on the 
 mount, when there appeared Mofes and Elias 
 talking with him, and there came a voice 
 from heaven, faying : This is my beloved Son, 
 Hear him. His going up to 'Jenifahm^ and 
 making a public entrance into the city, then 
 ' cleanling the temple, where he often taught 
 the people, and preached the gofpel, and 
 openly afferted his authority and charader : 
 keeping the Paflbver with his difciples, and 
 inftituting a memorial of himfelf : his lafl 
 fufFerings, and death, with the behaviour of 
 yudas, the traitor, Feter^ and the reft of the 
 difciples : his burial, refurredion, with the 
 evidences of it, and the general commiffion 
 to his Apoflles, to preach the Gofpel in all 
 the world, and to all forts of perfons therein. 
 
 H h 2 Here 
 
468 Whether any ofthejirfl three Evangelifis Ch. X, 
 
 Here are all the integrals of a Gofpel. And 
 they are properly filled up. And all tHefe 
 things are in all and every one of the firfl 
 three Evangeiiils. Which fl^iews, that they 
 did not know of each others writings. For 
 it cannot be thought, that they Ihould be dif- 
 pofed to fay the fame things over and over, 
 or to repeat what had been well faid already. 
 St. Joh?2j who had feen the other three Gof- 
 pels, has little in common with them. AI- 
 moil every thing in his Gofpel is new and 
 additional. So it would have been with every 
 other writer in the like circumftance. 
 
 And if St. Matthew's Gofpel had been writ 
 at about eight, or fifteens or twenty years after 
 our Lord's afcenfion, and had become gene- 
 rally known among the faithful : (as it cer- 
 tainly would, foon after it was writ :) it is not 
 improbable, that we fhould have had but two 
 Gofpels, his and St. Johns. Or if there had 
 been feveral, they would all, except the firfl, 
 have been in the manner of fupplements, 
 like St. Johns, not entire Gofpi^ls, like thofe 
 of the firft three Evangelifls. 
 
 This confideration appears to me of great 
 moment, for fliewing that our firfl three E- 
 van'^eliils are all independent witneiTes. In- 
 deed 
 
Ch. X. hadfcen each others Gcfpeh t 469 
 
 deed it f ems to me to be quite fatisfaflorie, 
 and decilive. 
 
 3. There are in thefe three Gofpels, as 
 was obferved jufl now by Mr. Dodwellj many 
 feerr.ing contradidions: which have exercifed 
 thefK-ili ot thoughtfull men to reconcile them. 
 This is another argument, that thefe Evange- 
 hfls did not write by concert, or after having 
 fcen each others Gofpels. 
 
 5. In fome hiflories, which are in all thefe 
 three Evangrlifts, there are fmall varieties and 
 diiferences, which plainly fhew the fame 
 thing. I fhall allege two or three inftances 
 only. 
 
 I.) In Matdi. viii. 28. . , 34. iMark v. i. . . 
 20. Luke viii. 26. . . 40. is the account of the 
 cure of the demoniac, or demoniacs, in the 
 countrey of the Gadarens. It is plainly the 
 fame hiftorie, as appears from many agreeing 
 circumftances. Neverthelefs there are feve- 
 ral differences. St. Matthew fpeaks of t\Vo 
 men. St. Mark and St. Luke of one only. In 
 Mark alone it is faid, that the man 'was at- 
 vjayi flight and day in the fnoimtains, crying^ 
 and cut ting himfelf with fiones . A n d h e a 1 on e 
 mentions the number of the fwine that were 
 drowned. He likewife fays, that the man be- 
 
 H h 3 fought 
 
Whether any ofthejirjl three Evangelijis Ch. X. 
 
 fought our Lord much^ that he would not fend 
 them away out of the countrey, St. huke fays : 
 the demom hejoiight him^ that he would not com- 
 mand them to go out into the deep, or abyffe. 
 Surely thefe Evangeliils did not abridge, or 
 tranfcribe each others writings. 
 
 2.) in Matt. xvii. i. . . 13. Mariv ix. i. . . 
 13. Luke ix. 28. . . 36. are the accounts of 
 our Lord's transfiguration on the mount. 
 Where St. Matthew fays : his face did fJjine as 
 ihefuUy and his raiment was white as the light, 
 St. Mark : And his raiment became JJjining, 
 exceedifig white as fnou\ fo as no juller on earth 
 can white them. St. Luke : And as he prayed, 
 the fajliicn of his countenance was altered^ and 
 lis raiment was white and glittering. It is 
 plain, I think, that none had feen what the 
 other had writ. In the defcription of the 
 fplendour of our Lord's perfon, and gar- 
 ments, each one follows his own phanfie. In 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark are comparifons. 
 But they are different. In St. Luke there is 
 no comparifon at all. 
 
 3.) Tlie third inftance Oiall be what fol- 
 lows next in all the three Evangelifts, after 
 our Lord was ccn^iC down from the mount. 
 Matt. xvii. 14. . . 21. Mark ix. 14. . . 29, 
 
 Luke 
 
Ch. X. had feen each others Gofpehf /i^yi 
 
 Luke ix. 37. . . 42. In this hiftorie of the 
 healing the young man, who had the epi- 
 lepfie, where St. Mark is more particular and 
 prolix, than the other Evangelills, there are 
 many differences. I take notice of a very 
 few only. In St, Matthew the father of the 
 child fays : Lord^ have mercie on my Son. For 
 he is lunatic^ and fore vexed. And the lieal- 
 ing him is thus related, ylnd Jefus rebuked 
 the demon, jlnd he departed out of him. And 
 the child was cured from that very hour. In 
 St. Mark the father of the child fays to our 
 Lord : Mafler^ I have brought unto thee my fon^ 
 who has a dumb fpirit. And when our Lord 
 healed him, he rebuked the foul fpirit ^ faying 
 unto him : Thou dumb and deaf fpirit, I charge 
 thee, come out of him^ and enter no fnore into 
 him. And what follows. In St. Luke the 
 father fays : Majler, 1 befeech thee, look upon 
 my [on. For he is my only child. 
 
 Certainly, he v/ho obferves thefe things, 
 muft be fenfible, that thefe hiftorians did not 
 borrow from each other. There are many 
 other like inflances. To mention them all 
 wouM be endlefs. 
 
 I fhall add a confideration or two more, 
 which muft be allowed to be of fome weight 
 in this queftion. 
 
 H h 4 6. There 
 
472 Whether any ofthefrrji dree E'vangclljli Ch. X. 
 
 6. There are fome things in St. Matthews 
 Gofpel, very remarkablcj of which no notice 
 is taken either by St. Mark, or St. Luke. 
 
 I intend, particularly, the vifit of the Ma- 
 gians, with the caufes of it, and it's circum- 
 Aances, and then the confequencs of it, our 
 Saviour's flight into Egypt, and the flaughter 
 of the infants at Bethlehem, and near it. Matt. 
 ' ii. The dream of P//^/^'s wife. ch. xxvii. 19. 
 the affair ofthePvoman guard at thefepulchre. 
 xxviii-. II. . . 15. an earthquake, rending of 
 rocks, and the re fur re 51 ion of many faints, 'who 
 came out of their graves, and ivent into the holy 
 city, and appeared unto many. ch. xxvii. 51, 
 
 • • • 53' 
 
 Thefe are as extraordinarie things, as any 
 
 in the Gofpels. And if St. Mark, or St. Liiket 
 hid writ with a view of abridging, or con- 
 firming '^i, Matthew's hiflorie, fome, or all of 
 thefs things, would have been taken notice of 
 by them. It is alfo very obfervable, that St. 
 Luke has no account of the miracle of feeliing 
 four thoufand with feven loaves and a Jew little 
 filh'es, which is in Matt. xv. 32. . . 39. Mark 
 viii. I. ... 9. 
 
 And what has been jufl new faid of St. 
 Miitthew, particularly, may be alfo applied 
 
 to 
 
Ch. X. had fee n each others Gofpels f 47 ^ 
 
 to St. Luke, fuppcfing his to have been the firft 
 written Gofpel. For in him alfo are many 
 remarkable things, not to be found in the o- 
 ther Gofpels. And if St-A^-z^/^^-wor St Mark 
 had writ with a view of abridging or con- 
 firming St. Liike\ hiftorie, thofe things would 
 not have been paded over by them Vv'ithout 
 any notice. 
 
 7. All the firft three Evangelifls have ma- 
 ny things peculiar to themfelves. Which 
 rtiews, that they did not borrow from each 
 S^ther, and that they were all well acquainted 
 with the things, of which they undertook to 
 write a hiftorie. 
 
 Many fuch things are in Matthew, as Is 
 well known to all. I therefore need not en- 
 large on them. And a few of them were 
 juft now taken notice of. 
 
 St. Mark likewife has many things peculi- 
 ar to himfelf, not mentioned by any other E- 
 vangeliil, A catalogue of them was made 
 by us (e) formerly, though far from being 
 compleat. 
 
 The fame is true of St. Luke. As much 
 was obferved by Jrenaeus, v/ho fays, " there 
 <* are many, and thofe neceflarie parts of the 
 
 " Gofpel, 
 
 (() See before p. iq8. . . , 208, 
 
TVljether any ofthejirji three Evangelijls Ch. X. 
 
 " Gofpel, which we know from Luke only." 
 His brief enumeration of thofe things was 
 tranfcribed by us into this Work (J) long ago. 
 Let me alfo rehearfe them here fomewhat dif- 
 ferently. His general .introdu(5tion, the birth 
 o^Johji the Baptifl, and many extraordinarie 
 things, attending it. The Roman cehfus made 
 in Judea^ by Cyrenius, or before that made by 
 Cjrenimy which brought Jofeph and Marie 
 from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the mean cir- 
 cumftances of our Lord's nativity, the noti- 
 fication of it to fhepherds by an angel, his cir- 
 cumcifion, Marie's purification at the temple, 
 the prophecies oi Simeon^ and Anna there, our 
 Lord's going up to Je'rufalem at the age of 
 twelve years. Ch. ii. The names of the Em- 
 perour and other Princes, in whofe time John 
 the Baptift and our Lord began to preach, and 
 Gur Lord's age at that time, a genealogie dif- 
 ferent from Matthew. Ch. iii. In St. Luke 
 are alfo divers miracles, not recorded elfe- 
 where. A numerous draught of fidies. ch. 
 V. 4. . . 9. The cures of Marie Magdalen, 
 Joanna, wife oiChuza, Hcrcd's Reward, and 
 Sufa?i?2a. ch. viii. 2. 3. giving fpeech to a 
 dumb man. ch. xi. 14. a woman healed in 
 
 a fyna- 
 
 (f) Vol, ii. p, 357. . . 360. 
 
Cb. X. hadjeen each others Go/pels ? 47^ 
 
 a fynagogue of an infirmity, under which fhe 
 had labored eighteen years, ch. xiii. 10 . . 17, 
 a man cured of the dropfie on a fabbath day, 
 in the houfe of a Pharifee. ch. xiv. i. . . 4. 
 Ten lepers cured at once, ch.xvii. 12. . . 19. 
 the ear of Makhus healed, ch. xxii. 50. . . 5. 
 the fon of a widow of Nairn raifed to life, in 
 the fight of multitudes, when he was carried 
 out to burial, ch. vii. 11... 17. a miracle of 
 refurredtion, related by no other Evangelift. 
 In him alone is the miffion of the fcventy dif- 
 ciples. ch. X. i. . . 20. Divers beautiful pa- 
 rables fpoken by our Lord, which are not to 
 be found elfewhere : the parable of the good 
 Samaritan, ch. x. 25. . . 37. the parable of the 
 loft piece of filver, and the prodigal fon. ch. 
 XV. 8. . . 32. of the unjuft fteward. xvi. i. , . 
 1 2. the rich man and Lazarus. 19. . . 3 1. the 
 importunate widow, xviii. i, . . 8. the Phari- 
 fee and Publican, that went up to the temple 
 to pray. ver. 9. . . 14. To St, Luke alfo are 
 peculiar our Lord's entertainment at the houfe 
 of a Pharifee, where came in the woman that 
 was a finner. ch. vii. 36. . . 50. his entertain- 
 inent at the houfe of Martha, x. 38. . . 42. 
 the hiftorie of Zaccheus. xix. i. . . 10. our 
 Lord's agonie in the garden, xxii. 43. 44. the 
 
 penitent 
 
^76 Whether any of the fir fl three Evangelijls Ch . X. 
 penitent thief on the crolTe. xxiii. 39. . . 43. 
 and a particular account of the two difciples 
 •going to Emmaiis, xxiv. 13. . . 35. 
 
 Ail thefe, and many other things, which I 
 omit, are peculiar to St. Luke. And did he 
 tranfcribe many things from St.MattbeWj and 
 yet more from St. Mark f 
 
 Milh argument, taken from the limilitude 
 of ftile and compofition, to prove, that thefe 
 Evangeiius had feen each others writings, ap- 
 pears to be infufiicient. And himfclf allows, 
 that (g) two authors writing upon the fame 
 fubjedt in the Greek language mayeafilyagree 
 very much in expreffion. 
 
 I have infided the more upon this point, 
 becaufe I think, that to fav, the Evangelifts 
 abridged, and tranfcribed each other,, without 
 giving any hint of their fo doing, is a great 
 difparagement to them. And it likewife di- 
 minifheth the value and importance of their 
 teftimonie, Said Mv.LeCIerc, before quoted, 
 
 " They 
 
 (g) Verum quldem eil, eum efTe linguae hujus, quae Evan- 
 gelijlis in ufu erat, Hellenifticae genium earn indolem, ut ia 
 unum ferme eundemque djcendi cliaraderem, quoties de una 
 eademque materia agitur, fefe efformet : ife ut diveifi in hoc 
 genere fcriptores, unum idemque aliquod argumentum parti- 
 culate tradantes, ftilo ac fermonis tenore haud abfimili ufuri 
 efTent. &c. Prol. mem. loS. 
 
cc 
 
 Ch. X. hadfeen each others Gojpels ? /^yy 
 
 " They (h) feem to think more juftly, who 
 fay, that the firft three EvangeHfts were un- 
 acquainted with each others defign. In that 
 " way greater weight accrues to their tefti- 
 *' monie. When witnefTes agree, who have 
 *' firft laid their heads together, they are fuf- 
 " peded. Bat witneiles, who teilify the fame 
 " thing feparatly, without knowing what o- 
 ** thers have faid, are juiHy credited." 
 
 This is not a new opinion, lately thought 
 of. Nor has it been taken up by me, out of 
 cppoiltion to any. I have all my days read, 
 and admired the firft three Evangelifts, as in- 
 dependent, and harmonious witnefies. And 
 I know not how to forbear ranking the othsr 
 opinion among thofe bold, as well as ground- 
 lefs aflertions, in which critics too often in- 
 dulge themfelves, without confidering the 
 confequences. 
 
 fhj See Vol, X, p. z^^. 
 
 The End of the firjl Volume. 
 
Publiflied by the fame Author. 
 
 I. ' I ^ H E Credibility of the Gos- 
 X PEL History, Part I. or, The Fa(fls 
 occafionally mentioned in the New Tefta- 
 ment confirmed by Fafiages of ancient Au- 
 thors, who were contemporary with our Sa- 
 viour, and his Apoftles, or lived near their 
 Times. The third Edition, in two Volumes 
 O6lavo. Prit:e, bound, lo^. 
 
 n. The Credibility of the Gospel 
 History, Part II. or. The principal Fads 
 of the New Teftament confirmed by Paf- 
 fages of ancient Authors. In twelve Vo- 
 lumes, Odavo. Containing a Hiftorie of 
 Chriftian V^riters to the Begining of the 
 twelfth Century : With their Teftimony to 
 the Books of the New Teftament. Price, 
 bound, 3/. 
 
 III. A Supplement to the Credibi- 
 lity OF the Gospel History : or, A 
 History of the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists, Writers of the New. Tes- 
 tament. In which the Evidences of the 
 Genuinnefs of the four Gofpels, the Ads of 
 the Apoftles, the Epifdes, and the Book of 
 
 thd 
 
Fiiblijhed by the fame Author, 
 
 the Revelation, and the Times when they 
 were writ, are reprefented in a Light, fuited 
 to all Capacities. 
 
 With Remarks and Obfervations upon 
 every Book of the New TeR anient, ufefull 
 for all, who defire to under (land the Chrif- 
 tian Religion. In three Volumes Ovflavo. 
 Price, bound, 15;. 
 
 Note. Any Volumes may, as yet, be had 
 feparate, to compleatSets. 
 
 IV. Sermons upon various Subjet5ts. iiiz. 
 The Duty of Confideration. The Unrea- 
 fonablcnefs of Delays in Things of Religion. 
 The Nature, Excellence, and Importance of 
 moral Righteoufnefs. Wifdom attainable by 
 thofe who feek it. Little Children brought 
 to Chrift. The Happinefs of having reli- 
 gious Parents, and other pious Relatives. 
 The Virtue and Benefit of early Piety. A 
 future State provable by Reafon. The Gof- 
 pel the true Vv^ay of Salvation. The good 
 Exercife of Faith. The Power of Chrift's 
 Doilrine. A Recommendation of Things 
 virtuous, lovel}^ and of good Report. The 
 Importance of our Words. The Difficulty 
 of governing the Tongue. The Benefit of 
 fearing always. 
 
 '^,'i!«ip- 
 
 •i ■ 
 
Tfee**- 
 
 miw^- 
 
 r. 
 
 :^* 
 
 ^^'*i 
 
 f^. ■"- 
 
 .V J'^ >• 
 
 ?.^ 
 
 lj,»K-^^"V 
 
 ■m