that time. The Gospel by Luke, was probably written a short time before; at least, this seems to be the common opinion of learned men. Jerome supposes that he composed his Gospel at Rome; Grotius thinks, that when Paul left Rome, Luke went into Greece, and there wrote his Gospel and the Acts.

From the introduction to Luke's Gospel, it would seem, that he knew nothing of any authentic written Gospel at that time; for he cannot be supposed to refer to such when he says, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us;" and if he had known that Matthew had written a Gospel, he could not easily have avoided some reference to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner from this fact, that no authentic gospel had been written before this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant to all the testimony which we have on the subject. The Gospel of Matthew might have been circulating for some time among the churches in Judea, and yet not be known to Luke, whose labours and travels led him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile countries and cities. If we pay any regard to the opinions of those who lived nearest the times of the apostles, we must believe, that the Gospel of Matthew was first written, and in the vernacular dialect of Judea, commonly called Hebrew. The writer of this Gos

pel is also called Levi, the son of Alpheus. He was a Galilean, by nation, and a Publican by profession. When called to follow Christ, he was sitting at the receipt of custom, where the taxes were paid, but he immediately left all these temporal concerns, and attached himself to Christ, who afterwards selected him as one of the Twelve. From this time, he seems to have been constantly with Christ until his crucifixion, of which event he was doubtless a witness; as he was also of the resurrection and ascension of his Lord. On the day of Pentecost, he was present with his brethren, and partook of the rich spiritual endowments, which were then bestowed on the apostles. But, afterwards, there is no explicit mention of him in the New Testament. In his own catalogue of the Twelve, his name occupies the eighth place, as it does in the Acts; but in the lists of the apostles, contained in the Gospels of Luke and Mark, it occupies the seventh place.

There is an almost total obscurity resting on the history of this Apostle and Evangelist. The scene of his labours, after he left Judea, seems to have been in regions of which we possess very little accurate information to this day. But whether he had Parthia and Persia, or Ethiopia, for the field of his apostolical labours, the ancients are not agreed. It is by no means impossible that he should have preached the gospel, and planted churches, in each

of these countries.

The historian Socrates, in his distribution of the apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns Ethiopia to Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India to Bartholomew.

The testimony of EUSEBIUS is as follows: "This then was the state of the Jews, but the apostles and disciples of our Lord, being dispersed abroad, preached in the whole world-Thomas in Parthia; Andrew in Sythia; John in Asia, who having lived there a long time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews, in Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at length, coming to Rome, he was there crucified, with his head turned down towards the earth, at his own request. Paul also died a martyr at Rome, as we are informed by Origen, in the third Tome of his work on Genesis.” But Eusebius makes no mention of the apostle Matthew; nor does JEROME, in his account of Illustrious Men.

CLEMENT of Alexandria, mentions a circumstance of this apostle's mode of life, but nothing more; he says, "That he was accustomed to use a very spare diet, eating vegetables, but no flesh."

CHRYSOSTOM, in one of his Homilies, gives the character of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts.

It is probable, therefore, that very little was known in the West, respecting the lives, labours, and death of those Apostles who travelled far to the

East. None of them, it is probable, ever returned; and there existed no regular channels for the communication of intelligence from those distant regions. The honour of martyrdom has been given to them all; and the thing is not improbable: but there are no authentic records from which we can derive any certain information on this subject. The Fathers, whose writings have come down to us, seem to have been as much in the dark as we are, respecting the preaching and death of the majority of the apostles. There are, it is true, traditions in Ethiopia and the East, in regard to some of them, but they are too uncertain to deserve any serious consideration.

I

SECTION IV.

TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL-TIME OF PUBLICATION-LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY COM

POSED.

*

BUT while we know so little of the apostolical labours of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that the testimonies respecting the genuineness of his gospel, are so early and full. To these we will now direct our attention.

PAPIAS, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquainted with the apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew's gospel; and asserts, "That he wrote the divine oracles in Hebrew."

IRENEUS, bishop of Lyons, who was born in Asia, and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, gives the following testimony: "Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome . . . And after their decease, Mark, also the disciple of Peter, delivered to us the things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book, the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, who leaned on his Lord's breast, published a gospel for the inhabitants of Asia."