It appears very improbable, that the Christians should be left any considerable number of years without a written history of our Saviour's ministry. It is certain that the Apostles, immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of our Saviour into Heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great success: and surely it is reasonable to suppose, that an authentic account of our Saviour's doctrines and miracles would very soon be committed to writing, for the confirmation of those who believed in his divine mission, and for the conversion of others; and, more particularly, to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their antient prophecies relative to the Messiah: and we may conceive that the Apostles would be desirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles which Jesus performed, and of the discourses which he delivered, because the sooner such an account was published, the easier it would be to enquire into its truth and accuracy; and consequently, when these points were satisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its weight and authority. I must own that these arguments are, in my judgment, so strong in favour of an early publication of some history of our Saviour's ministry, that I cannot but accede to the opinion of Mr. Jones, Mr. Wetstein, and Dr. Owen, that St. Matthew's Gospel was written in the year 38.

"There is, however," says Bishop Percy, "a capital objection to this very early date; and that is, the great clearness with which the comprehensive design of the Christian dispensation, as extending to the whole Gentile world, is unfolded in this Gospel; whereas it is well known, and allowed by all, that for a while our Lord's disciples laboured under Jewish prejudices, and that they did not fully understand all his discourses at the time they were spoken. They could not clearly discern the extensive design of the Gospel scheme, till after St. Peter had been at the house of Cornelius, nor indeed till after the Gospel had been preached abroad in foreign countries by St. Paul and other Apostles." This objection appears to carry but little force with it; for we are to observe, that the evangelist, in those passages which relate to the universality of the Gospel dispensation, only recites the words of our Saviour, without any explanation or remark; and we know it was promised to the Apostles, that after the ascension of our Lord, the Holy Spirit should bring all things to their remembrance, and guide them into all truth. Whether St. Matthew was aware of the call of the Gentiles, before the Gospel was actually embraced by them, cannot be ascertained; nor is it material, since it is generally agreed, that the inspired penmen often did not comprehend the full meaning of their own writings, when they referred to future events; and it is obvious, that it might answer a good purpose to have the future call of the Gentiles intimated in an authentic history of our Saviour's ministry, to which the believing Jews might refer, when that extraordinary and unexpected event should take place: their minds would thus be more easily satisfied; and they would more readily admit the comprehensive design of the Gospel, when they found it declared in a book, which they acknowledged as the rule of their faith and practice.

IV. THERE has also of late been great difference of opinion concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Among the antient fathers, Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, Irenæus, Origen, Cyril, 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 accommodaDr. 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.

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