A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECT. V.

Concerning the Authors of the Books of the New Testament.

THE Gospel in the Greek Language signifies (a) Happy Tydings, but now this Word, in the common acceptation of the Church, is taken for the History of the Life of Jesus Christ; and the Name (b) of Evangelist, that was heretofore given to all those Persons that prea∣ched the Word of God, is at present only given to the four Saints that writ the four Gospels, which the Church has always owned for Canonical. We there find two Apostles, that were Eye-Witnesses of the Life and Actions of Jesus Christ; and two Disciples of the Apostles, who wrote their Gospel upon the relation of others.

The first of the four Evangelists is St. Matthew, who of a Publican became an Apostle of our Blessed Saviour: He wrote his Gospel in Jerusalem soon after the Death of Jesus Christ (c), in favour of the Jews that embraced the Christian Faith, as St. Jerome has observed. (d) For this reason he wrote in Hebrew, or rather in Syriack, according to the Testimony of Papias, St. Irenaeus, Fusebius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, and indeed of almost all the Ancients, whose positive Deter∣minations we ought not to reject, unless we have convincing Proofs to the contrary.

Therefore the Opinion of Cajetan and some others, who pretend, that the Original of St. Mat∣thew's Gospel was written in Greek, is rejected with reason by all the Learned Criticks, as being esta∣blished upon very weak Foundations. St. Jerome assures us, that in his own time he saw an Hebrew Copy of this Gospel in the Library at Caesarea, and that the Nazarenes likewise had a Copy of it in the City of Beraea, which they gave him the liberty to Transcribe; and that it was remarkable, that all the Passages out of the Old Testament, cited in this Gospel, were exactly according to the Hebrew, and not according to the Septuagint. Eusebius also tells us, that Pantaenus found a Copy of it amongst the Indians, but it is not certain, whether that was not a Copy of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which was different from that of St. Matthew. However it is, 'tis past dispute, that the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew's Gospel is lost at present; and it is equally certain, that the Hebrew Texts; that have been published in our time, are not the Original of St. Matthew (e), no more than the Syriack Version published by Widmanstadius: The Greek Version, which we have, is very ancient, and was extant even in the time of the Apostles, as St. Jerome and St. Austin have observed. We cannot tell who is the Author of it: Some Persons, as for instance, St. Athanasius in his Book En∣tituled, The Abridgment of Scripture, attribute it to St. James Bishop of Jerusalem, Theophylact to St. John; Papias says, that they Translated into Greek, as well as they could, without naming in par∣ticular any Author of that Version.

(f) The Evangelist St. Mark, the Discple and Interpreter of St. Peter, and Founder of the Church of Alexandria, seems to be different from that Mark, who is so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles of St. Paul. (g) He composed his Gospel at Rome with St. Peter, at the intreaty of the Christians residing in that City, setting down in Writing those things which he had learned from that Apostle, who also approved of his Gospel after it was composed. (h) Some late Authors imagine, that it was written in Latin, but this Opinion is contrary to St. Jerome's and St. Austin's Opinion, and indeed has no tolerable Pretences to support it, for we can no more doubt that St. Mark wrote it in Greek, than that St. Luke or St. John did theirs. He follows St. Matthew in abundance of things, and sometimes abridges him, nevertheless there are some Historical Passages which he relates more copiously, and with the addition of several Circumstances. 'Tis commonly believed, that this Gospel was written in the Forty third Year after our Saviour's Birth, and, according to the common Computation, Ten Years after his Death, but this is not certain. St. Jerome observes, that the last Chapter of this Gospel is to be found but in very few Copies, and that almost all the Greeks reject it. Wherefore, says he, one may reject it, particularly because it seems to relate some things contrary to the account we have of them in the other Evangelists. And in his second Book against the Pelagians, he cites a Passage that was inserted into this Chapter, and contained the Error of the Manichees: It plainly proceeds from this addition, that in most of the Copies of St. Mark, this Chapter was entirely left out; for as for the rest, it is cited by St. Irenaeus, and several others, and contains nothing that cannot be reconciled with ease to the Accounts given by the other Evangelists.

St. Luke was of Antioch, the Metropolitical City of Syria. (i) He was a Physician by Profession, and very well skilled in the Greek Tongue; (k) he was not an Apostle or Disciple of Jesus Christ, but was a Disciple or Follower of St. Paul, whom he accompanied in his Voyages. He himself tells us, says Eusebius, in the beginning of his Gospel, the reason of his writing, for many Persons having rashly undertaken to write the Evangelick History, he thought himself obliged to rescue it out of

ill Hands, after he had been exactly informed of all the Occurrences by those that were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word, that is to say, by the Apostles, and particularly by St. Paul. 'Tis ima∣gined, that the Apostle speaks of this Gospel, when he says, according to my Gospel, and that he meant St. Luke when he wrote this passage. The Brother whose praise is in the Gospel in all Churches, Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias. St. Jero•••• observes, that ••e wrote his Gospel travelling along with St. Paul, when he was in Ach••i•• and B••otia, towards the second year of Nero, and the fifty sixth of Jesus Christ. The same Father assures us, that he always continued unmarried, and that he lived Fourscore and four years. He is also the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, which Book contains the History of the Church from the Ascension of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Blessed Savio•••• to the fourth year of Nero, du∣ring the space of 29 or 30 years.

St. John the Evangelist of the City of Bethsaid•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Galilee, was the Son of Zebedee, and was called to the Apostleship when he was very young. St. Jerome and Tertullian affirm, that he continued in the state of Celibacy all his Life-time. He was the dearly beloved Disciple of Jesus Christ, and 'tis supposed, that he speaks of himself, when he says, the Disciple whom Jesus loved: But though this were not to be thus understood, yet the tenderness which Jesus Christ had for him, sufficiently ap∣pear'd in the last Supp••••, when he placed him in his Bosom, and in his last words to his Mother, Woman behold thy Son. After the de••cent of the Holy Ghost, he went and preached the Gospel in Asia▪ where he founded and governed the Churches for a long time, being Bishop of Ephesus, the Me••ropolis of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He was condemned at Rome by the Emperor Domitian to be thrown into a Vessel of burning Oyl, but he came out, says Tertullian, more vigorous and strong than when he entred in at first. He was banished afterwards into the Isle of Patmos, where, as 'tis generally supposed, he wrote his Revelation. After the death of Domitian he came back to Ephesus, and there wrote his Gospel, about an hundred years after the Birth of our Blessed Saviour. St. Jerome reports, that he was engaged in this Work by the other Bishops and Christians of Asia, who obliged him to write his Gospel▪ to confound the Errors of Cerinthus and E••ion, who said, that Jesus Christ was a meer Man, and that He had no being before He was born of the Virgin Mary. The same Father adds, that he had yet another reason to write his Gospel after others, for having read the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, he observed, that they only concerned themselves to write the History of one year of our Blessed Saviour's Life, namely, from the imprisonment of St. John, down to the Death of our Saviour, which made him resolve to give an account of the most conside∣rable things that occurred in the preceding years. He has likewise written three Epistles. The first, of which no Man ever doubted, is directed to the Faithful, and particularly to the Parthians, if we may believe St. Austin, and some other ancient Writers, that is to say, to all the Faithful dispersed in Persia, which at that time was under the Domination of the Parthians. We don't certainly know the time or place where it was written. The two others were directed to particular Persons, one to a Lady called Electa, the other to Gai••s. They only carry the name of an Elder or Priest; which has made some People of opinion, that they were written by another St. John, as Eusebius and St. Jerome observe. But the Stile, the Spirit, and Thoughts of these Epistles, together with the concurring Au∣thority of most of the Fathers, make it evident, that they belong to this Evangelist. There is a greater difficulty about the Apocalypse, the stile of which Book appears to be different from the rest, and which several of the Ancients rejected, or attributed to another St. John: but the most received opinion is, that it was written by the Evangelist. The Stile of St. John is simple, and has little elo∣quence in it, but his Thoughts are very losty. He lived till the time of Trajan, not dying till the 68th year after the Passion of our Blessed Saviour.

St. Paul descended of the Tribe of Benjamin, and born in the City of Tarsus, came up to Jerusalem, and there became the Disciple of Gamaliel, a famous Pharisee. He was converted to the faith of Jesus Christ in that miraculous manner which is set down in the Acts of the Apostles; he afterwards changed his name of Saul into that of Paul, after he had openly Converted and Baptized the Proconsul Sergius Paulus. The History of his Travels and Preaching, down to his first imprisonment at Rome, is writ∣ten by St. Luke in the Acts. We don't certainly know, what he did after his enlargement; some of the Ancients were of opinion, that he went into Spain, but this is very uncertain, and the contrary seems to be the more probable. Be that as it will, 'tis certain, that he was beheaded afterwards at Rome for his Religion, by Nero's Command, towards the 64th year of the common computation. He has written 14 Epistles, all which, Antiquity has own'd to be Genuine and Canonical, excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning which there has been formerly some doubt, and some Persons have supposed, that it was written in Hebrew. They are not rank'd in the New Testament according to the order of time, which nevertheless is very necessary to be known.

The Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth, as Origen proves by several reasons; for first of all it was sent by Phaebe Servant of the Church at Cenchrea from Corinth. Secondly, St. Paul calls Caius his Host, with whom he tarried at Corinth, as we may see in the First Epistle to the Corin∣thians, chap. 14. Thirdly, in the Salutations, that are to be found towards the end of this Epistle, we find the Names of those who departed from Corinth to go to Jerusalem, as it is said in the 20th Chapter of the Acts. It was therefore written at the time, when St. Paul, having gathered the Con∣tributions of Macedonia, and Achaia, went to visit Jerusalem in the 57th year of Jesus Christ. From whence St. Chrysostom concludes, that it was written after both the Epistles to the Corinthians, in which he exhorts the Faithful to this Charitable Contribution.

Nevertheless they were not written much before: For the first was written from Ephesus, as it ap∣pears, ch. 16. v. 8. (and not from Philippi, as some Greek Inscriptions observe) in the absence of Timothy.

The second was written from Macedonia after his return. In some Copies it is said, that it was writ∣ten from Philippi, in others from Nicopolis.

That to the Galatians is yet older than the two Epistles to the Corinthians. It was written from Ephesus, at the time when St. Paul taught in the School of one Sirnamed Tyrannus in the beginning of the year 56. It is observed in some Greek Copies, that it was written from Rome, but this is not probable, because he does not there speak concerning his Chains, as he does in his Epistle to the Ephe∣sians, where he mentions them in Three several places.

This Epistle therefore was written towards the 62d year of our Lord, as well as that to the Philip∣pians, and that other which is directed to the Christians of Colossae, a City of Phrygia near Hierapoli•• and Laodicea.

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians seem to be the earliest, if we follow the Chronological order. It is probable, that the first was written towards the year 52; for after St. Paul had converted many Christians at Thessalonica, as it is observed in the Acts, ch. 9. v. 7. he sent Timothy thither, who being come to find him at Corinth, informed him of their Affairs, as it is observed in the third Chapter of this Epistle, which was consequently written in the year 52. The second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written soon after, and from the same place.

The first Epistle to Timothy was written after he was ordained Bishop, when St. Paul was freed from his Chains in the sixty third year of our Blessed Saviour. The second Epistle was written from Rome, when St. Paul was twice imprisoned there, a little before his Martyrdom. The Epistle to Titus was written about the same time with the first Epistle to Timothy. That to Philemon was written at the time of his first imprisonment at Rome. And to conclude, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written likewise about this time, since it is there observed, ch. 13. v. 23. that Timothy was delivered. Some of the Fathers, as Caius, and Hippolytus, and the ancient Church of Rome, have rejected this Epistle. Others attribute it to St. Barna••as, some to St. Clement, and some to St. Luke; but however (p) the most prevailing opinion is, that it was written by St. Paul. St. Jerome seems to accommodate these differences, by saying, that the thoughts belong to St. Paul, but that the words and composition are either St. Barnabas's or St. Luke's, or rather St. Clement's, who diligently collected whatever he learn'd from his Master. Those ancient Writers that attribute it to St. Paul, say, that it was written in Hebrew, that is to say, in Syriack (q), being written by an Hebrew to the Hebrews. Some of the Moderns pretend it was written in Greek, but to this Authority of the Ancients, they oppose no∣thing but frivolous weak Conjectures, which are too weak to biass any Man.

The Epistles that follow those of St. Paul, are called General, because, if we except the two last of St. John, they are not directed to the Faithful of one City, as those of St. Paul are, but to Christi∣ans dispersed in several Countries.

The Epistle of St. James was not written by James the Son of Zebedee the Brother of John, but by St. James the Brother of St. Jude the Apostle, and (r) Cousin of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, and Bishop of Jerusalem. For it cannot belong to the other St. James, since it is directed to Chri∣stians out of Judea, whereas he suffer'd Martyrdom, before the Gospel was preached in any other place than Judea.

St. Peter the chief of the Apostles has written two Epistles; the first that has been received as Ca∣nonical by all the Ancients (s) was written from Babylon. Some of the Ancients were of opinion, that the City of Rome was meant by this name, but the Sense is not natural. We cannot precisely assign the time when it was written, but certain it is, that it was sent, after the Disciples of Jesus Christ were called Christians at Antioch, that is to say, at least nine years after the Death of our Bles∣sed Saviour; for the name of Christians is to be found there in the fourth Chapter. Now if thou art called a Christian. Si autem Christianus cognominaris. It is also probable, that it was written after St. Peter's being delivered out of Prison, A. D. 44. for until that time he continued for the most part in Judea. Some believe, that it was written towards the end of his Life, because it does not seem to have been written long before the second Epistle, but this is not certain: One may say, that it was written at Babylon in the 45th year of Jesus Christ.

The second was probably written towards the end of his Life, because he there testifies, that he expected Death very suddenly, ch. 1. v. 14. Some of the Fathers have doubted, whether this Letter was written by St. Peter, because the stile of it is so extremely different from that of the former, as St. Jerome observes, but St. Peter discovers himself so plainly and openly there, that we cannot with the least colour or pretence attribute it to any body else.

St. Jude the Apostle the Brother of James and Simon the Son of Alpheus, Sirnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, wrote the Epistle, that carries his Name, after the Death of most of the Apostles, as he te∣stifies when he exhorts the Christians to contend earnestly for the Faith, which was once delivered to them by the Apostles. He imitates and follows the thoughts and design of the second Epistle of St. Pe∣ter, and even inserts some of his words into his own.

NOTES.

(a) THE Gospel signifies in Greek happy tidimgs.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is derived from the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that signifies well, and the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that signi∣fies to tell. 'Tis to be found in Homer and Xeno∣phon, but in another sense, viz. 'tis taken for the recompence which is given a Man for carrying good news. Tully has used this term in this sence in one of his Epistles to Atticus.

(b) The word Evangelist, that was heretofore given to all those that preached the Word of God.] Act. 21. v. 18. Philip is called an Evangelist. St. Paul in his 2d Epistle to Timothy, ch. 4 v. 5. be∣seeches that Bishop to do the work of an Evange∣list. Opus fac Evangelistae.

(c) Soon after the death of our Blessed Saviour.] This is the opinion of St. Jerome, and St. Epipha∣nius, who say, that he composed his Gospel, be∣fore he went to preach to the Gentiles. St. Ire∣naeus, l. 3. c. 1. seems to say the contrary, when he assures us, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and in the Language of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church of Rome: But these words are not to be understood in the literal sence.

(d) For this reason he wrote it in Hebrew, or rather in Syriack.] Papias cited by Eusebius, l. 3. of his History, Chapter the last. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. St. Jerome in his Preface to the Evangelists, in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and in several other places. Eusebius, l. 3. c. 18. the Au∣thor of the Work upon St. Matthew attributed to St. Chrysostome, St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 29. & 57. The Author of the Abridgment of Scripture, at∣tributed to St. Athanasius. St. Cyril, Catech. 14. St. Austin, l. 1. de Consensu Evangel. cap. 2. testifie, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in Hebrew, that is to say, in Syriack. St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome say, that it was written in the Language of the Country, which was the Chal∣dee or Syriack Tongue mixt with Hebrew words, which is commonly called the Hebrew Tongue in the New Testament. St. Jerome tells us plain∣ly, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in this Tongue, for in his Commentary upon the 12th Chapter of this Gospel, he says, that some Persons were of opinion, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the Original Hebrew of St. Mat∣thew; and in his second Dialogue against the Pelagians, he says, that the Gospel of the Na∣zarenes was written in Chaldee or Syriack with Hebrew Characters. Those that are of the contrary opinion, who maintain, that St. Mat∣thew wrote it originally in Greek, as Grotius well observes, reject the unanimous Consent of the Ancients without any appearance of Reason. Let us for once examine the Conjectures of a certain Author, that is of this opinion: He says, that the words Emanuel, Eli, Lamma Sabactha∣ni, Aceldama, and other Syriack Terms are ex∣plained there; but this does not at all prove, that this Gospel was not written in Syriack, for otherwise we ought to say, that several Books of the Old Testament were not written in Hebrew, because even in those Books we have the Hebrew Terms explained after the same manner; for ex∣ample, Gen. 31. v. 49. Galaad, id est t•…•…us te∣stis, 35. v. 18. Be••••••i, id est, filius dol••ris mei; Exod. 12. v. 11. Pesach, id est, transitus Domini; and 16. v. 15. Manhu quod significat quid est hoc. These Explications are not to be found in the Hebrew, but have been added by the Interpre∣ter; and we ought to make the same judgment of these passages in St. Matthew. They pretend still, that these Fathers never saw the Original of St. Matthew, that they said it was Hebrew, on∣ly because the Gospel of the Nazarenes was in Hebrew, which is extremely different from that of St. Matthew. To this it is answered, 1. That we cannot say this of the most ancient Fathers, as Papias, St. Irenaeus, &c. 2. That although the Gospel of the Nazarenes was different from that of St. Matthew, yet it might very well be taken from the Original of St. Matthew, in which the Hereticks had infected, and altered abundance of things.

(e) No more than the Syriack Version.] It is an easie matter to shew this, because the Hebrew or Syriack words that are cited in the Greek of St. Matthew's Gospel are different from those of the Syriack, in the 27th Chapter in stead of Ha∣celdama, he has Agurascadema; in stead of Cephos, he has Cepho; for Eli, Il; for Golgotha, Golgoutho; for Jaacob, Jaacoub; for Joseph, Joouseph. We likewise find there abundance of Greek words terminated after the Syriack manner, which makes it evident, that it was a Grecian that Translated the Greek of St. Matthew into Syriack, and not the Original it self of St. Matthew.

(f) The Evangelist St. Mark seems to be a dif∣ferent person from that Mark, who is so often men∣tioned in the Acts, &c.] He, of whom mention is made in the Acts, ch. 12. v. 12. and in ch. 15. v. 37, and 39, was Sirnamed John the Son of Mary. There is likewise mention made of one Mark the Cousin of Barnabas, Colo••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. v. 10. 'Tis very probable he is the same with the former, but the Evangelist in all appearance is a different Person: for besides that he was not Sirnamed John, he was the Disciple of St. Peter, and atten∣ding upon him, at the same time that the other was with St. Paul: he was likewise at Alexandria at the time when the other was with St. Paul: at Rome. Some think, that St. Mark the Evangelist was one of the Seventy two Disciples, but this is not certain enough to be relied upon; It is more probable, that he was converted to the Faith by St. Peter, who calls him his Son, and whose Dis∣ciple and Interpreter he was.

(g) He composed his Gospel when he was at Rome.] This is the opinion of all the Ancients.

Papias in Eusebius, l. 2. c. 15. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. St. Clement cited by St. Jerome, Tertullian, l. 4. Contra Marcionem, Eusebius, St. Jerome, &c. St. Irenaeus tells us, that it was written after the death of St. Peter, others on the contrary unani∣mously affirm, that it was written whilst he was living, and that he approved of it. Upon this account several Persons have called it the Gospel of St. Peter, as Tertullian observes.

(h) Some modern Authors imagine, that it was written in Latin.] Baronius adann. Chr. 45. n. 14. and those that follow him without farther consi∣deration are of this opinion, but after all it's a Problem that cannot be maintained. St. Jerome in Epist. 125. to Damasus, expresly tells us, that all the New Testament, except St. Matthew's Go∣spel, was written in Greek. And St. Austin, lib. de Consensu Evang. c. 2. tell us, that all the four Evangelists, except St. Matthew, wrote in Greek. The Latin St. Mark which we now have, is cer∣tainly a Translation of the Greek.

(i) St. Luke a Physician by profession.] St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colos. Luke the beloved Physician greets you. Nicephorus, l. 2. c. 43. of his History affirms, that he was an excellent Painter, and some People say, that he drew the Picture of the Virgin Mary, but these are fictions.

(k) He was neither of the number of the Apo∣stles, nor of the Disciples.] This is certainly true, because he tells us, that what he wrote, he learnt from others. St. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 2. St. Jerome up∣on ch. 65. of Isaiah, St. Austin, and several others positively say, that he was not a Disciple of Je∣sus Christ. They are only some few modern Authors, that are pleased to bestow this Chara∣cter upon him.

(l) Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ec∣clesias.] We cannot certainly tell, whether the word Evangelium in this place signifies a Book of the Gospel, or whether we are not rather to un∣derstand it thus, The Brother who deserves praise for having preached the Gospel. That which fol∣lows afterwards, and who was ordained to be the Companion of our Travels, made Baronius believe, that it is Silas, of whom we are to understand this passage. But St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose in his Preface upon St. Luke do understand it of this Evangelist.

(m) He afterwards changed his name of Saul for that of Paul, after having converted and bap∣tized the Proconsul Sergius Paulus.] The Author of the one and thirtieth Sermon, attributed to St. Ambrose, tells us, that he changed his name at his Baptism, but this is but a groundless fancy, for in his time they gave no name to any body at their Baptism. Others say, that he changed his name; when he changed his profession; and some pretend to affirm, that he had two Names. The most probable opinion is, that he took the name of Paul after the conversion of Sergius Paulus, for till that time he is constantly called Saul in the Acts of the Apostles, and afterwards he is always called by the name of Paul. It was the custom of the Romans to give their own names to others in testimony of friendship; Josephus for example re∣ceived the name of Flavius from the Emperor Vespasian by way of Honour: [Or rather, because having been once his Prisoner, he set him at Li∣berty: it being usual for freed Men, to take their Patrons Praenomen.]

(n) Some Authors pretend, that he went into Spain, but this is very uncertain.] St. Athanasius in his Epistle to Dracontius, St. Cyril, Cat. 17. St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 27. St. Chrysostome in Ep. ad Hebr. and in Matth. 76, and Homil. de laud. Pauli, Theodoret in Ep. ad Timot. c. ult. Hier. in 11. Is. Greg. moral. l. 3. c. 22. Isidore, Bede, Ado, &c. are of this opinion. All these Authors lived after the third Century, but before that time nothing is written concerning it, and besides they don't speak of it as a certain thing, but only as a probable conjecture. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 15. v. 24. promises, that he would go into Spain, but though it follows from thence, that he had a design of going thither, yet we cannot ra∣tionally conclude, that he was ever there. Pope Gelatius, and Innocent the first tell us, that he did not perform that promise, and it is very cer∣tain, that the Gospel was preached somewhat la∣ter on this side the Alpes.

(o) In the year 61 according to the vulgar com∣putation.] All Authors are agreed, that St. Paul was beheaded at Rome, but however they are not agreed about the year. Some of them tell us, that he suffered Martyrdom with St. Peter, others place it a year, and some two years, lower; some pretend, that this happened in the last year of Nero's Reign, which was the sixty eighth of our Blessed Saviour; but most Men think, that St. Peter and St. Paul suffered Mar∣tyrdom at the time of Nero's Persecution, which began in the fourth year of that Empe∣ror, after the burning of Rome, Anno Dom. 63. and therefore according to this account these two Princes of the Apostles suffered Martyrdom in the 64th year of the Vulgar Aera.

(p) The most received opinion is, that it was written by St. Paul.] This opinion seems to be the most probable. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to St. Barnabas, having a dif∣ferent Title from that of this Apostle. There is no reason to attribute it to S. Luke. The style and the thoughts very much resemble those of St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians: and upon this account I am apt to believe, that we ought to attribute the Composition or Tran∣slation of it rather to him than any other, al∣though it is written in the name of St. Paul, and by that Apostle: for it was written at Rome by a Person that enjoyed his liberty, and who had Timothy for his Collegue. These three Cha∣racters shew plainly, that it was written by St. Paul, who did not put his name to it for fear of offending the Jews, who were prejudi∣ced against him. Grotius believes, that it was written after the taking of Jerusalem, because it is observed, says he, in the third Chapter, that there were certain Christians, who supposed the Day of Judgment was very near; an Opi∣nion that was not common till after Jerusa∣lem was taken, but this is a bare conjecture up∣on weak grounds. St. Jerome answers the usual Objection about the diversity of stile, that is al∣ledged to prove, that this Epistle was not writ∣ten by St. Paul, by saying, that it was occasio∣ned either by him that composed it under St.

Pa••d, or else by the Interpreter. [But i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lowth's Opinion be true, the Controversy must be a•• an end: For in his Vindication of the Authority of the H. Scriptures against the five Letters published by the Answerers of Mr. Simon, p. 24. He says, that St. Peter quotes the 37th Verse of the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the 15th Verse of the 2d Chapter of his 2d Epistle, where he says that St. Paul often said those things which the unlearned and unsta∣ble wrest as well as the other Scriptures to their own destruction.]

(q) In Hebrew to the Hebrews.] St. Cle∣mens Alexandrinus is of another opinion, as also St. Jerome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and several o∣thers. Estius and some of the moderns believe, that it was written in Greek, 1. because the Scrip∣tures there cited follow the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew; 2. because there is no probability that the Copy should be lost. These reasons are exceeding weak, for suppose the Citations are not to be charged upon the Interpreter, yet, why might not St. Paul, when he was writing in the Syriack Tongue, translate the Septuagint into that Language, rather than cite the He∣brew Text▪ since the Septuagint was more fa∣miliar to him? This may serve by way of an∣swer to the first Reason. The second is yet weaker, for why might not the Hebrew Copy of this Epistle be lost, as well as the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew?

(r) But of St. James the Brother of the A∣postle St. Jude, and Co••sin of our Blessed Saviour.] This ••ames is he, that is called in the Gospel the Son of Alpheus, for there were but two in all: He is called the Brother of our Lord, ei∣ther because he was the Son of Joseph by ano∣ther Wife, or because he was very nearly related to him.

(s) It was written from Babylon.] Euse∣bius, l. 2. c. 5. of his History says, that it is Rome that St. Peter calls Babylon in this place. Some have thought that Papias and St. Clement, ci∣ted by Eusebius, were of this opinion, but he does not cite them upon this Subject. St. Je∣rome received this opinion from Eusebius, and carried it farther with strong Reasons. Tho▪ after all this Interpretation is false, and it is more natural to say, that he wrote this Epistle from Babylon.

(t) St. Peter discovers himself so plainly there, that we cannot with the least colour attribute it to any other Author.] The Author of this Epi∣stle tells us, that he was with Jesus Christ up∣on the Mountain, he calls St. Paul his Brother, and makes himself Author of a former Epistle written to the same Persons. Now all this a∣grees very well to St. Peter, and it is visible, that he, who composed it, was no Impostor. The Character of this Epistle is perfectly Apo∣stolical, and the Style is not sensibly different from that of the first.