ent of Alexandria, and probably Epiphanius, could examine only by the testimony of others, or through the medium of some Greek translation of it to which they had access.

III. There must have been a great resemblance in most parts of this Gospel to our canonical Matthew; otherwise Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, and others, cannot well be supposed to have expressed themselves concerning it as they have done, calling it the Gospel according to Matthew; although we may well suppose the leading reason for their so doing, was the fact that the Jewish readers of it gave it, oftentimes or perhaps more commonly, that name. That the latter gave it out as the work of an apostle, must follow almost of necessity from the credit which they held to be due to it.

IV. The quotations from it which the ancient fathers have transmitted to us, and the estimate which they expressly as well as tacitly and impliedly make of it, shew clearly that they did not, after all, regard it as authoritative, or entitled to the reception of the catholic church. Had it been true that they considered it as authentic, most certainly it would have been appealed to as such; and Jerome would have insisted that his translation of it, like his version of the Old Testament Scriptures, should be received instead of the common Greek Gospel of Matthew then in circulation. But this he never did; and this did no one of the ancient fathers.

It is now proper to remark, that we have in this view sufficient facts before us to account for all the seemingly contradictory statements of Epiphanius and Jerome respecting the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and to shew in what manner these are to be reconciled with each other. When these fathers tell us, that the Nazarenes were in possession of the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and that it was named the Gospel κατὰ Ματθαῖον, they tell us what were the current estimation and name of it among the Jewish Christians of their times. They show what it was given out for by the readers of it in Hebrew, among whom it was in circulation. But when they come to give us a nearer insight into the actual state and condition of this Gospel, they let us see at once that it was an adulterated and interpolated Gospel, and they never once intimate that it should be substituted at all for the canonical Matthew, but the contrary.

We have now attained, then, as it seems to me, a stand-point from which we may look abroad upon the whole subject, as it

lies spread out before us in the works of the ancient fathers. We may now make a rational and consistent estimate of all the evidence so often appealed to, in favour of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

A few of the declarations of this kind, such as are the strongest and most prominent, I will now cite; and then subjoin some remarks upon the whole.

The testimony of Papias, which perhaps was that of John the Presbyter, has been already cited above (p. 139), and given rise to the discussion through which we have passed. We come then to other writers in succession. I give only the translation here, because the originals (to which reference is made) may at any time be consulted by the inquisitive reader, and nothing particular is now dependent on a very exact construction, inasmuch as I fully concede that the ancients have spoken in the manner alleged by Mr. Norton, although I do not draw the same conclusion from their words which he does.

Irenaeus (Haeres. III. 1), as represented in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. V. 8, speaks in the following manner of the Gospel of Matthew: "Matthew published (¿žérɛyzev) a Gospel among the Hebrews, written in their own language."

Origen, as set forth in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25, says: "The first [Gospel] was written by Matthew . . . composed in Hebrew letters, and given out to converts from Judaism.”

Eusebius himself, in conformity with these traditionary accounts, says in Hist. Ecc. III. 24: "Matthew at first preached the Gospel to the Hebrews; and when he was desirous to go and preach to others, delivering his Gospel to them, written in their vernacular language, he supplied the place of his own personal presence among those whom he left, by this writing."

Epiphanius has already been quoted above; but I will here produce one seemingly very explicit passage from his Haeres. XXIX. 9. He is speaking of the Jewish Christians, and says: "They [the Nazarenes] use the Gospel according to Matthew in full and in Hebrew; for among them this is undoubtedly (oagos) preserved, as it was written at first, in the Hebrew language.' And the like to this he says in some other places.

Jerome, soon after this (in his Lib. de Vir. Illust., Art. Matthaeus) says: "[Matthew] first composed a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew words and letters, on account of those of the circumcision in Judea who became believers. Quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est."

Again, in his Proleg. in Matt. (Vol. IV. p. 3) he says: "Matthew first published his Gospel in Judea, in the Hebrew language, particularly on account of those Jews who believed in Jesus."

In other places he speaks in the like way; e. g. in Epist. ad Damas. IV. p. 148-ad Hedibiam, IV. p. 173. Comm. in Jes. III. p. 63. Comm. in Oseam, III. p. 1311.

A few other passages might be gleaned; but none are so strong and plain as these. Eusebius relates (Ecc. Hist. V. 10) a tradition respecting Pantaenus, viz., that he went is Ivdovs [probably some part of Arabia Felix] and preached, and there found the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew letters, which, according to report, the apostle Bartholomew had delivered to them.' But whether this was a translation on account of those who could not speak Greek, or a copy of a Hebrew original made on account of the Arabians who might understand the Hebrew dialect, we have no means of determining. This testimony seems hardly direct enough, therefore, to be brought into the account.

Mr. Norton, and Olshausen, Campbell, Kuinoel, and many others, assume the position, in view of all this testimony of the fathers, that we must either concede the fact of an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or else abandon all deference to ancient testimony.

I do not feel compelled to do either the one or the other. Certainly I cannot relinquish the ground, that credit is due to ancient testimony. But, on the other hand, I cannot take the ground that this testimony is to be received without examination-careful examination of all the circumstances which may have shaped it so as it now appears to us. Let all the witnesses be cross-examined; not with the craft of a hired advocate, who is paid well for the dexterity with which he suppresses, or confuses, or embarrasses an honest witness and makes him speak contradictious, but with strenuous and hearty effort to educe the truth.

Now there are circumstances attending this matter of an original Hebrew Matthew, or at any rate attending the supposition that our canonical Matthew is only a translation, which cannot be disposed of to my satisfaction, and, as I expect to shew in the sequel, cannot well be disposed of by any critical skill or acumen, so as to comport with the supposition that we have in our canon only a translated Matthew. I must cast

myself here on the confidence of the reader, for a little while, in order to finish my present discussion of these ancient testimonies; and I beg him at least to admit it for the present as possible, or rather as probable, that such circumstances as those just named can be adduced.

On such ground, then, we find ourselves to be in the following predicament. There are acts and circumstances which appear to render it improbable that our present Gospel is a translation; they are seemingly irreconcilable with this supposition. Yet the ancient fathers have agreed, that in earlier and later times a report was spread throughout the churches and generally believed, that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. What shall be said-what can be donein such a predicament as this?

My answer is at hand. The first thing to be done is, to see whether there are not some circumstances which will explain all the fathers have said, and explain it in such a way as impeaches neither their integrity nor their understandings, and at the same time will allow all the weight of the arguments which go to disprove the correctness of their opinion as to an original Hebrew Gospel. Such circumstances, as it appears to me, are plainly found in the history of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. From about A. D. 100 to A. D. 400 we can distinctly trace the existence of such a Gospel; and we have assurances of its general resemblance to the canonical Matthew, in the name zarà Martaior which was commonly given to it. It was a Gospel which was written in the Hebrew language of the day. It could not therefore be understood, and consequently was not read, by the great body of Christians belonging to the church catholic. Of all the fathers even of the early ages, only Origen and Jerome could read and examine it. It circulated among Christians who had separated themselves from the catholic church, on the ground of Jewish rites and ceremonies; and so far as it respects the Ebionites, on the ground also of fundamental disagreement with the church catholic in respect to the rank and dignity of the Redeemer's person. There was constantly more and more alienation springing up between the church catholic and these Jewish Christians, so that the latter kept themselves entirely aloof, and were not treated by the Gentile Christians as a part of their brotherhood, and were not disposed to seek for or accept such treatment. It was thus matters went on through the second, third, and fourth centuries.

Soon after these had elapsed we hear no more of the Jewish Christians, and must naturally suppose that they dwindled away until they became extinct.

In the mean time it is altogether clear, that from a very early period, (there can be no good reason to doubt, that even before the expiration of the first century), they had a rallying-point for their sectarian views in the so-called Gospel xara Mardatov or Gospel na Epoxious. They could not have kept themselves in countenance, nor even in existence, as a Christian sect, without some such central point around which they must revolve. That they regarded their Gospel as of apostolic origin, there can be no reasonable doubt, because they would otherwise not have rejected all other Gospels. That it originally had its basis in the Gospel of Matthew, one is strongly tempted to believe, from the manner in which Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome speak of it. But whether it was translated from Matthew's canonical Greek Gospel, or vice versa, that is a point on which we have no explicit information; I mean none which, under circumstances like these, can be justly considered as decisive. We shall see in the sequel, whether I have assumed too much in this remark.

The great body of the Jewish Christians being thus early separated from the church catholic, by their language and by their opinions, and great aversion existing between the two parties, the church at large gave themselves little or no concern about them or their Scriptures. They indeed gave out that they had a Gospel κατὰ Ματθαῖον. It was natural enough to suppose that Matthew might have left such an one for his kinsmen after the flesh. It was reported among the churches, and commonly believed, that he did; and the fathers have given us that report as it came to them. They have given it honestly, and their integrity is not at all impeachable.

But mark now the result in respect to all those fathers who made any particular examination into this matter. Origen gives us a long passage from the Jewish Gospel which is wholly spurious. He gives us another which is preposterous; (p. 144 seq. above). He plainly discloses his views of the Jewish Gospel; and these are, that he does not deem it all authoritative. Epiphanius has given us many citations from the same Gospel, and expressly told us, that the Ebionites used a Matthew which was οὐκ πληρέστατον, but was νενοθευμένον καὶ ἠκρωτηριασμέ νον. He has given us many extracts also from the Gospel of VOL. XII. No. 31.

21