expressed in the view and profpect 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 Matt. xxi. 33-46. xxii. 1-7. Mark xii. 1-12. Luke xiii. 1-9. xx. 9-20. xxi. 5-13. In none of all which places does there. appear any intimation, that the things fpoken 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, Spoken of by Daniel the prophet, fland in the holy place (whofo readeth, let bim 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 boufe. Neither let him which is in the field, return back to take his clothes. And what follows. And to the like purpose in Mark xiii. 14-16. When these 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 thefe 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, underftand. And indeed it must have been difficult and hazardous to publifh fuch things in writing. How offenfive thefe fayings must have been to the Jewish people, and perhaps to fome others likewife, is easy 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 priests, and the fcribes, 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 Spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take bold 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 witneffes, this was one, that be faid: I am able to defroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days, Matt. xxvi. 61. With this he was reproached likewile,

D 4

likewife, when hanging on the cross, ch. 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 fhall 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 repeat 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 ftate: yea, very probably, they had often repeated these things to attentive hearers. But fpeaking and writing are different: and I apprehend, it could not have been fafe, nor prudent, to record thefe predictions (many of which are very plain, and all intelligible) foon after our Lord's afcenfion.

Thefe prophecies therefore of our Lord, as recorded in the first three golpels, afford at once an argument, that they were written and published 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 fhowing the true Time of writing the Gospels, taken from the Acts, and the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.

NONE can fuppofe that the book of the Acts of the apostles was compofed before the year 62, or 63, as the history is there brought down to the period of St. Paul's two years' imprifonment at Rome.

And, very probably, the gospel, to which St. Luke refers at the beginning of that book, had not been written long before. This I fuppofe to be now the common opinion of learned men. And for giving the greatest fatisfaction to all my readers, I fhall tranfcribe below at large the fentiments of feveral to this purpofe, fuch as that of the late Mr. Jones, and

and Eftius, & Mill, Dodwell, and 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 fuppofeth, that when Paul left Rome, he went into Spain: and that at the fame time Luke went into Greece, and there wrote both his gofpel and the Acts. Jerom fuppofeth, that the book of the Acts was written 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' imprisonment at Rome.

This one confideration, fo far as I am able to judge, overthrows the opinion, that St. Luke's gospel was written about fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion. Yea, it evidently fhows, that it was not written 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 written fooner: for this evangelift knew nothing of them. Confequently, they were not then written

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 IV. ch. xvi. vol. III. p. 158. See him alfo ch. xi. p. 115.

Deinde, nec fatis conftat, Evangelium Lucæ jam tum editum fuiffe, quando Paulus hanc epiftolam fcrip

Nam Acta quidem Apoftolica fcripfiffe videtur ftatim poft Evangelium, tanquam ejufdem voluminis libros primum et fecundum. Scripfit autem Acta pot 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.

Voluminis hujus D. Lucæ partem poiteriorem, feu λoyov deutɛpov quod attinet, librum dico Actuum Apoftolorum, haud dubium eft.... quin is fcriptus fit ftatim poft λoyov parc, five Evangelium. Mill. Prol.

num. 121.

Sunt enim Acta deuregos ejufdem operis λoyos, cujus πрwтоv λoyov ipfe fuum agnofcit Evangelium. A&t. i. 1. Dodw. Diff. Iren. i. num. xxxix.

h Non multum vero interjectum fuiffe temporis inter Actorum Apoftolicorum et Evangelii confectionem, conje&tura ex præfatione ad Theophilum duci poteft. Primum quidem librum confeci.... Actuum ergo liber continuatio eft, feriefque Evangelii,... Multum vero abiisse temporis antequam a priore libro omnibus numeris expleto ad pofteriorem tranfiret Lucas, nulla ratione cogimur ad credendum, &c. Bafnag. Ann. 60. num. xxviii.

i 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, Româ iiffe Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Grot. Pr. in Evang. Lucæ.

* See vol. V. p. 39.

and

and published, or, but lately; every word of his introduction fhows 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 also, having bad perfect underStanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus: that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast 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 moft 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 those narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not falfe and fabulous, nor heretical but they were defective.

Grotius fays, the " 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 the ancient Chriftians, to feveral of whom the Greek language was natural, understood the word differently. And their judgments must be of value in this cafe. Origen's obfervations upon St. Luke's introduction may be seen, vol. II. p. 503, 504. 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 diftinguisheth the four evangelifts from the

Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commode præftitiffe: minime tamen, opinor, fabulofas, immo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefiæ, 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.

in Eдεxinлav. 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.

writers,

n

writers, referred to by St. Luke. To the like purpose » Ambrofe, who either copied, or closely imitated Origen. And, fays Eufebius, Luke at the beginning affigns the reason of 'his writing, declaring, that whereas many others had rafhly 'undertaken to compofe relations of the things which were most 'firmly believed, he therefore thought himself obliged, in 'order to divert us from the uncertain relations of others, to deliver in his gospel a certain account of thofe things, of 'which he was fully affured.' Which paffage was transcribed by us formerly. And Epiphanius, whom I now place below, plainly affixed a difadvantageous meaning to this word. Beaufobre readily allows, that we ought to follow the ancients in their interpretation of this word, and to suppose that St. Luke here fpeaks of fome attempts, and effays, that had not been well executed.

This may be sufficient to fatisfy us, that St. Luke does not fpeak 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 Theo'philus in writing a diftinct and particular hiftory of Jesus 'Chrift; that he might better know, and be more fully con'firmed in the truth of thofe things, in which he had been 'inftructed by word of mouth.'

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

St. Epiphane ne l'a pas entendu autrement. Origene de même, ans fa preface fur S. Luc. et après lui la plupart des Interprêtes Grecs. Quand il s'agit de la fignification des termes Grecs, et que les auteurs Grecs, qui les expliquent, n'ont aucun interet 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 Evangeliftis. Diff. Îren. i. num. xxxix.

Confequently,