(3.) Origen as cited by Eusebius, says, "As I have learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven.-The first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the believers of Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters." In opposition to these testimonies, it is contended by the advocates for the Greek original of the Gospel, Viser, Harles, Jones, Drs. Jortin, Lardner, Hey, and Hales, Mr. Hewlett, and others, have strenuously vindicated the GREEK original of Saint Matthew's Gospel. On the other hand, Bellarmin, G.otius, Casaubon, Bishops Walton and Tomline, Drs. Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, and A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Du Pin, Calmet, Michaelis, Storr, Alber, Grawitz, and others having supported the opinion of Papias as cited by Irenæus, Origen, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other early writers, that this Gospel was written in HEBREW, that i. That the testimony of Papias, who was a weak and is, in the Western Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic dialect then credulous man,8 is vague and indecisive; that he had not spoken by the Jews, which Professor Adler' terms the Sy-seen the Hebrew Gospel itself; that it could not have been riac; and which consisted chiefly of words derived from intended for universal circulation by his own account, because Hebrew origin, and was in fact the Hebrew corrupted by a every one was not able to interpret it; and that the Greek large mixture of foreign words. A third opinion has been Gospel was published before his time, as appears from the offered by Dr. Townson, and some few modern divines, that express or tacit references made by the apostolical fathers there were Two originals, one in Hebrew, and the other in who were all prior to Papias, and all of whom wrote in Greek. He thinks that there seems to be more reason for Greek. allowing two originals, than for contesting either; the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek. ii. The passage of Irenæus above given, more critically translated, may be understood to signify that, in addition to his Greek Gospel, Matthew published ALSO a Hebrew Gos1. The presumption, it must be acknowledged, is in favour pel, for the benefit of the Hebrews, or converts from Judaof the opinion first stated, that Saint Matthew wrote in ism, who used no other language but the vernacular dialect GREEK: for Greek, as we have already seen,2 was the prevail- of Palestine. This, Dr. Hales thinks, was most probably ing language in the time of our Saviour and his apostles. the fact. This might be the original basis of the Gospel of Matthew, too, while he was a collector of customs, and be- the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel acfore he was called to be an apostle, would have frequent occa-cording to the Hebrews, cited by Origen, Epiphanius, and sions both to write and to speak Greek, and could not dis- Jerome, which in process of time became so adulterated by charge his office without understanding that language. We these Judaizing converts, as to lose all authority in the may therefore (say the advocates for this hypothesis) con- church, and be deemed spurious. sider it as highly probable, or even certain, that he understood iii. The testimony of Origen perfectly corresponds with Greek. Besides, as all the other evangelists and apostles this: for surely, when he cited tradition for the existence of wrote their Gospels and Epistles in that language for the a Hebrew Gospel, written by Matthew for the converts from use of Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles) throughout the Judaism, he by no means denied but rather presupposed his known world, and as Saint Matthew's Gospel, though in the Greek Gospel, written for all classes of Christians, composfirst instance written for the use of Jewish and Samaritan ing the whole church of God under heaven, for whose use the converts, was ultimately designed for universal dissemination, Hebrew Gospel would be utterly inadequate. In fact, in it is not likely that it was written in any other language than his treatise on prayer, he intimates that the evangelist pubthat which was employed by all the other writers of the New lished it in Greek also; for, discoursing on the word UICY, Testament. This presumption is corroborated by the nume- he considers it as formed by Matthew himself.10 That Orirous and remarkable instances of verbal agreement between gen considered the Greek as the only authentic original in Matthew and the other evangelists; which, on the supposi- his time, is evident for the following reasons:-1. Origen, tion that he wrote in Hebrew, or the vernacular Syro-Chal- in his Hexapla, was accustomed to correct the Greek version daic dialect, would not be credible. Even those who main- of the Old Testament by the Hebrew original: but he virtain that opinion are obliged to confess that an early Greek tually confesses that he had none by which he could correct translation of this Gospel was in existence before Mark and the text of Matthew's Gospel ; and, 2. He expressly cites12 Luke composed theirs, which they saw and consulted. Af-"a certain Gospel according to the Hebrews, if any one ter all, the main point in dispute is, whether the present Greek copy is entitled to the authority of an original or not; and as this is a question of real and serious importance, we shall proceed to state the principal arguments on both sides. 2. The modern advocates for the second opinion above noticed, viz. that Saint Matthew wrote in HEBREW, lay most stress upon the testimonies of Papias (bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 116), of Irenæus (A. D. 178), and of Origen (A. D. 230); which testimonies have been followed by Chrysostom, Jerome, and others of the early fathers of the Christian church.3 But these good men, as Wetstein has well observed, do not so properly bear testimony, as deliver their own conjectures, which we are not bound to admit, unless they are supported by good reasons. Supposing and taking it for granted that Matthew wrote for the Jews in Judæa, they concluded that he wrote in Hebrew:4 and because the fathers formed this conclusion, modern writers, relying on their authority, have also inferred that Matthew composed his Gospel in that language. Let us now review their testimonies. (1.) Papias, as cited by Eusebius, says, "Matthew composed the divine oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as he was able." (2.) Irenæus, as quoted by the same historian, says, "Matthew published also a Scripture of the Gospel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect." 1 Nonnulla Matthæi et Marci enunciata ex indole Linguæ Syriacæ explicantur.... Prolusio J. G. C. Adler. Haunia, 1784, 4to. 2 See Vol. I p. 193-195. The various testimonies of the ancient fathers concerning the Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel are produced and considered at length by J. T. Buslav, in his Dissertatio Historico-Critico Exegetica de Lingua Origi nali Evangelii secundum Matthæum. Vratislaviæ, 1826. 8vo. 4 Wetstenii Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 224. note. 6 Marios y our EBPAIAI AIAAEKTO TA AOгIA EYNET PAY TO MOVIE SOUTH W duvaтo exтos. Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 39. tom. i. p. 133. edit. Reading. • Ο μεν δε Ματθαίος εν τοις ΕΒΡΑΟΙΣ, ΕΝ ΤΗ ΙΔΙΑ ΥΤΩΝ ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΩ, KAI IPAOHN EZENETKEN EY ATTEAIOY. Ibid. lib. v. c. 8. tom. i. p. 219. chooses to receive it, not as of authority, but for illustration" of the question he was then discussing. Now, if this Hebrew Gospel had been the production of Saint Matthew, he certainly would have cited it in a different manner. iv. In the Gospel of Saint Matthew, as we now have it, there is no appearance of its being a translation; but many considerations prove the contrary. For how can we account for the interpretation of Hebrew names, which, by an author writing in Hebrew, was by no means necessary? (Compare Matt. i. 23. xxvii. 33. 46.) Again, why should the testimonies and parallel passages of the Old Testament be cited, not from the original Hebrew, but generally from the Septuagint version, even when that differs from the Hebrew? Lastly, how does it happen, that all the versions which are extant, such as the Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, are adapted, not to the Hebrew original, but to the Greek translation? These questions are all readily answered, if we admit that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek.13 Eusebii Hist. E cl. lib. vi. c. 25. tom. i. p. 290. sev mapadores padov ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ εκδεδωκότα τοις απο Ιουδαίσμου πιστεύσασι, ΓΡΑΜΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΒΡΑΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΝΕΤΑΓΜΕΝΟΝ. περί των τεσσάρων ευαγγελίων ... οτι πρώτον μεν γέραπται Το ΚΑΤΑΣΙΝ See Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. vol. i. pp. 309, 310. 2d edit. This conjecture, Dr. Hales remarks, derives additional weight from the incorrect reports of Eutychius and Theophylact, that Matthew wrote his Hebrew Gospel at Jerusalem, which John the Evangelist translated into Greek. Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. p. 665. 10 Origen de oratione, c. 161. p. 150. edit. Reading. 11 See his words, Op. tom. iii. p. 671. edit. De la Rue, or in Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part ii. pp. 114, 115., where they are cited and explained. 12 Dr. Lardner has given the passage at length, Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 506.; 4to. vol. i. p. 553. 13 Mr. Hewlett's note on Matt. i. 1. Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. pp. 664 -667. Lardner's Supp. to Credibility, chap. 5. (Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 45-65.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 157-167.) Pritii, Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 298311. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Libros Canonicos, pp. 247-254. Michaelis, vol. iii. pp. 112-201. Rumpæi, Com. Crit. in Nov. Test. pp. 81-84. Viser, Herm. Sacr. Nov. Test. pars ii. pp. 344-352. Dr. Campbell's Preface to Matthew, vol. ii. pp. 120. Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 1759. Alber Hermeneut. Novi Test. vol. i. pp. 239-244. Faustus, a Manichean bishop (who wrote towards the close of the fourth century), attempted, indeed, to prove that this Gospel was not written by Saint Matthew, on account of the oblique manner of expression which occurs in Matt. ix. 9.-And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man namea Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. Hence, says Faustus, "Matthew did not write that Gospel, but some other person under his name, as is clear from those words of the pretended Matthew: for who, writing concerning himself, would say, he saw a MAN, and called HIM, and HE followed him; and would not rather say, He saw ME, and called ME, and 1 followed him?" Nothing, however, can be more weak than this mode of arguing: for it is an undeniable fact that this oblique way of writing is common among profane historians, both ancient and modern: who frequently speak of themselves not in the first but in the thira person. Moses uniformly speaks thus of himself,, as Jesus Christ, and his disciples also, very frequently did.10 So that the objection of Faustus falls to the ground for want of proof. It only remains that we briefly notice the third opinion | century, Tertullian, Ammonius, the author of the harmony, above mentioned; viz. that there were two originals;-one Julius Africanus, and Origen, unanimously quote this Gosin Hebrew, the other in Greek, but both written by Saint pel as the undoubted production of Matthew, who are followMatthew. This opinion, we believe, was first intimated by ed by a long train of ecclesiastical writers. The fact, Sixtus Senensis, from whom it was adopted by Drs. Whit- therefore, is fully established, that Matthew, the apostle of by, Benson, Hey, and Townson, Bishops Cleaver and Gleig, our Saviour, was the author of that Gospel which is placed and some other modern divines. The consent of antiquity first in our editions of the New Testament. pleads strongly for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek. Bishop Gleig thinks, that Saint Matthew, on his departure to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, left with the church of Jerusalem, or at least with some of its members, the Hebrew or Syriac memorandums of our Lord's doctrines and miracles, which he had made for his own use at the time when the doctrines were taught, and the miracles performed; and that the Greek Gospel was written long after the apostles had quitted Jerusalem, and dispersed themselves in the discharge of the duties of their office. This conjecture receives some countenance from the terms in which Eusebius, when giving his own opinion, mentions Saint Matthew's Gospel." Matthew," says that historian, "having first preached to the Hebrews, delivered to them, when he was preparing to depart to other countries, his Gospel composed in their native language: that to those, from whom he was sent away, he might by his writings supply the loss of his presence." This opinion is further corroborated by the fact, that there are instances on record of authors who have themselves published the same work in two languages. Thus Josephus wrote the History of the Jewish War in Hebrew and Greek. In like manner we have two originals, one in Latin, the other in English, of the thirtynine articles of the Anglican church. As Saint Matthew wanted neither ability nor disposition, we cannot think he wanted inducement to "do the work of an evangelist" for his brethren of the common faith, Hellenists as well as Hebrews; to both of whom charity made him a debtor. The popular language of the first believers was Hebrew, or what is called so by the sacred and ancient ecclesiastical writers: but those who spoke Greek quickly became a considerable part of the church of Christ. VI. But, though we have such a chain of unbroken evidence, the most clear and decisive that can possibly be adduced or desired, to the genuineness of Saint Matthew's Gospel, several attempts have of late years been made by those who deny the miraculous conception of our Saviour,12 to expunge the two first chapters from the sacred code, as being a spurious interpolation: and, hence, a recent antagonist of divine revelation has taken occasion (without examining the mass of evidence to the contrary) to affirm that the whole Gospel is a falsehood.13 We have, however, indisputable evidence, both internal and external, that these chapters form an integral part of that Gospel. [i.] With regard to the external evidence for the genuine From a review of all the arguments adduced on this much litigated question, we cannot but prefer the last stated opinion as that which best harmonizes with the consent of anti-ness of these chapters :quity, namely, that Saint Matthew wrote first a Hebrew Gospel for the use of the first Hebrew converts. Its subsequent disappearance is easily accounted for, by its being so corrupted by the Ebionites that it lost all its authority in the church, and was deemed spurious, and also by the prevalence of the Greek language, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish language and every thing belonging to the Jews fell into the utmost contempt. It also is clear, that our present Greek Gospel is an authentic original, and consequently an inspired production of the evangelist Matthew, written (not as Bishop Gleig and other writers suppose, long after our Lord's resurrection and ascension, but) within a few years after those memorable and important events. V. Of the GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY of Saint Matthew's Gospel, we have the most satisfactory evidence. There are seven distinct allusions to it in the Epistle of Barnabas; two in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians; ten in the Shepherd of Hermas; nine in the genuine Epistles of Ignatius; and five in the Epistle of Polycarp. In the time of Papias it was well known, and is expressly ascribed to the evangelist by him, and by several ancient writers of the first century that were consulted by Eusebius. In the following century it was recognised by Tatian, who composed his harmony of the four evangelists, and by Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian; and it is repeatedly quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria, and also by Celsus, the most sagacious and inquisitive adversary of Christianity. In the third 1 Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. vii. p. 582, 2 Preface to Saint Matthew's Gospel, vol. i. p. 1. 1. In the first place, the beginning of the third chapter ( AE raspus exavas, Now in those days) manifestly shows that something had preceded, to which these words must refer.14 If we examine the end of the second chapter, where Jesus is said to have come and dwelt with his parents at Nazareth, it will be manifest to what time those words are to be referred. Some, indeed, have objected that the words "Now in those days" are not the words of Matthew, but of his Greek translator, who thus connected the first and second chapters with the third.-But this conjecture (for the objection amounts to nothing more) is opposed by the fact that Saint Matthew's Gospel was, as we have already seen, not translated into Greek by any person, but was originally written in that language by the evangelist himself. And, to mention no other arguments by which it is opposed, it is contradicted by the following undisputed passage in Matt. iv. 13., where we read "And Jesus leaving Nazareth." Now, how could Saint Matthew have thus recorded his departure from Nazareth, unless chap. ii. 13. had preceded, where we are told that he came and dwelt in that town?15 Further, in the first For an account of these later writers, see Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 49-52: 4to. vol. iii. pp. 159-161. As the references to Dr. L.'s works for the earlier fathers have already been given in the notes to Vol. I. p. 41 -45., it is not necessary to repeat them. The reader who may not possess or have the opportunity of consulting Dr. Lardner's works, will find the quotations above noticed, in the learned Jeremiah Jones's New and Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, vol. iii. pp. 17-42. 8vo. Oxford, 1798. 9 See Vol. I. p. 61, 62. supra: and also compare other instances from the Old Testament, in Gen. iv. 24. xliv. 19. Num. xxiv. 3, 4. 1 Sam. xii. 11. Jer. xxviii. 5. 10. 15. Jonah i. 1. and throughout that book. 10 Compare Matt. viii. 20. xi. 19. xviii. 11. Luke xviii. 8. John v. 23. 25-27. xxi. 24. 11 Augustin contra Faustum, lib. xvii. c. 4. Glassii Philologia Sacra, tom. i. p. 649. edit. Dathii; or column 1238 of the Leipsic edition, 4to. 1725. 12 Particularly by Dr. Williams in his "Free Inquiry," first published in of the New Testament. 3 Benson's Hist. of the First Planting of the Christian Religion, vol. i. 1771, and again in 1789, 4to. ; and the editors of the modern Socinian version p. 257. 4 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 24. 13 Professor Bauer, of Altorf, in Germany, boldly affirms that the narra 5 Dr. Hey's Norrisian Lectures. vol. i. pp. 28, 29. Bishop Gleig's edit. of tive of the miraculous conception, recorded by Matthew and Luke, is a Stackhouse, vol. iii. p. 112. Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 30-32. philosophical mythos or fable of later date!!! Brevarium Theologiæ Bib There are extant in print two editions of a Hebrew Gospel, one pub-licæ, p. 248. Lipsiæ, 1803, 8vo. lished by Jean de Tilet, Bishop of Brieux, at Paris, in 1555, the other published by Munster at Basil, in 1557; but it is certain that neither of these is St. Matthew's original, and that neither of them was used by the Nazarenes or by the Ebionites. See an account of them in Michaelis, vol. iii, pp. 195-201. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 36. 14 This was agreeable to the usage of the Hebrew writers; who, when commencing their narratives, were accustomed to add the name of the king, prince, or other person, in whose time any event is said to have come to pass, and to preface it with the formula, In the days of... To men. tion no other instances, see Isaiah i. 1. 15 Kuinöel, Comm. in Historicos N. T. Libros, vol. i. p. 15. and second chapters of Matthew we find quotations made from | brought before him: "for," adds the historian, "he too was the Old Testament precisely in the same manner as in other parts afraid of the coming of Christ, as well as Herod." In this pasof his Gospel. Moreover, the want of a genealogy in this Gos-sage there is an explicit reference to the second chapter of Matthew, pel, which was written for Jewish Christians of Palestine, would which plainly shows that this portion of his Gospel was received be a deficiency in the work.1 by this Hebrew Christian, who used our Greek Gospel. Or, if he used only the Hebrew edition of Saint Matthew's Gospel, it is equally certain that the historical fact alluded to must have been extant in it in the time of Hegesippus. 2. In the second place, it is worthy of remark that the two first chapters of Saint Matthew's Gospel are to be found in ALL the ancient manuscripts now extant, which are entire, as well as in many that have come down to us, mutilated by the hand of time, and also in all the ancient versions without exception. Some of the manuscripts now extant, particularly the Vatican and the Cambridge manuscripts, and the Codex Rescriptus in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, are undoubtedly of very high antiquity, bearing date from the fifth or sixth centuries at latest, if they are not earlier. The versions carry us still higher. The Peschito, or Old Syriac, and what is called the Old Italic, are nearly coeval with the formation of the canon of the New Testament. The Coptic, Arabic, and other versions, also bear marks of high antiquity: and though some of them contain discrepancies of more or less moment from the copies generally received, yet all of them have this part of the Gospel of Matthew, as integral portions of the whole. Much stress, indeed, has been laid upon the genealogy being separated from the other parts of the Gospel in some Latin manuscripts; but the spuriousness of the genealogy is not a necessary consequence of such separation. For, in the first place, as Kuinoel, and the learned annotator on Michaelis, have both remarked, the transcribers of the Latin manuscripts, who wrote the genealogy detached from the rest of the Gospel, were actuated not by critical but by theological motives; they found difficulty in reconciling the genealogy in Matt. i. with that of Luke iii., and, therefore, they wished to get rid of it. And, secondly, although the genealogy is thus separated in some Latin manuscripts, it does not necessarily follow that the copyists either deemed it to be without authority, or were desirous of getting rid of it; for, in the illuminated copies of this Gospel, so far from any stigma being thrown upon the genealogy (though separated in the way described), it is in general particularly embellished, and as much ornamented by the artist as the succeed ing passages. 3. Besides the uncontradicted testimony of manuscripts and versions, we have the clear and undisputed evidence of the ancient fathers in favour of the genuineness of these chapters, whence they have cited both words and verses in their writings; to which we may add, that the earliest opposers of Christianity never appear to have doubted their genuineness. As the miraculous conception of our Saviour is a vital and fundamental doctrine of the Christian revelation, we think it right to state these evidences more particularly. (1.) CLEMENT of Alexandria, who lived towards the close of the second century (A. n. 194), speaking of the order of the Gospel which he had received from the presbyters of more ancient times, says expressly that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written. Here, then, we have two things proved, viz. the curiosity and inquisitiveness of the ancient Christians, concerning the books of the New Testament which they had received, and likewise an assurance of the genuineness of the genealogies in Matt. i. and Luke iii. This testimony to the first chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel is so strong, as to put its antiquity and genuineness beyond all question. (2.) In a fragment of the ecclesiastical history composed by HEGESIPPUS, a converted Jew, who flourished a. D. 173, which is preserved by Eusebius, there is an account of the emperor Domitian's inquiry after the posterity of David, two of whom were 1 Schmucker's Biblical Theology, vol. ii. p. 149. 2 The Codex Ebnerianus, a manuscript written at the close of the fourteenth century, begins with Matt. i. 18. Του με Ιόσου Χριστου η γέννησις OUTS 4, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. Since no book can well begin with the particle de, now, we may conclude that in the more ancient Greek mannscripts, whence the Codex Ebnerianus was copied, something preceded, viz. the genealogy, as in other Greek manuscripts. Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. part ii. p. 136. See also Griesbach's Experpov to his Commentarius Criticus in Græcum Matthæi Textum, 4to. Jena, 1801. (3.) JUSTIN Martyr, who, we have already seen, flourished about the year 140, has, in his writings, so many and such decisive references to these two chapters, as nearly to supply a recapitulation of all the facts related in them, and in such language as clearly proves that his information was principally derived from those chapters. The very words, also, of Saint Matthew are sometimes quoted with a precision so unequivocal as to determine the source of the quotations. Passages and phrases which occur in Saint Matthew only, and applications of the prophecies of Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah, which are made by no other evangelist, are adopted by him with a literal adherence to Saint Matthew's text; and, what renders the demonstration perfect, with a literal adherence to those very citations from the Old Testament, in which Saint Matthew has departed from the words both of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint.8 (4.) IGNATIUS, who flourished a. n. 107, in his epistle to the Ephesians, has an express reference to the history of the Virgin Mary's miraculous conception of our Lord, and to the appearance of the star that so wonderfully announced his birth. Now, as this father was contemporary with the apostles, and survived the evangelist John only six or seven years, we have in his testimony what amounts to that of the apostles for the truth and authenticity of Saint Matthew's Gospel. As the testimonies of Irenæus and all the later fathers are undisputed, it is not necessary to adduce their evidence. Let us appeal in the next place to 4. The Testimonies of the Enemies of Christianity.-Three of these are peculiarly distinguished for their enmity to the Christian name and faith; viz. the emperor Julian, who wrote in the middle of the fourth century; Porphyry, who wrote in the third century; and Celsus, who wrote in the middle of the second century. Though their works are lost, their arguments are preserved in the answers of their opponents; and from these it appears that they were by no means deficient in industry to discover means of invalidating any portion of the Gospel history. They stated many objections to particular circumstances in the narrative of the miraculous conception, but never entertained the most remote idea of treating the whole as spurious. They did not contend, as our modern objectors do, that Saint Matthew and Saint Luke never wrote these accounts; but that, in writing them, they committed errors or related falsehoods.10 That Celsus, in particular, was specifically acquainted with the genealogy contained in the first chapter is evident: for he speaks of historians who trace the genealogy of Jesus from the first father of the human family and from Jewish kings.11 By the former, Luke must be intended; and by the latter, Matthew. That Celsus should pass over unnoticed the seeming contradiction of the genealogy of Matthew and Luke, is no more remarkable than that he should omit to mention many other things, 12 Besides the testimonies of these enemies of the Gospel, we can produce another of still higher antiquity-that of Cerinthus, an heresiarch who was contemporary with the evangelist Saint John. Cerinthus received the Gospel of Saint Matthew (though not entire), and Epiphanius expressly states that his followers "preferred it on account of its genealogy." The same father also records, in terms equally explicit, that, "it is ALLOWED by all THAT CERINTHUS MADE USE OF THE BEGINNING of Saint Mat 8 Archbp. Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. p. 440. In pp. 448-454. he has adduced the passages at length from Justin. See also Dr. Lardner's account of Justin, Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 119-122.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 343-345. The testimony of Justin is also examined at length in Hug's Introduction to the New Test. vol. ii. pp. 282-284., where the words of Matthew and Justin are exhibited in parallel columns. The following is the passage of Ignatius above alluded to :-"Now the virginity of Mary and her delivery were kept in secret from the prince of this world; as was also the death of our Lord;--Three of the most notable Saviour] manifested to the world? A star shone in heaven beyond all the other stars, and its light was inexpressible; and its novelty struck terror [into men's minds]." Ignatii Epist. ad Ephes. sect. 19. Cotelerii Patres Apostolici, tom. ii. p. 51. An account of these manuscripts is given in the first volume of this work. In the Codex Rescriptus above noticed, we find the first two chap-mysteries [of the Gospel], yet done in secret by God. How then was [our ters of Saint Matthew's Gospel, with the exception of some verses, which are wanting from mutilation, viz. the first sixteen verses of the first chapter; and from the seventh to the twelfth and from twelve to the twentythird verses of the second chapter. Kuinöel, Comm. in Historicos Libros, Nov. Test. vol. i. p: 13. See the passage at length, both in Greek and English, in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 211, 212. and notes; 4to. vol. i. p. 395. Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 19, 20. See the original passage in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 142, 143.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 356, 357. 10 See the passage of Julian at length, in Lardner, 8vo. vol. viii. p. 397.; 4to. vol. iv. p. 334.; of Porphyry, in Dr. Mill's Prolegomena to his edition of the New Testament, § 702, 703.; and of Celsus, in Lardner, Svo. vol. viii. pp. 10, 11. 19-22. 58, 59. 63.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 116. 121, 122. 143. 145. 11 Stor. Opuscula Academica, tom. iii. p. 105. 12 Schmucker's Biblical Theology, vol. ii. p. 148. thew's Gospel, and from thence endeavoured to prove that | Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary." To these decisive testimonies of the adversaries of Christianity we add a fact by no means unimportant, as an accessory proof; which is, that no objections were ever brought against these chapters in the early centuries, during the heat of religious contention, when all parties sought to defend themselves, and to-assail their opponents, by arguments of all kinds, industriously drawn from every quarter.2 [ii.] Against the weight of this positive evidence, which so clearly, fully, and decisively establishes the genuineness of the narratives of the miraculous conception by Matthew and Luke, and places them on the same footing with the other parts of the Gospels, the antagonists of their authenticity have attempted to produce arguments partly external and partly collateral or internal. 1. With regard to the external evidence, they affirm, on the authority of Epiphanius and Jerome, that these narratives were wanting in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians, for whose instruction this Gospel was originally written, and consequently formed no part of the genuine narrative. In this statement, the terms Hebrew Christians, Nazarenes, and Ebionites, are classed together as synonymous; whereas they were decidedly distinct, as the late Bishop Horsley has long since shown. The Hebrew Christians, to whom Saint Matthew wrote, were the body of Jewish converts in his time, who laid aside the use of the Mosaic law. Of the Nazarenes there were two descriptions: 1. The Nazarenes of the better sort, who were orthodox in their creed, though they continued to observe the Mosaic law: but being great admirers of Saint Paul, they could not esteem the law generally necessary to salvation. 2. The Nazarenes of a worse sort were bigoted to the Jewish law, but still orthodox in their creed, for any thing that appears to the contrary. These were the proper Nazarenes mentioned by Epiphanius and Jerome. Both of these classes of Nazarenes believed Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin by the special interposition of God, and consequently received the two first chapters of Saint Matthew's Gospel. The Ebionites also were divided into two classes: 1. Those who denied our Lord's divinity, but admitted the fact of the miraculous conception: consequently the two first chapters of Matthew were admitted by them; and, 2. Ebionites of a worse sort, who, though they denied the miraculous conception, still maintained a union of Jesus with a divine being, which commenced upon his baptism. These Ebionites, Epiphanius relates, made use of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which was not only defective, but also contained many fabulous stories. The Ebionites, he adds, branched off from the Nazarenes, and did not appear until after the destruction of Jerusalem.3 Now, since the Ebionites "of a worse sort," as Bishop Horsley terms them, did not make their appearance until the commencement of the second century, and as they used a mutilated and corrupted copy of Matthew's Gospel, the absence of the two first chapters of Matthew from their Gospel is so far from making any thing against the authenticity of those chapters, that, on the contrary, it affords a strong evidence for it; since we are enabled satisfactorily to account for the omission of those chapters in their copies, and to prove from the united antecedent, concurrent, and subsequent testimonies of various writers, both Christians and adversaries of Christianity, that they did exist in all the other copies of Matthew's Gospel, and were explicitly referred to or cited by them.4 See the passage of Epiphanius, in Lardner, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 322. 329.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 565. 570. 2 Quarterly Review, vol. i. p. 321. vol. ii. part ii. pp. 731-741. See the various passages of Irenæus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Jerome and other fathers, in Lardner, Svo. vol. viii. pp. 19-24.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 483 -485. Bishop Horsley's Tracts in reply to Dr. Priestley, pp. 378-386. (edition of 1799.) Mosheim's Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians, vol. ii. pp. 194-204, Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, The reader who may be desirous of investigating at length the evidence of the authenticity of Matt. i. and ii. will find it very copiously discussed in Dr. Nares's masterly Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, pp. 4-27. (2d edit.); Archbp. Laurence's Critical Reflections on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, pp. 14-50. 8vo. Oxford, 1811; Archbp. Magee's Discourses on the Atonement, vol. ii. part i. pp. 419-454.; the Quarterly Review, vol. i. pp. 320-326. ; the Sixth Sermon in Mr. Falconer's Bainpton Lectures for 1810, pp. 176-207.; Dr. Bell's Arguments in proof of the authenticity of the two first chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke prefixed to his Enquiry into the Divine Missions of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, 8vo. London, 1810; and especially to Mr. Bevan's very complete, and indeed unanswerable, "Vindication of the authenticity of the Narratives contained in the two first chapters of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 1822," 8vo. 2. The collateral or internal arguments against the authenticity of these chapters, deduced from their contents, are as follow. (1.) It has been admitted by many writers that Mark in most places agrees with the method and order both of Matthew and Luke, as also does John, after a short introduction concerning the Logos. Mark begins his Gospel at what we call the third chapter of Matthew, that is, at the time when John came baptizing in the wilderness. It is farther urged that, as it is most probable that Luke was the first who published a Gospel; and as he had given the genealogy and a full account of the birth, &c. of Christ, there was no necessity for those who came after him to repeat the same things, as they were not particularly important to the salvation and happiness of man,-the great ends which our Saviour and his disciples had in view. Besides, it is alleged that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus, and of all the subsequent events, till Joseph and Mary carried him home to Nazareth, which he has fully detailed, is totally different from that which is found in the first and second chapters of Matthew's Gospel. No coincidence occurs, excepting Christ's being born at Bethlehem of a virgin. Hence it is inferred by those who oppose the authenticity of these chapters, that the absolute silence of Luke respecting many remarkable events yields a strong negative argument against it. This inference, however, is more specious than solid; but before we admit its force, let us examine the premises on which it is founded. The agreement of the four evangelists is readily accounted for, by their narrating the life and transactions of one and the same person. Having either been chosen witnesses of our Saviour's discourses and actions (as Matthew and John were), or having derived their information from others who had been eye-witnesses of them (as Mark and Luke had), they were enabled by inspiration to repeat the former with little or no variation of words, and to relate the latter without any material variation. They did so in their preaching; and, forming the same judgment of the importance of what they had seen and heard, they repeated nearly the same things and the same words. The reason why Mark begins at what we call the third chapter of Matthew is to be found in the object he had in view in writing his Gospel; which, being in all probability written at Rome, was adapted to the state of the church there. Further, it is not probable that Luke's Gospel was first written; we have already proved (as far at least as such a thing can now be proved) that Matthew's Gospel was the first composed, and Luke did not write his Gospel until about the year 63 or 64.7 His account of the birth, &c. of Jesus Christ is totally different from that of Matthew; whose Gospel, being designed for the Hebrew Christians, traces the pedigree of our Saviour in the line of Joseph, his reputed or legal father, to show the accomplishment of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament respecting the Messiah; and then proceeds to notice the fact that Christ was born in Bethlehem agreeably to the prediction of Micah, without detailing the intermediate circumstances, which, in fact, were not necessary, as he wrote at a time when those events were fresh in the recollections of his countrymen and contemporaries. Luke, on the contrary, writing for Gentiles who were ignorant of Jewish. affairs, and after Matthew composed his Gospels, begins his history much farther back than the other evangelists; is particularly careful in specifying times and places; and gives the genealogy of Christ according to his natural descent from the Virgin Mary, and carries it up to Adam, to show that he was that very seed of the woman, who was promised for the redemption of the whole world. The silence of Luke, therefore, respecting many remarkable events related by Matthew, admits of an easy and satisfactory solution; and concludes nothing against the authenticity of his two first chapters. (2.) The appearance of a star in the east, directing the Magi to the new-born Messiah in Judæa (Matt. ii. 1-12), it has been said, has more the air of an Eastern invention than of a real history. It is true this has been said; but so far is it from being an oriental fiction, that it is referred to as a fact by Ignatius, who had conversed familiarly with several of the apostles, and who certainly had better means of ascertaining its reality than any writer of the eighteenth or nineteenth century. The reality of this fact was also admitted by that acute adversary of the Christian faith, Celsus, who flourished towards the close of the second century.9 (3.) It is said to be a circumstance scarcely credible, that "when Herod had heard these things" (the arrival of the Magi, &c.), "he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Now this circumstance is so far from being incredible, that it is precisely what we should expect from the well known sanguinary and jealous character of Herod, who had caused the death of his wife, his children, and the greater part of his family, not to mention numbers of his subjects who fell victims to his savage jealousy so that the Jews, especially the Pharisees, dreaded and hated him. (4.) Much stress has been laid on the supposed difficulty of reconciling the genealogies of Christ, as recorded by Matthew and Luke; but the different designs with which those evangelists composed their respective Gospels completely solve this apparent difficulty: which has been considered and explained in the first volume of this work. (5.) The slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem is further objected against the authenticity of the second chapter of Matthew, because that event is not mentioned by any writer but by the "supposed Matthew, and by those who quote from him.". The credibility of this event, and consequently the authenticity of the evangelist, has likewise been established in the same volume. (6.) It is alleged that there are in these two chapters several prophecies cited as being fulfilled, but which cannot easily be made to correspond with the events by which they are declared to be accomplished. A little attention, however, to the Hebrew modes of quoting the prophecies will show the fallacy of this objection. For Isa. vii. 14. cited in Matt. i. 23., and Micah v. 2. cited in Matt. ii. 6., are prophecies quoted as being literally accomplished; and Jer. xxxi. 15. cited in Matt. ii. 17., and Hos. xi. 1. cited in Matt. ii. 15., are passages from those prophets applied to similar facts, introduced with the usual formulas of Jewish writers, That it might be fulfilled, and Then was fulfilled. Lastly, It is said that the flight of Joseph with Mary and Jesus into Egypt is inexplicable; that it could not be from Bethlehem, for Luke expressly says that they continued there forty days (ii. 22.), at the expiration of which he was carried to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord, and afterwards was taken to Nazareth (39.): and that the flight from this latter place was altogether unnecessary, because the slaughter did not extend so far. A little attention, however, to the different orders pursued by the evangelists in their Gospels, will remove this seeming objection; and the different narratives concerning our Lord's infancy, given us by Matthew and Luke, will appear very consistent, if we only suppose that, immediately after the transactions in the temple, Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth, as Luke says, but only to settle their affairs there, and soon after returned to Bethlehem, where the report of the shepherds, and the favour able impressions it had made on the inhabitants (see Luke ii. 17, 18.), would suggest many cogent motives to fix their abode. There they might have dwelt many months before the arrival of the wise men related by Matthew: for the order issued by Herod for the slaughter of the children, in consequence of the diligent inquiry he had made of the Magi concerning the time when the star appeared, affords us ground to conclude, that a considerable time had intervened between the birth of the child, or the appearance of the star (supposing them to coincide), and the coming of the wise men. It is also worthy of observation, that on Joseph's return from Egypt, his first intention seems to have been to go into Judæa (see Matt. ii. 22.); but, through fear of Archelaus, and by divine direction, he fixed at Nazareth, the place of his first abode. There he and his family were at the time of the only event of our Lord's childhood which Luke has recorded, and therefore it was not to his purpose to take notice of any removal or other place of abode. To sum up the evidence upon this question, the importance of which must apologize for the length of the preceding discussion:-The commencement of the third chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel shows that something had preceded, analogous to what we read in chap. ii. All the ancient manuscripts now extant, as well as all the ancient versions (two of which are of apostolical antiquity), contain the two first chapters. They are found in a genuine epistle of Igna men and their worshipping of the infant Jesus are discussed in Mr. Franks's Hulsean Prize Dissertation on the Magi, 8vo. 1814.; and the objections of Professor Schleiermacher are satisfactorily refuted in the British Critic and Theological Review, vol. ii. pp. 385, 386. Dr. Priestley's Notes on the Bible, vol. iii. p. 31. See also Lightfoot's, Doddridge's, and Macknight's Parmonies on Matt. ii. and Cellèrier's Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 334- 337. tius, the only apostolical father who had occasion to refer to them. Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria, who all flourished in the second century, have referred to them: as also have Irenæus and all the fathers who immediately succeeded him, and whose testimony is undisputed. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, the most acute and inveterate enemies of the Gospel, in the second, third, and fourth centuries, likewise admitted them. "Thus, we have one continued and unbroken series of testimony," of Christians as well as of persons inimical to the Christian faith, "from the days of the apostles to the present time; and in opposition to this we find only a vague report of the state of a Hebrew copy of Matthew's Gospel, said to be received amongst an obscure and unrecognised description of Hebrew Christians, who are admitted even by the very writers who claim the support of their authenticity, to have mutilated the copy which they possessed, by removing the genealogy." and Eusebius in testifying that Matthew wrote his Gospel VII. The voice of antiquity accords with Irenæus, Origen, in Judæa for the Jewish nation, while the church consisted wholly of the circumcision, that is, of Jewish and Samaritan believers, but principally Jewish; and that he wrote it primarily for their use, with a view to confirm those who believed, and to convert those who believed not, we have, besides historical facts, very strong presumptions from the book itself. Every circumstance is carefully pointed out, which might conciliate the faith of that nation; and every unnecessary expression is avoided, that might in any way tend to obstruct it. To illustrate this remark by a few particulars :-There was no sentiment relating to the Messiah, with which the Jews were more strongly possessed, than that he must be of the race of Abraham, and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jesus; which, agreeably to the Jewish custom, he gives according to his legal descent by Joseph his supposed father, deducing it from Abraham through David to show his title to the kingdom of Israel. That he should be born at Bethlehem in Judæa was another circumstance in which the learned among the Jews were universally agreed; accordingly, this historian has also taken the first opportunity to mention his birth in that town, together with some very memorable circumstances that attended it. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, which either foretell any thing that should happen to the Messiah, or admit of an allusive application to him, or were in that age generally understood to be applicable to events which respect the Messiah, are never passed over in silence by this evangelist. To the Jews who were convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, the fulfilment of prophecy was always strong evidence: accordingly, neither of the evangelists has been more careful than Matthew that no evidence of this kind should be overlooked.4 Further, this evangelist very frequently refers to Jewish customs, and relates most of our Saviour's discourses against siderable objections he answers. How admirably his Gosthe errors and superstitions of the Jews, whose most conpel was adapted to that people, will appear from the followsider the letter of the law as the complete rule and measure ing considerations: "The Jews were much disposed to conof moral duty; to place religion in the observance of rites and ceremonies, or in a strict adherence to some favourite precepts, written or traditionary; to ascribe to themselves sufficient power of doing the divine will without the divine assistance; and, vain of a civil or legal righteousness, to contemn all others, and esteem themselves so just that they needed no repentance, nor any expiation but what the law provided. They rested in the covenant of circumcision and their descent from Abraham as a sure title to salvation, whatever lives they led; and though they looked for a Messiah, yet with so little idea of an atonement for sin to be made by his death, that the cross proved the great stumbling-block to them. They expected him to appear with outward splendour, as the dispenser of temporal felicity: the chief blessings of which were to redound to their own nation in an earthly Canaan, and in conquest and dominion over the rest of mankind. A tincture of these delusive notions, which they had imbibed by education and the doctrine of their elders, would be apt to remain with too many, even after their admission into the church of Christ. How necessary 2 Archbp. Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. p. 447. Irenæus adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 1. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. c. 8. Origenis Exposit. in Matt. apud Euseb. lib. vi. c. 25. Dr. Campbell's Translation of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 18. Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 121-137. |