stance is by no means a critical one: and therefore if he had possessed the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew in its utmost purity, we need not be surprised, if he had not appealed to it. Immediately after the sentence which Dr. Masch has quoted from Origen's Commentary, and which I have given in a preceding paragraph, Origen writes as follows. I have discovered, through the assistance of God, a method of correcting the dif ferences in the copies of the Old Testament, and have used the other editions as a criterion. When I found variations in the copies of the Septuagint, I examined the readings of the other editions, and retained those which they confirmed. Some readings which were not in the Hebrew, I marked with an obelus, not venturing wholly to reject them. Other readings I marked with an asterisk, namely such as were not in the Septuagint, but which I added from the other editions, because they were confirmed by the Hebrew. Now since Origen relates this in the very place where he examines whether Matth. xix. 19. be genuine, and yet has not recourse to the same critical method of determining the question, as he had applied in the Septuagint, it appears that he was not inclined, at least not at that time, to undertake the same laborious task in respect to St. Matthew's Gospel, as he had undertaken in regard to the Greek version of the Old Testament. He plainly distinguishes the critical from the exegetical examination of a reading: he shews from his own example relative to the Old Testament, in what manner critical inquiries must be conducted, and then concludes. Shall we infer therefore that in Origen's opinion St. Matthew's Gospel was not written in Hebrew, because he did not appeal to it? I think not: but I leave it to the reader, to draw that inference which he thinks the most probable".

2. There is another passage in Origen's works, which Dr. Masch considers as still more decisive than that which I have already examined: namely, in Origen's

Homily on the Preface of St. Luke's Gospel. Here Origen discovers in the word ETEɣepnaav a tacit censure, on the part of St. Luke, of those who had written Gospels before bun, a censure inapplicable to men inspired by the Holy Spirit, and observes: Matthew did not take in hand, but wrote by the instigation of the Holy Spirit: in like manner Mark, and John, as also Luke. But they who composed the Gospel, intitled, the Gospel of the Twelve, took in hand. Now since Jerom relates that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, which was the same as that which is known by the name of 'The Gospel of the Twelve,' was called likewise by many the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, Dr. Masch considers the passage just quoted as a proof that Origen expressly rejected the Hebrew Gospel ascribed to St. Matthew, and that he opposed it to the inspired Greek Gospel. But this is more than I can admit: for though Origen rejects the Gospel, called the Gospel of the Twelve, and opposes it to inspired Gospels, it by no means follows that he rejected therefore St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, unless it can be proved that in Origen's opinion the Hebrew Gospel, of which he spake, was the very same as that which St. Matthew had written 10. As far as relates to the present instance, it is of no consequence what others thought of the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, but what Origen himself thought of it: and it is not improbable that, though Origen believed St. Matthew had written in Hebrew, (for he has expressly declared it) he did not believe that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes, was the same as St. Matthew's Gospel. Or if he believed it to have been originally the same, yet in consequence of the many alterations and additions,

Dr. Masch quotes from Simon Hist. Crit. des Commentateurs du N. T. ch. v. p. 82. where Simon has quoted the passage from Greek manuscripts.-It has been since published in the Benedictine edition of Origen's works, Vol. III. p. 932.

which had been made in it, he might have thought proper to distinguish it from the genuine uncorrupted Gospel of St. Matthew".

3. Dr. Masch produces a passage from Eusebius's Commentary on the Psalms, from which he says, this ecclesiastical writer manifestly signifies that in his opinion St. Matthew wrote in Greek". Eusebius namely in his Annotation on Psalm lxxxviii. 2. which in the Septuagint runs thus, Ανοιξω εν παραβολαίς το σομα με φλεγξομαι προβληματα απ' αρχής, but in St. Matthew's Gospel, ch. xiii. 35, is quoted in the following manner, Ανοιξω εν παραβολαις το ςομα με' ερεύξομαι κεκρυμμενα απο Kataloλng Koσμs, explains this difference by saying: Εβραιος ων ο Ματθαιος οικεια εκδοσεις κεχρεται. Βy οικεία By Excogic Dr. Masch understands St. Matthew's own translation,' and hence argues that, according to the representation of Eusebius, St. Matthew wrote in Greek. But the word exdosis does not necessarily signify a translation: it signifies literally an edition, and may be applied to the Hebrew as well as to the Greek. Nor will oka, even if skdoos be construed translation, signify Matthew's own,' but will rather denote a translation which was in use where St. Matthew lived; with which explanation the word xaxpeтaι well agrees. I κεχρεται believe indeed that Eusebius, by the words E6paios wr ο Ματθαιος οικεια εκδοσει κεχρηται, meant to say, Matthew, as being a Hebrew, used the edition of his own country,' that is, the Hebrew Bible, and therefore quoted the passage as he found it in the Hebrew. But even if εκδοσις must be construed translation, still οικεια εκδοσις in reference to St. Matthew, will denote a Chaldee and not a Greek translation. The explanation therefore given by Dr. Masch is not defensible. But were it true that the words of Eusebius admitted of the interpretation which he has given them, yet no one can deny they are capable also of another: and since Eusebius has at other times positively declared, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, the explanation which agrees with this opinion,

and makes Eusebius consistent with himself, is surely preferable to that, which involves him in a glaring contradiction.

SECTION VI.

Additional arguments in favour of the opinion, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

As I have shewn in the two preceding sections that the testimony of the ancients is uniformly in favour of a Hebrew original, it may appear unnecessary to produce any other arguments, since questions of history must be finally determined by historical evidence. But if any reasons can be assigned which shew that the fact, for which I contend, is probable in itself, they may be admitted as auxiliary or corroborative evidence.

In the first place then, it is agreed on all sides', that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine, and for the immediate use of the inhabitants of that country, or, as ecclesiastical writers call them, the Hebrews. But if St. Matthew wrote for the immediate use of the inhabitants of Palestine, it is reasonable to suppose that he wrote in the language of that country, that is, SyroChaldee, which ecclesiastical writers call Hebrew, as well as the more ancient language of the Old Testament. This subject I have examined at large in the Introduc

Dr. Semler indeed makes an exception; for in his Hist. Eccl. selecta capita, Tom. I. p. 42, he says, Carpocrates et Cerinthus cum Alexandriæ versati fuerint, et tamen Matthæi evangelio usi, sequitur ut falsum fere sit, Matthæi Evangelium Palestinensibus fuisse destinatum. But the circumstance that Carpocrates and Cerinthus read St. Matthew's Gospel in Alexandria, affords not even a presumption, that he did not write it for the immediate use of the inhabitants of Palestine. Both Dr. Semler and myself have read St. Luke's Gospel: we might therefore say on the same principles, Sequitur ut falsum sit Lucæ Evangelium Theophilo fuisse desti

natum.

tion to the Epistle to the Hebrews': and, as what I have said on the language of that Epistle is equally applicable to that of St. Matthew's Gospel, I refer the reader to it for further information'.

Dr. Masch indeed has brought nine arguments" to prove that the Jews even of Jerusalem universally understood Greek: but they really are of no value whatsoever. His first argument is, that in the Jewish synagogues, as soon as a section had been read from the Hebrew Bible, it was usual to explain it to the people by reading it in the Chaldee or the Greek version. Now it is true that the Greek version was read in the Jewish Synagogues in Egypt, in Asia Minor, and other countries where the Jews themselves, as well as the rest of the inhabitants, spoke Greek: but in Judæa, and in all those countries which lay to the eastward, the Chaldee version was used. In the present inquiry therefore which is confined to Judæa alone, it is wholly foreign to the purpose to argue from the practice of reading the Greek Bible. Another argument is, that many apocryphal books were written in Greek, and that Aquila made a Greek translation of the Old Testament: but this proves only that there were countries in which the Jews spoke Greek, not that it was spoken in Palestine, and that too above fifty years before the time of Aquila ". The assertion that the Greek language was introduced into Palestine in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes is more than any one can prove: on the contrary, the victories of the Maccabees, and the

Pag. 138-142.

* Sect. 2. Dr. Masch says, 'What service could Aquila propose to render to the Jews by making a new Greek translation of the Old Testament, unless the Greek language was universally known to them? Answer, That they, who did understand Greek, might read it.—It is surely a very extraordinary conclusion, that because Aquila, who was a native of Pontus, and lived half a century after the destruction of Jerusalein, translated the Old Testament into Greek, the inhabitants of Judæa in the time of the Apostles likewise spoke Greek.