1 scriptures. I have already given an account of this book in the chapters of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Lactantius. b d с 10. Acts of Peter and Paul, reckoned by our author in the second, and in the third passage, either as heretical or spurious, and not generally received. Of these likewise I have had occasion to speak before in the chapters of Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Beausobre supposeth the acts of Peter to be a work of Leucius. k i 11. Acts of Andrew and Thomas, and other apostles, in our second passage, ranked by 1 Eusébius among heretical forgeries. For these the reader is referred to several places, where I have already had occasion to speak of them. m о n 12. Revelation of Peter, in the second passage from Eusebius placed among spurious, in the third among heretical writings, in another place among contradicted. Some account was given of this book in the chapter of Clement of Alexandria. Sozomen assures us, that though this book was entirely, or universally rejected by the ancients as spurious; yet in his time it was read once in the year in some churches of Palestine on a Friday, when they fasted in remembrance of our Saviour's passion. Sozomen in the same place speaks of a book called Paul's Revelation, which was respected by some monks of his time: though it was altogether unknown to the ancients, and was absolutely spurious, as he shews. 13. This may suffice for an account of these books, mentioned by Eusebius: he takes little or no notice of them in any other part of his writings. What was their authority, or value, appears from the places which I have referred to, as well as from the character here given of them by our ecclesiastical historian. XI. It has been of late a common opinion, that Eusebius thought St. Matthew wrote his gospel at about eight years after our Lord's ascension. Some found this supposition upon a passage in his Ecclesiastical History, as Mill, whose words upon this occasion I place at the bottom of the page; others upon the Chronicle, as Jones. г 8 As for the argument from the Chronicle, it is of no manner of force: for there is no such thing in it. It is indeed said ' in Pontac's edition of the Chronicle at the vulgar year of Christ xli. Matthew first writes his Gospel in Judea:' but the editor had those words printed in Italic, to denote that he did not think them genuine, as being wanted in most," and the best manuscripts and editions: accordingly Joseph Scaliger did not insert them in his edition of Eusebius's Chronicle. As for the Ecclesiastical History, in our first passage" formerly taken from him, he says, that when Matthew was about to go to other people, he delivered his Gospel to the Hebrews in their own language.' But he does not there, or any where else, say, when Matthew left Judea. y Theophylact in the eleventh century, and Euthymius in the twelfth, say, that Matthew wrote in the eighth year after our Saviour's ascension. Nicephorus Callisti " in the fourteenth m P. 72. A. • Vol. i. p. 410. " L. vi. c. 14. in. * Ούτω γεν την καλεμενην Αποκάλυψιν Πεῖρε, ὡς νόθον πανΤελως προς των αρχαιων δοκιμασθεισαν, εν τισιν εκκλησίαις της Παλαιστινης εισείι νυν ἀπαξ έκαςε ε1ες ανα ινωσκομένην είνωμεν, εν τη ήμερα παρασκευης, ἣν ευλαβως αίαν ὁ λαος νηστεύει επι αναμνήσει το σωτηριο πάθος. Sozom. 1. vi. c. 19. p. 735. C. 9 Την δε νυν ὡς Αποκάλυψιν Παύλε το αποτολα φερομενην, ήν εδεις αρχαίων είδε, πλείσοι μοναχων επαινεσιν. ibid. 'Licet enim Eusebius (quem secuti sunt Euthymius, Theophylactus, ac codices fere mss. evangeliorum in rolpaçais, evangelii hujus calci suffixis:) scriptionem ejus ad annum Domini xli. h. e. ex ipsius rationibus viii. a Christi passione fixam velit: [sumit nimirum pro concesso, apostolos post notitiam ostii gentibus patefacti, statim convenisse de evangelio per orbem terrarum prædicando: ideoque & Matthæum paulo ante discessum ab Hierosolymis, hortatu fidelium istius loci, aa evangelicam suam historiam concinnâsse. H. E. 1. iii. c. 24.] Tamen Irenæus, &c. Mill. Proleg. num. 61. Eusebius in his Chronicon has placed the writing of St. Matthew's gospel in the third year of Caligula: that is, eight years after Christ's ascension, or the year of Christ 41. Jones of the Canon. Vol. iii. p. 60. 'Matthæus in Judæa evangelium primus scribit. p. 57. "As Pontac's edition is scarce, I shall here put down his note upon these words: Desunt in A. F. H. M. septem Vaticanis. Vi. O. Pi. Fux. P. Lo. & tribus MSS. Fab. Mar. Fre. Nec ex alio loco vel scriptore vetere constat, quo anno Matthæus scripserit: nisi quod ipse Eusebius lib. v. H. E. c. 8. refert verba Irenæi scribentis, Matthæum historiam evangelii composuisse tunc, cum Petrus & Paulus Romæ evangelizarent, quod non contigit ante annum 44 Christi. Et juxta hanc sententiam facile crederem ista hic fuisse adjecta. Pontac. Annot. p. 559. H. E. 1. iii. c. 24. p. 95. A. *See before, p. 368. W у μελα οκίω είη της Χριςε αναλήψεως. Theoph. ap. Mill. N. T. p. 3. z Euthym. ibid. p. 4. 1) Μελα σε ελη της Χρις ο αναλήψεως. Niceph. l. ii. c. 45. p. 213. B. century, says, Matthew wrote about fifteen years after Christ's ascension: and the Paschal Chronicle, in the seventh century, intimates the same thing. None of these writers expressly refer to more ancient authors for their opinion: but it may be reckoned probable, that they collected it from the history in the Acts, and from the fore-mentioned passage of Eusebius. They who thought, that Matthew and the other apostles left Judea soon after the conversion of Cornelius at Cæsarea, supposed his Gospel might be written in the eighth year of our Lord's ascension. They who thought that the apostles did not leave Judea to go to the Gentiles, till after the council of Jerusalem, Acts xv. supposed Matthew's Gospel to have been written in the fifteenth of our Lord's ascension, of the vulgar account forty-nine: but neither had for their opinion the express authority of Eusebius, or any other very ancient writer. It is well known to be very common to insert articles in Chronicles, and such like works: this article, concerning the time of Matthew's Gospel, is probably a late addition. year b I am of opinion, that Mill has judiciously followed Irenæus, in placing St. Matthew's gospel about the year of Christ LX. Whose account I suppose to be favoured by Origen, and other writers of the first three centuries: but I must not now stay to allege all the reasons and arguments for that date. XII. Eusebius affords us divers critical remarks upon the New Testament. d Which also,' says he upon Ps. lxxvii. or, as in our Bibles lxxviii. 2, the scripture of the sacred gospels teaches, where it is said: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables. And without a parable spake he not unto them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation." For instead of, "I will speak dark sayings of old," [or from the beginning,] Matthew, as being a Hebrew, uses a translation of his own, saying: "I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation." Instead of which Aquila has translated: "I will pour down things which have been enigmatical from the "beginning." And Symmachus: "I will cause to spring up ancient dark sayings.' One might be apt to argue hence, that our learned commentator supposed Matthew to have written in the Greek language: and that being by birth a Hebrew, and well understanding the original language of the Old Testament, when he quoted texts from thence, he did not always take the Greek version of the Seventy, but translated for himself, as he saw good. So Montfauçon seems to have understood Eusebius. For he says: Since Matthew, according to the testimony of Irenæus, Origen, and Eusebius himself [in other places], and Jerom, wrote his gospel in Hebrew; certainly Matthew did not use a Greek interpretation of his own: but expressed the Hebrew words in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, such as was then in use among the Jews, as may be perceived in the expression Lamma Sabachtani, and not a few other. By which it is evident, that Matthew in his gospel written in Hebrew, when any texts occurred out of the Old Testament, expressed them in the Syro-Chaldaic language: but whether he used an interpretation of his own, or took those texts out of some version before made, is not easily determined. But afterwards the Greek translator (who he is, St. Jerom says is uncertain) used an interpretation of his own, without following the Septuagint version. It seems to me, therefore, that' Montfauçon understood Eusebius to say here, though contrary to what he supposes him to say elsewhere, that Matthew writing in Greek did not follow the Seventy, but translated for himself out of the Hebrew tongue. And I own, that this appears to me the most natural meaning of our author's own words. But of this more by and by. 2. Eusebius has another like observation upon John, which deserves to be taken notice of on its own account: and more especially as it may serve to illustrate the preceding observation, and I think confirm the sense in which I take it. It is in his Commentary upon Ps. xl. 10, otherwise a Ps. xli. 9. Therefore it is said, "Has lift the sole of his foot against me." But instead of "sole of the foot," which is the expression used by the Seventy, the Hebrew reading imports "" heel."" And so therefore Aquila, who strictly follows the Hebrew, has rendered it. For 'which reason also the evangelist John, as being a Hebrew descended of Hebrews, recording the words of our Saviour, does not use the expression, " sole of the foot," but "heel." See John xiii. 18. b 3. Once more, upon Ps. ii. 7. "This day have I begotten thee." But the Jew (whom I 'before-mentioned) said, that the proper meaning of the word is, "I brought forth," which is ' also the version of Aquila. But the apostle, being skilled in the law, in the epistle to the • Hebrews, has followed the Seventy.' See Heb. i. 5. Here Eusebius plainly ascribes the epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul: for by the apostle,' he certainly means him; and he only of the apostles was learned in the law. But it may be questioned by some, whether it be herein implied, that St. Paul wrote that epistle in Greek; or only, that writing in the Syro-Chaldaic language, then in use among Jews, he used a word of the same import with that in the Greek version of the Seventy. But the former seems to me to be by far the most obvious meaning of our author's expressions. For farther clearing this matter, I shall mention these following propositions. (1.) It seems to me, that the most natural and obvious meaning of Eusebius's words in these passages, both concerning Matthew's gospel, and the epistle to the Hebrews, implies a supposition, that they were written originally by the several authors in the Greek language: and if Eusebius had thought that they were written in Hebrew, or Syriac, he would have given some hint of it, or have used some expressions, denoting that to be his opinion. I do not say, that it is certain and evident from Eusebius's expressions, that he supposed these books were written in Greek: for, possibly, we ourselves might upon some occasion say, that instead of " I will speak dark sayings," Matthew more closely imitating the Hebrew says: "I will utter things kept secret," without implying thereby, that he wrote in English. Nevertheless, I think it must be allowed to be probable, that in one or other of these critical remarks upon Matthew's gospel, and the epistle to the Hebrews, some expression would have fallen from our author, denoting his opinion, that those books were not written in the Greek language used by himself in his Commentaries, if he had really thought so. And I presume, I may venture to appeal to any one, whether he can think, that Eusebius writing in Greek and criticising the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews, would say the apostle followed the Seventy, if he had supposed him to have written in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. с d с (2.) It does not appear to me a clear point, that Eusebius was persuaded, that either Matthew's gospel, or the epistle to the Hebrews, was originally written in any language different from the Greek. It is true, he has mentioned several passages of ancient writers, where it is said, that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew: and a passage of Clement of Alexandria, where is also mentioned a tradition, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul in the same language, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek: and in another place Eusebius may be reckoned by some to deliver his own opinion on the same side. His words are: For Paul having written to the Hebrews in their own language, some think that the evangelist Luke, others that this very Clement translated it [into Greek]. Which last is the 'more likely, since there is a resemblance between the style of the epistle of Clement, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as between the sentiments of those writings.' But to me it seems, that these expressions cannot be relied upon, as representing Eusebius's own settled opinion: he may be as well understood even there to represent the more common accounts and traditions, without interposing his own judgment upon the point. And the critical passage, which we are now considering, may be as fairly reckoned to contain Eusebius's own opinion, as any in his works. • Διο λελεκίαι Εμείαλυνεν επ' εμε περνισμού. Αντι δε το περνισμού, παρα τοῖς ὁ ειρημένον, ή Εβραικη αναίνωσις περναν ó περιέχει. Ούτως εν δέλευσας τῳ Εβραικῳ Ακύλας εξέδωκε. Όθεν και ὁ ευαγγελισης Ιωάννης, ώς αν Εβραιος εξ Εβραίων, τον σωτηρα 8 περνισμον, αλλα και πlερναν, ωνομακέναι εμνημόνευ σε. In. Ps. p. 171. D. * Ο μεν τοί δε Εβραιος ελεξε ο κυριον είναι την λεξεως εἶεκον, όπερ και Ακύλας πεποιηκεν. Ο δε απόςολος νομομαθής ύπαρ χων εν τη προς Εβραιες τῇ των ὁ εχρησαίο. Comm. in Ps. p. ó 15. E. с L. iii. c. 39. p. 113. B. 1. v. c. 8. p. 172. C. c. 10. p. 175. C. L. vi. c. 25. p. 226. B. Conf. & l. iii. c. 24. p. 95. B. d L. vi. c. 14. ip. e L. iii. c. 38. in. (3.) Nor am I satisfied, that it was the settled opinion of many other learned Christians of those times, that the gospel of Matthew, and the epistle to the Hebrews, were written in the Hebrew tongue. If they had been persuaded of this, they would, some of them at least, have made inquiries after the originals. We have no proof that Eusebius, or any other of the Gentile Christian authors, quoted by him, or whose writings we have any where else met with, had seen any Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's gospel; nor any the least hint of a Hebrew copy of the epistle to the Hebrews to be found any where, or as used by any people whatever. Indeed, there was a Gospel called according to the Hebrews, much resembling Matthew's gospel, and in the Hebrew language: but it appears not to have been much respected by Eusebius, or any of the learned Christians whose works he was acquainted with: therefore it is manifest, they did not think it to be Matthew's original gospel. If it should be said, that the ancient Christian writers, which we have any knowledge of, were Gentiles, and did not understand Hebrew; and for that reason they might not be inquisitive after the Hebrew originals, since they had a Greek translation; I answer, that they were not at all strangers to the Hebrew language. And supposing only a very slight acquaintance with that language, and that there were but a very few only who had that, it is very likely there would have been inquiries made after the originals of those books by some, particularly by Origen and Eusebius, who were not absolute strangers either to the Hebrew language or learning. Even they who had none, or a very slight acquaintance with the Hebrew language, would have procured copies in the original language, and would have been at the pains to consult some Hebrew Christian, or even an unbelieving Jew, about the readings in them, to compare them with the copies of the Greek translations: Did not Origen in his Commentaries? Does not Eusebius in his Commentaries upon the Psalms, and Isaiah, often compare the Hebrew with the Septuagint, and other Greek translations? and that, though the Septuagint version was in great esteem. Why then should they not have done the same in regard to the gospel of Matthew, and the epistle to the Hebrews, if they had thought the original to be Hebrew? Besides, if Matthew's gospel, and the epistle to the Hebrews, had been indeed thought to have been originally written in Hebrew, it is highly probable, there would have been several Greek translations of them; whereas we know not of any attempts of this kind, excepting only the first supposed translation. Before I proceed, I would put the reader in mind, that I formerly examined the question, whether Origen thought St. Matthew's gospel to have been written in Hebrew: and that, if I mistake not, I shewed, that the same great critic did not suppose the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written in any other language than the Greek. (4.) To these observations I shall subjoin the sentiments of some learned moderns, favouring с с our argument. The very learned and laborious I. A. Fabricius was of opinion, that both Matthew's gospel, and the epistle to the Hebrews, were written in Greek. So likewise thought Lightfoot, whose judgment upon this point may be reckoned as valuable as that of most men: and Dr. Whitby in his Preface to the four gospels earnestly contends, that St. Matthew did not write in Hebrew. I would also insert here the sentiment of Beausobre, from his excellent preface to the epistle to the Hebrews. The ancients,' says he, had no other reason to believe, that St. Paul wrote in Hebrew, • than that he wrote to the Hebrews. But that reason, however probable it may appear, is not ⚫ convincing; because it is certain, that the Greek tongue was understood in Judea, though it a Vol. i. p. 573, 574. b Ib. p. 538. Græcum Matthæi interpretem Jacobum alii, alii Paulum, alii Lucam denique, vel Joannem, incertâ famâ tradiderunt; cum Matthæum ipsum Græce scripsisse, sit verius. Fabric. ad Hieron. cap. 3. de Vir. Ill. Vid. ejusd. Bib. Gr. T. iii. p. 126. dSed Græca, quæ hodie habemus, originarium esse auctoris sacri contextum argumentis non contemnendis post Calvinum probat laudatus Spanhemius, Milius-Hei deggerus Blondelluscum ex totâ antiquitate ne unus possit proferri testis, qui Hebraïcum viderit. Bib. Gr. T. iii. p. 160. • Having said that Matthew's gospel was written in Greek, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, he adds: The same is to be resolved concerning the original language of the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the mothertongue; but yet it was written in Greek for the reasons ' above named. For the same reasons the same apostle wrote in Greek to the Romans, although in that Church there 'were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin: and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proper to have written in Syriac.' Lightfoot, Vol. ii. p. 104. Préface sur l'Epitre de S. Paul aux Hébreux. sect. xv. -xviii. 'was not the vulgar tongue. All the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek, though they wrote for all believers in general, whether Hebrews or Gentiles. Barnabas, or whoever is 'the author of the Epistle under his name, wrote to the Hebrews, and yet wrote in Greek. Works composed in this language were useful to more persons, and even to a great number of Jews; for they who lived in Egypt and Asia spake Greek. In a word, they who talked of a "Hebrew original, never saw it; and have supposed without proof what they imagined ought to have been.-Indeed almost all the passages of the Old Testament are here quoted according "to the Seventy, not according to the Hebrew.-A man needs only to read the epistle to the Hebrews to know that it is not a version; it has altogether the air of an original: there is 'nothing of the constraint of a translator; nor are there those Hebrew phrases which are so 'common in the translation of the Seventy, and in that of Ecclesiasticus: for which reason we may "be willing to assent to the opinion of Origen, who judges upon this question in a manner alto'gether worthy of his moderation and discernment. "If I was to speak my own opinion, I should say, that the thoughts [or sentiments] are the apostle's, but the language and composition of 'some one else, who committed to writing the apostle's sense, and as it were reduced into commen'taries the things spoken by his master.' The style then is not the apostle's: nevertheless that 'hinders not but the Epistle may be his, as to the thoughts and matter.' So that learned writer, who also adds: What therefore seems most probable upon the question is, that St. Luke, who accompanied St. Paul, and was with him at Rome, was his secretary: he wrote the epistle for the "apostle, and according to his instructions; hence the difference of style and composition in this and the other epistles written by St. Paul alone.' b So writes Beausobre in the above-mentioned place. But since, he has said that he has beenmuch disposed to think, that Apollos, of Alexandria, wrote this epistle. However, if he was the author, that can make no alteration in the opinion about the original language of the epistle: Apollos, very probably, would write in Greek. XIII. I shall observe only a various reading or two. с 1. We find quoted in our author more than once those words of Matt. xiii. 35, from Psalm lxxviii. 2, in this manner: "I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation:" without xogus, of "the world," which is now in our copies. It is probable therefore, that this text so stood in the copies used by Eusebius: and indeed, "of the world," is not necessary. Mill has not taken any notice of this. с 2. It may be worth the while to observe, that in his Commentary upon the lxxxviithPsalm, Eusebius, quoting Luke ii. 2, does not say, Cyrenius governor of Syria," but "this". was the first survey," or enrolment, " of Cyrenius, who governed Syria. The reader, if he thinks fit, may consult what was said formerly concerning this matter, before I had observed this passage of our author. This reading is not in Mill: Eusebius's Commentary upon the Psalms was published since his time. Perhaps this ought not to be reckoned a various reading: for I do not affirm, that Eusebius had any copy of the New Testament where "governed was written; he may here only give the sense of the text. I would add, that in his Comment upon the preceeding Psalm likewise he speaks of Cyrenius, as the person by whom that survey was made, and of his coming into Judea for that purpose. 3. In the Commentary upon Ps. xvi. 1, otherwise xvii. 1, The next words are: "Attend to my cry." Which may be well used by him who is tried, and in prayer sends up supplications to God: who presents not little and common requests, nor asks of God earthly and mortal things. And this our Saviour also taught, saying: "Seek ye the great things, and • the little shall be added unto you. Compare Matt. vi. 33. Of this saying, as ascribed to our Saviour by Clement and Origen, I have spoken " formerly. This particular citation of it is not inserted in Grabe's, or other collections of such things, this Commentary of Eusebius not having been published till lately. g h |