warded by splendid victories. We do not call in question the truth of such combinations and victories, because we cannot reconcile them with divine wisdom: but, satisfied of the reality of the facts, we still confide in the Deity, and trust that the final event will not be unworthy the great Creator of all things. And as we argue in political history we argue likewise in ecclesiastical. The long history of heretics would be reduced to nothing, if we concluded, that God would never suffer what appears to us to be detrimental: and we should be obliged to deny, that the very numerous abuses, which prevailed in the Christian Church before the Reformation, had ever existed. But the disadvantages, which would arise from the circumstance, that the first accounts of Christ's ministry, were not written by Apostles, is really not so great as Dr. Masch supposes. The first verbal accounts which were communicated out of Palestine, were certainly not communicated by the Apostles: and if the first written accounts were not communicated by them, yet as long as they lived and taught, there was little danger to be apprehended from the erroneous relations of other writers. whatever inconveniences might have followed, yet as soon as the four Evangelists had written their Gospels, those inconveniences were removed. At least the former erroneous accounts could then do no greater injury, than if they had been written many years afterwards: for the credibility of an historian depends on his character and circumstances, not on the priority of his composition. And this is the reason, why our four Gospels alone have descended to posterity, while other narratives of Christ have almost totally vanished.

And,

I have no determined opinion on this subject, which I wish to support in opposition to other critics. Though I am inclined to abide by the testimony of Irenæus, because it is the most ancient which we have, I will not pretend to decide whether the words of Irenæus should be so explained, as to denote the period when St. Paul was a prisoner in Rome for the first time, or the period

4

of his second imprisonment, when he suffered martyrdom with St. Peter. If we adopt the first explanation, we may be able perhaps to assign the motive, which induced St. Matthew to write his Gospel. According to the accounts of ecclesiastical writers, it was written for the immediate use of the Hebrews, that is, of the Jewish converts to Christianity. Now these Hebrews underwent a severe persecution, during the time that St. Paul was prisoner at Rome: and this very persecution occasioned the well-known Epistle, which they received from St. Paul. What therefore could be more necessary, or more proper in that situation, than to furnish them with an authentic narrative of the miracles, and particularly of the resurrection of Christ? It is therefore not improbable that both St. Matthew's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews were written with the same intent, to confirm the faith of the Jewish converts to Christianity, and to prevent a relapse to Judaism. This supposition agrees likewise with the account which is given by an anonymous writer of the seventh century, at the beginning of his Imperfect work on St. Matthew,' usually ascribed to Chrysos

tom P.

On the other hand, if St. Matthew wrote a few years later, namely when St. Paul was prisoner for the second time in Rome, we can more easily assign a reason for it's being unknown to St. Luke, when he wrote his Gospel, for in that case St. Luke's Gospel was written before St. Matthew's 25. It is true that this supposition contradicts the commonly received opinion, that St. Matthew's is the most ancient, an opinion supported by no less authority than that of Origen 26. To

• Eusebii Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. 24. 39. Lib. V. cap. 10. Irenæus adv. Hæres. Lib. I. cap. 1. Origenis Fragm. Tom. I. commentar, in Matthæum. Epiphanius adv. Hæres. XXX. sect. 3. Dorothei Synopsis de vita prophetarum, in Biblioth. Patrum Maxima, Tom. I. p. 427.

• See Chrysost, Opera, Tom. VI. p. 11. ed, Paris.

this very ancient opinion it is supposed to be owing, that St. Matthew's Gospel is generally placed first in the Greek manuscripts; but this rule does not prevail universally, for there is a manuscript at Vienna, in which the first place is allotted to the Gospel of St. John, on account perhaps of the superior dignity of its author.

SECTION II.

Attempt to reconcile the contradictory Accounts, in respect to the Time when St. Matthew's Gospel was

written.

THOUGH according to some writers the Gospel of St. Matthew was written only eight years after the ascension, but according to others at a much later period, we may reconcile this seeming contradiction, for it is possible that both of these accounts are true. If St. Matthew's Gospel was written originally in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek, the former date may denote the time of the original composition, and the latter may relate to the year in which this Gospel first appeared in Greek. That this is the true state of the case appears to me highly probable. For, on the one hand, much may be said in favour of the account given by Irenæus, and on the other hand there is strong internal evidence for the assertion, that it was written so early as eight years after the ascension, that is, in the year 41 of the Christian era. In this In this year Herod Agrippa became king of Judea and Samaria. It may be asked then, whether St. Matthew, if he had written after the year 41, would have said, ch. ii. 1. • When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,' without distinguishing by some epithet the first and great king Herod, from the later king Herod'? If so, St. Matthew's Gospel must have been

Joseph. Archæol. XIX. 5.

written either in the beginning of the year 41, or before that year, as Pearce has already observed in his Commentary on the Evangelists. It is true that this argument applies immediately to the two first chapters only, on which a doubt is entertained whether they were written by St. Matthew. But if it proves that an addition to St. Matthew's Gospel was not written after the year 41, it will follow of course that the Gospel itself was not written later. I can see therefore no impropriety in believing that both the early and the later date, assigned to St. Matthew's Gospel, are consistent with the truth: that it was originally written in Hebrew in the beginning of the year 41, before Herod Agrippa was appointed king of Judea, but that the Greek translation of it was not made till 61, or later".

SECTION III.

Of the Original Language of St. Matthew's Gospel. Introductory Remarks to this Inquiry.

I Now come to a much controverted question, in what language St. Matthew's Gospel was originally written; whether in the Greek, which is now extant, as many modern writers contend, or in Hebrew, as all the ancient authors, who have expressly delivered their sentiments on this subject, have affirmed. By Hebrew we are not to understand at present the language, in which the books of the Old Testament are for the inost part written, but the Chaldee dialect, which was

On this account therefore it might have been unknown to St. Luke'.

spoken at Jerusalem in the time of the Apostles', and to which the ancient Fathers apply the name of Hebrew, as well as to the language spoken before the captivity.

I still retain the opinion, which I advanced in the first edition of this Introduction, that we ought to abide by the testimony of the ancients, and to assume a Hebrew original for St. Matthew's Gospel: though I acknowledge that this opinion has in some measure lost of it's certainty, since the appearance of a publication which was directed against my defence of it'. This publication, which was written by Dr. Masch, and printed at Halle in 1755, is entitled, Essay on the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel

The opinion of modern writers of the Protestant church is for the most part unfavourable to a Hebrew original. I purposely say of the Protestant church,' because the members of the church of Rome adhere in general to the opinion of the Fathers, especially Richard Simon, to whom the criticism of the New Testament is highly indebted, and who has written at profoundly learned defence of a Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel, in his Histoire critique du Texte du N. T. ch. 5, 6. Maius, in his Examen historia criticæ, cap. 5, 6. and Schröder in his dissertation De lingua Mathæi authentica, have contradicted Simon. Their objections I endeavoured to answer in the first edition; but at present I shall chiefly confine myself to

• That Chaldee was the common language spoken at Jerusalem in the time of the Apostles, I have shewn in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which I have prefixed to the Commentary on that Epistle ', § 11.

This section I added in the second edition, in consequence of the publication to which I here allude: but a later and more minute examination of the passages in Origen and Eusebius, which Dr. Masch had quoted in support of a Greek original, has really con-. firmed me in my former opinion. I leave the sentence however unaltered, that the reader may perceive, with what caution I have examined the question.