St. Peter, I reckon, did not come to Rome before the reign of Nero, probably, not till the fecond time that Paul was in that city, in the year 65. 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 refreshing their memories concerning what the Apoftle had faid of Chrift, and his doctrine. The confequence is manifeft. They had not then any written Gospel in their hands. Nor did they know, that there was one. The truth is, fays Mr. Jones (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 ancients, or deduced from them, which may be of no fmall ufe to lead us to the true time of writing the first three Gofpels.

SE C T. III.

That the first three Gospels were published before the destruction of Ferusalem, which happened in the year of the Chriftian epoch LXX.

lifts.

ONCERNING this I tranfcribe below (c) a very good argument of Le Glere from his Diflertation upon the four Evange

The Jewish war began, according (d) to Jofephus, 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 Jerufalem and the temple. And I think, it may be fhewn to be very probable, that the first three Gofpels were writ before the year 66. when the final troubles and calamities of the Jewish People were coming on.

This must appear to have a great deal of probability from the predictions therein recorded concerning the deftruction of the temple, the overthrow of the city of Jerufalem, the ruin of the Jewish State and People in Judea, together with divers circumftances of thefe events, and many troubles and calamities preceding them. These predictions are recorded in the hiftories of our Saviour's miniftrie, which we call Gof

pels,

(b) Vindication of the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 54. chap. vi. (c) Quinetiam, fi ex Veterum nonnullorum teftimoniis antea adductis, de re judicemus, affirmabimus, Matthæum, Marcum, et Lucam, ante ultima Neronis tempora, quibus occifi funt Petrus et Paulus, Evangelia fcripfiffe. Quod non levi argumento confirmari poteft, ducto ex Matth. cap. xxiv. Marc, xiii. Luc. xxi. ubi narratur Jerofolymæ excidii prædictio, quafi rei etiamnum futuræ, eo tempore, quo Evangelia ab iis fcribebantur. Si enim eam prædicationem poft eventum fcripfiffent Evangeliitæ memorati, verbulo faltem momuiffent, prædictionem fuiffe eventu confirmatam. Quod tantum abeft ut faciant, ut Matthæus et Marcus hac admonitione, araywox satit, qui legit, intelligat, quam fubjiciunt præfagiis Jerofolymitana cladis, admonere videantur Chriftianos in Judæa viventes, ut diligenter futura illa præfagia attendant, quo poffint vitæ fuæ confulere. Vide Matth. xxiv. 15. Marc. xiii. 14. et ad ea loca interpretes. Cleric. Diff. iii. de quatuor Evangeliis. num. vii. P. 541.

(d) Vid. Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. l. 20, cap. xi, n. c. &c. B. I. 1, 6. cap, x.

pels, 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 spoken of had happened. Those prophecies are recorded in Matth. xxiii. 34... 39. and xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. St. Luke has alfo elsewhere recorded the affectionate concern, which our Lord expressed in the view and prospect of thofe impending evils. ch. xiii. 34. 35. and xix. 41... 44. These things are alfo referred to, and fpoken of, in divers other difcourfes, fome plain, fome parabolical, or otherwife figurative: as Matth. xxi. 33... 46. xxii. 1... 7. Mark xii. I... 12. Luke xiii. 1. . . 9. xx. 9... 20. xxi. 5. . 13. In none of all which places does there appear any intimation, that the things spoken of were come to pass. And in recording the prefages of this final and total overthrow of the Jewish nation the hiftorians have inferted warnings and admonitions, proper to excite the attention of readers, and induce thofe who lived in Judea, to take care of their own fafety, without delay. Matt. xxiv. 15.... 18. When ye therefore fhall fee the abomination of defolation, fpoken of by Daniel the Prophet, ftand in the boly place, (whofo readeth, let him understand :) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him which is on the house-top not come down to take any thing out of his house. Neither let him which is in the field, return back to take bis clothes. And what follows. And to the like purpose 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 these admonitions might be useful for fecuring their fafety.

Moreover, though these predictions must have been recorded, before they were accomplished; 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, understand. And indeed it must have been difficult and hazardous to publifh fuch things in writing. How offenfive thefe fayings muft have been to the Jewish People, and perhaps to fome others likewife, is eafie to conceive from the nature of the things fpoken of. And it may be confirmed by divers inftances. When our Lord had fpoken the parable of the vineyard, let out to husbandmen, recorded in Luke xx. 9... 18. it is added by the Evangelift. ver. 19. 20. And 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 had spoken this parable against them. And they watched him, and fent forth fpies, which fhould feign themfelves juft men, that they might take hold of his words, that fo they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the Governor. And among the odious charges brought against our Saviour by falfe witnefies, this was one, that he faid: I am able to deftroy 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 offenfive charges were brought against Stephen. Acts vi. 14. We have heard him fay, that this Jefus of Nazareth fhall deftroy this place, and shall change the customs, which Mofes delivered to us. And, poffibly, he did fay fomewhat not very different. So likewife St. Matthew, and the other Apoftles, might re-. peat in the hearing of many what Chrift had faid to them, and in part to others alfo, concerning the overthrow of the temple, and the Jewish state. Yea, very probably, they had often repeated thefe things to attentive

hearers.

CH. IV. hearers. But fpeaking and writing are different. And I apprehend, it could not have been safe, nor prudent, to record these predictions, (many of which are very plain, and all intelligible,) foon after our Lord's af

cenfion.

These prophecies therefore of our Lord, as recorded in the first three Gofpels, afford at once an argument, that they were written and publifhed before the deftruction of Jerufalem: and that they were not published many years before it, or however, not many years before the commencement of the war at the time above mentioned.

SECT. IV.

An Argument, fhewing the true Time of writing the Gospels, taken from the Acts, and the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.

ONE can fuppose, that the book of the Acts of the Apoftles was composed before the year 62. or 63. as the history is there brought down to the period of St. Paul's two years imprisonment at Rome.

And, very probably, the Gofpel, to which St. Luke refers at the beginning of that book, had not been writ long before. This I fuppose to be now the common opinion of learned men. And for giving the greateft fatisfaction to all my readers, I fhall transcribe below at large the fentiments of feveral to this purpose, such as that of the late (e) Mr. Jones, and (f) Eftius, (g) Mill, (*) Dodwell, and (h) Bafnage: though the thing

(e) "Hence we fee near to what time this hiftory of the A&ts was written: viz. either in the year 62. or not long after it being altogether probable that St. Luke would not defer writing long after his departure from St. Paul. Which feems to have been now, when the Apoftle was fet at liberty from his confinement at Rome. ... That he wrote both the Gofpel and the Acts 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 New and Full Method, &c. Part. 4. ch. xvi. Vol. 3. p. 158. See him also ch. xi. p. 115:

(f) Deinde, nec fatis conftat, Evangelium Lucæ jam tum editum fuiffe, quando Paulus hanc epiftolam fcripfit Nam Acta quidem Apoftolica fcripfiffe videtur ftatim poft Evangelium, tanquam ejufdem voluminis libros primum et fecundum. Scripfit autem Acta poft biennium Pauli Romæ commorantis, id eft, multis annis poft hanc epiftolam. Quare circa idem tempus Evangelium ab eo fcriptum fuiffe, credibile eft. Eft. ad 2 Cor. viii. 18.

(g) Voluminis hujus D. Lucæ patrem pofteriorem, feu óyo, dirigor quod attinet, librum dico Actuum Apoftolorum, haud dubium eft. ... quin is fcriptus fit ftatim poft óy wewtor, five Evangelium. Mill. Prol. num. 121.

(*) Sunt enim Acta ergo; ejufdem operis xós, cujus eToy λóyor ipfe fuum agnofcit Evangelium. Act. i. 1. Dodw. Diff. Iren. i. num. xx

(b) Non multum vero interjectum fuiffe temporis inter Actorum Apoftolicorum et Evangelii confectionem, conjectura ex præfatione ad Theophilum duci poteft. Primum quidem librum confeci... A&tuum ergo liber continuatio eft, feriefque Evangelii,... Multum vero abiiffe temporis antequam a priore libro omnibus numeris expleto ad pofteriorem tranfire Lucas, nulla ratione cogimur ad credendum, &c." Bafnag, Ann, 60. num, xxviii.

thing appears to me very obvious. And if fo, we have gained very nearly the date of one of the four Gofpels.

Grotius fuppofeth, that (i) when Paul left Rome, he went into Spain: and that at the fame time Luke went into Greece, and there wrote both his Gospel and the Acts. Jerome fuppofeth, that (k) the book of the Acts was writ at Rome. But that makes no difference in point of time: fince he allows, that it reaches to the end of St. Paul's two years imprifonment at Rome.

This one confideration, fo far as I am able to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. Luke's Gofpel was writ about fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion. Yea, it evidently fhews, that it was not writ till the year 60. or afterwards.

And the beginning of St. Luke's Gofpel affords an argument, that the other two Gofpels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were not writ fooner. For this Evangelift knew nothing of them. Confequently, they were not then writ, and published: or, but lately. Every word of his introduction fhews this. Let us obferve it.

Forafmuch as many have taken in hand to fet forth in order a declaration of thofe things, which are moft furely believed among us. ... It feemed good unto me alfo, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very firft, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus 3 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou haft been inftructed.

When St. Luke fays, that many had undertaken to write hiftories of our Saviour, he cannot mean Matthew alone, nor Matthew and Mark

only. For they are not many. He muft intend them, and others, or fome different from them. Which laft will appear most likely, if we confider what there follows.

Of those many he fays, they had taken in hand, undertaken, or attempted. St. Luke would not have spoken thus of Matthew, or Mark. Indeed, we may fuppofe, that (1) those narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not falle and fabulous, nor heretical. But they were defective.

Grotius fays, the (m) word is of a middle meaning. And that it does not neceffarily imply, that the writers, here intended, had failed to perform what they undertook.

Nevertheless

() Librum autem et hunc, et qui de Actibus Apoftolorum, fcriptum arbitror, non multo poftquam Paulus Româ abiit in Hifpaniam. Nam in id tempus definit Actuum liber, qui fi ferius fcriptus effet, in ulteriora etiam tempora narrationem protenderet. Puto autem, Romà iiffe Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in Evang. Luca.

(k) See Vol. x. p. 94, 95

(Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commoda præftitiffe: minime tamen, opinor, fabulofas, immo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefiz, fub Nicodemi, . . . . Thomæ, Ægyptiorum nominibus impudentiffime obtrufas. Nec tamen hic recte colligunt, Lucam poft Matthæum et Marcum hanc fuam hiftoriam edidiffe. Bez. in Luc. cap. i. ver. 1.

(m) Exignoan. aggreffi funt. Bene notavit vir eruditiffimus, vocem effe mediam: neque enim ex ea colligi poffe, non præftitum ab illis fcriptoribus quod aggreffi funt. Grot. in loc.

Nevertheless the ancient Chriftians, to feveral of whom the Greek language was natural, understood the word differently. And their judgements muft be of value in this cafe. Origen's obfervations upon St. Luke's introduction may be feen. vol. iii. p. 316... 319. where he fays, "St. Luke's expreffion, taken in hand, implies a tacit accufation of "thofe, who without the gift of the Holy Ghoft took upon them to write "Gofpels. For Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, did not take "in hand 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 imitated Origen. And fays Eufebe:"Luke (9) at the beginning affigns the reafon of his writing, "declaring, that whereas many others had rafhly undertaken to compofe "relations of the things, which were moft firmly believed, he therefore "thought himself obliged, in order to divert us from the uncertain rela❝tions of others, to deliver in his Gospel a certain account of those "things of which he was fully affured." Which paffage was tranfcribed by us (p) formerly. And Epiphanius, whom (9) I now place below, plainly affixed a difadvantageous meaning to this word.

Beaufobre readily allows, that (r) we ought to follow the ancients in their interpretation of this word, and to suppose, that St. Luke here speaks of fome attempts, and effays, that had not been well executed.

This may be fufficient to fatisfy us, that St. Luke does not speak of any of our Evangelifts. Mr. (*) Dodwell was of the fame opinion.

But we may have yet farther affurance of it by obferving what St. Luke fays of himself, and his own defign. Which is to this purpose: "That "it had feemed good to him, to fend to Theophilus in writing a diftinct "and particular hiftorie of Jefus Chrift: that he might better know, and "be more fully confirmed in the truth of thofe things, in which he had "been instructed by word of mouth."

In my opinion, this implies a fuppofition, that Theophilus had not yet in his hands any good written hiftorie of the words and works of Jefus Chrift.

Confequently St. Luke at the year 62. and poffibly fomewhat later, did not know of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gofpels. And therefore we

(n) See Vol. ix. p. 245.

muft

(0) δηλῶν ὡς ἄρα πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων προπετέσερον ἐπιτηδευκότων διήγησιν ποιήσασθαι ὧν αυτὸς πεπληροφόρητο λόγῳ, κ. λ. Eufeb. 1. 3. c. 24. p. 96. Co (p) Vol. viii. p. 95.

fort

(g) Φάσκων, ἐπειδήπες πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἵνα τινὰς ἐπιχειρητὰς δείξῃ φημὶ δὲ τὸς περὶ κήρινθον, καὶ μήρινθον, καὶ τὰς ἄλλες. Η. 51. num. vii. p. 428. (r) Ce mot Grec, pov, eft certainement tres-equivoque, et peut bien fignifier des tentatives malheureufes, des efforts qui ont mal rèuffi. St. Epiphane ne l'a pas entendu autrement. Origene de même, dans fa preface fur S. Luc. et après lui la plupart des Interpretes Grecs. Quand il s'agit de la fignification des termes Grecs, et que les auteurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun interêt à leur donner des fens forcés, ces derniers femblent dignes de creance. Beauf. Remarques fur Luc. ch. i. p. 100.

(*) Ut plane alios fuiffe neceffe fit evangelicæ hiftoriæ fcriptores a Luca vifos, a noftris, quos habemus Evangeliitis. Diff. Iren. i. num. xxxix,