answer is obvious: these were not things of a religious nature, and no inspiration was necessary concerning them.

"This view of the subject will also readily enable a plain Christian, in reading his New Testament, to distinguish what he is to consider as inspired truth. Every thing which the Apostles have written or taught concerning Christianity, every thing which teaches him a religious sentiment, or a branch of duty, he must consider as divinely true, as the mind and will of God, recorded under the direction and guidance of his Spirit. It is not necessary that he should inquire, whether what the Apostles taught be true? all that he has to search after is, their meaning; and when he understands what they meant, he may rest assured, that meaning is consistent with the will of God, is divine infallible truth. The testimony of men, who spoke and wrote by the Spirit of God, is the testimony of God himself; and the testimony of the God of Truth is the strongest and most indubitable of all demonstration."

PART II.

CHAPTER THE SECOND.

OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

I. HISTORY OF ST. MATTHEW.-II. GENUINENESS OF HIS

GOSPEL.

-III. ITS DATE.

-IV. LANGUAGE IN WHICH

IT WAS WRITTEN. -OBSERVATIONS.

I. MATTHEW, called also Levi, was the son of Alphæus, but probably not of that Alphæus who was the father of the Apostle James the Less. He was a native of Galilee; but it is not known in what city of that country he was born, or to what tribe of the people of Israel he belonged. Though a Jew, he was a publican or tax-gatherer under the Romans; and his office seems to have consisted in collecting the customs due upon commodities which were carried, and from persons who passed, over the Lake of Gennesareth. Our Saviour commanded him, as he was sitting at the place where he received these customs, to follow him. He immediately obeyed; and from that time he became a constant attendant upon our Saviour, and was appointed one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew, soon after his call, made an entertainment at his house, at which were present Christ and some of his disciples, and also several publicans. After the

ascension of our Saviour, he continued, with the other Apostles, to preach the Gospel for some time in Judæa; but as there is no farther account of him in any writer of the first four centuries, we must consider it as uncertain into what country he afterwards went, and likewise in what manner and at what time he died. It seems, however, probable, that he died a natural death, since Heracleon, a learned Valentinian of the second century, as cited by Clement of Alexandria", reckons Matthew among those Apostles who did not suffer martyrdom, and he is not contradicted by Clement. Chrysostom", also, who is very full in his commendation of Matthew, says nothing of his martyrdom. On the contrary, Socrates, a writer of the fifth century, says that Matthew preached the Gospel in Æthiopia, and died a martyr at Nedabbar, a city of that country; but he is contradicted by other authors, who say that Matthew died in Persia.

II. In the few writings which remain of the apostolical fathers ", Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, there are manifest allusions to several passages in this Gospel; but the Gospel itself is not mentioned in any one of them. Papias, the companion of Polycarp, is the earliest author upon record, who has expressly named Matthew as the writer of a Gospel; and we are indebted to Eusebius for transmitting to us

e

because they were contemporary with the Apostles, and were their disciples.

e H. E. lib. iii. cap. 39.

this valuable testimony. The work itself of Papias is lost; but the quotation in Eusebius is such as to convince us, that in the time of Papias no doubt was entertained of the genuineness of St. Matthew's Gospel. This Gospel is repeatedly quoted by Justin Martyr, but without mentioning the name of St. Matthew. It is both frequently quoted, and St. Matthew mentioned as its author, by Irenæus, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and a long train of subsequent writers. It was, indeed, universally received by the Christian church; and we do not find that its genuineness was controverted by any early profane writer. We may therefore conclude, upon the concurrent testimony of antiquity, that this Gospel is rightly ascribed to St. Matthew.

III. It is generally agreed, upon the most satisfactory evidence, that St. Matthew's Gospel was the first which was written; but though this is asserted by many ancient authors, none of them, except Irenæus and Eusebius, have said any thing concerning the exact time at which it was written. The only passage, in which the former of these fathers mentions this subject, is so obscure, that no positive conclusion can be drawn from it: Dr. Lardner and Dr. Townson understand it in very different senses; and Eusebius, who lived an hun

a Iren. adv. Hær. lib. iii. cap. 1. Eus. H. E. lib. vi. cap. 1. Hieron. Cat.Sc. Eccl.Aug. de Cons. Evang. lib. i. cap. 1.

с

b Vol. vi. p. 49.

c Treatise on the Gospels.

dred and fifty years after Irenæus, barely says, that Matthew wrote his Gospel just before he left Judæa to preach the religion of Christ in other countriesa; but when that was, neither he nor any other ancient author informs us with certainty. The impossibility of settling this point upon ancient authority has given rise to a variety of opinions among moderns. Of the several dates assigned to this Gospel, which deserve any attention, the earliest is the year 38, and the latest the year 64.

It appears very improbable, that the Christians should be left any considerable number of years without a written history of our Saviour's ministry. It is certain that the Apostles, immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of our Saviour into Heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great success and surely it is reasonable to suppose, that an authentic account of our Saviour's doctrines and miracles would very soon be committed to writing, for the confirmation of those who believed in his divine mission, and for the conversion of others: and, more particularly, to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their ancient prophecies relative to the Messiah: and we may conceive that the Apostles would be desirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles

a H. E. lib. iii. cap. 24. Mr. Jones, vol. iii. p. 60. of his New Method, asserts, that Eusebius says in his Chronicon, that Matthew published his Gospel in the third

year of Caligula; but Lardner has shown that this passage, which is found only in some editions of the Chronicon, is spurious, vol. iv. p. 263.