Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerome (k), positively assert that it was written by St. Matthew in Hebrew, that is, in the language then spoken in Palestine; and indeed Dr. Campbell says, that this point was not controverted by any author for fourteen hundred years (1). Erasmus was one of the first who contended that the present Greek is the original; and he has been followed by Le Clerc, Wetstein, Basnage, Whitby, Jortin, and many other learned men. On the other hand, Grotius, Du Pin, Simon, Walton, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Michaelis, Owen, and Campbell, have supported the opinion of the antients. In a question of this sort, which is a question of fact, the concurrent voice of antiquity is with me decisive; and it surely is very dangerous to reject that ground of belief upon any point in which the Holy Scriptures are concerned; I do not therefore think it necessary to notice the arguments which ingenious moderns have urged upon this subject, "quod enim a recentiore auctore de rebus adeo antiquis, sine alicujus vetustioris auctoritate, profertur, contemnitur (m);" they may be found in Lardner, Whitby, and Beausobre: I will only observe, that the opinion that the first published Gospel was written in the language of the Jews, and for their peculiar use, is perfectly conformable to the distinction with which we know they were favoured, of having the Gospel preached to them exclusively by our Saviour, and before all other nations by his Apostles.

(k) Jerome observes, that most of the quotations from the Old Testament in this Gospel are made according to the Hebrew text; and assigns as a reason for it, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. These quotations in other parts of the New Testament are made from the Septuagint version.

(1) Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel, in which this question is very ably discussed.

(m) Bar. Ann. Eccl. A. D. 1 N. 12.

Though the fathers are unanimous in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, yet they have not informed us by whom it was translated into Greek. No writer of the first three centuries makes any mention whatever of the translator; nor does Eusebius; and Jerome tells us, that in his time it was not known who was the translator (n). It is however universally allowed, that the Greek translation was made very early (o), and that it was more used than the original. This last circumstance is easily accounted for. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the language of the Jews, and every thing which belonged to them, fell into great contempt, and the early fathers, writing in Greek, would naturally quote and refer to the Greek copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, in the same manner as they constantly used the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. There being no longer any country in which the language of St. Matthew's original Gospel was commonly spoken, that original would soon be forgotten; and the translation into Greek, the language then generally understood, would be substituted in its room. This early and exclusive use of the Greek translation is a strong proof of its correctness, and leaves us but little reason to lament the loss of the original (p).

(n) Matthæus, qui et Levi, ex publicano apostolus, primus in Judæa, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderunt, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis litteris verbisque composuit. Quod quis postea in Græcum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Hier. de Sc. Eccl. in Mat.

(0) Quæ diversitas sententiarum, ut de vero auctore certo pronuntiare nos vetat, ita illud certissime demonstrat, ipsis apostolorum temporibus ab uno illorum, aut illorum auspiciis, vel potius Spiritûs Sancti, cujus ipsi erant organa, Græcum textum ex Hebraico esse confectum. Casaub. Exercit. 15. ad. Ann. Bar. n. 12.

(p) The Ebionites, a sect of Jewish Christians, mutilated and interpolated the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, in accommoda

Dr. Lardner has entered very fully into this question he thinks that St. Matthew wrote in Greek; and that the original Greek was translated into Hebrew; and that this translation was the Hebrew Gospel, which, it is acknowledged, existed in the primitive age of Christianity. I must own that his reasoning appears to me very inconclusive; and I cannot but remark, that he has not attempted to support his opinion by the authority of a single antient writer. This is so contrary to his usual practice, that I am inclined to think, with Dr. Campbell (q), his judgment was biassed by his system of credibility.

V. ST. MATTHEW, being from the time of his call a constant attendant upon our Saviour, was well qualified to write the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard in a natural and unaffected style; and he is more circumstantial in his account than any other of the evangelists. That he published his Gospel in Palestine for the immediate use of the Jews, was the opinion of all antient ecclesiastical writers; and it is confirmed by the contents of the book itself. There are more references in this, than in any other Gospel, to Jewish customs; and cities and places in Palestine are always mentioned in it as being well known by those to whom it is addressed. St. Matthew seems studiously to have selected such circumstances as were calculated to conciliate or strengthen the faith of the Jews; for example, no sentiment relative to the Messiah was more prevalent among them, than that tion to their heretical tenets, and this circumstance might also contribute towards bringing the Greek translation into general use. It is, however, an additional proof that St. Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, for they could not otherwise have had a pretence for receiving this, and rejecting the other Gospels.

(9) Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel.

he should be of the race of Abraham, and family of David, and accordingly St. Matthew begins his narrative by shewing the descent of Jesus from those two illustrious persons; he then relates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the city in which the Messiah was expected to be born; and throughout his Gospel he omits no opportunity of explaining the Scriptures and of pointing out the fulfilment of prophecy, which was known to have greater weight with the Jews than any other species of evidence: moreover, he records many of our Saviour's reproofs to the Jews for their errors and superstitions, and thus endeavours to eradicate from their minds those prejudices, which impeded the progress, or sullied the purity, of the Christain faith. Though this Gospel was particularly adapted to the Jews, it must also have been very useful in confirming, and in converting other persons, especially those who were acquainted with the types and predictions of the Old Testament.

"As the sacred writers, especially the Evangelists, have many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of them, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the rest. That which principally distinguishes Matthew, is the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord's discourses and moral instructions. Of these, his sermon on the Mount, his charge to the Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the apostleship, he was an eye-witness and ear-witness of most of the things which he relates: and though I do not think it was the scope of any of these historians to adjust

their narratives to the precise order of time wherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline me to think, that Matthew has approached at least as near that order as any of them (r)." And this, we may observe, would naturally be the distinguishing characteristic of a narrative, written very soon after the events had taken place.

The most remarkable things recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the visit of the eastern magi; our Saviour's flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins; the dream of Pilate's wife; the resurrection of many saints at our Saviour's crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard, appointed to watch at the holy sepulchre, by the chief priests and elders.

(r) Dr. Campbell's Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel.