PREFACE ΤΟ ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. THE time when this Gospel was composed, has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Some have thought that it was written no more than eight years after our Lord's ascension; others have reckoned it no fewer than fifteen. All antiquity seems agreed in the opinion, that it was of all the Gospels the first published; and, in a case of this kind, I should not think it prudent, unless for very strong reasons, to dissent from their verdict. Of the few Christian writers of the first century, whose works yet remain, there are in Barnabas, the companion of Paul, (if what is called the Epistle of Barnabas, which is certainly very ancient, be truly his), in Clement of Rome, and Hermas, clear references to some passages of this history. For though the evangelist is not named, and his words are not formally quoted, the attentive reader must be sensible that the author had read the Gospel which has uniformly been ascribed to Matthew, and that on some occasions he plainly alludes to it. Very early in the second century, Ignatius, in those epistles which are generally acknowledged to be genuine, and Polycarp, of whom we have no more but a single letter remaining, have manifest allusions to different parts of this Gospel. The writers above named are those who are denominated apostolic fathers, because they were contemporary to the apostles, and had been their disciples. Their testimony, therefore, serves to show not only their knowledge of this Book, but the great and general estimation wherein it was held from the beginning. 2. The first indeed upon record, who has named Matthew as the writer of this Gospel, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Cesarea, who is said to have been a companion of Polycarp, and hearer of John. Though Ireneus seems to think it was the apostle John he meant, Eusebius, with greater probability, supposes it was a John who was commonly distinguished from the apostle by the appellation of the elder or the presbyter. Papias, in his preface, does not say that he had heard or seen any of the apostles, but only that he had received every thing concerning the faith from those who were well ac quainted with them. Besides, after naming the apostle John, he mentions Aristion and John the elder, not as apostles, but as disciples of the Lord. Concerning Matthew this venerable ancient affirms, that "he wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able."* Here we have his testimony, first that Matthew (who is also called Levi, Mark 2: 14. Luke 5: 27, 29) was the writer of this Gospel, for no other was ever ascribed to him, and this was never ascribed to another, and, secondly, that it was written in Hebrew. 3. The first of these testimonies has never, as far as I know, been controverted. On the contrary it has been confirmed, and is still supported by all subsequent Christian authors who have touched the subject. The second of these testimonies, that the evangelist wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, had a concurrence equally uniform of all succeeding writers in the church for about fourteen hundred years. In the last two centuries, however, this point has been hotly disputed. Erasmus, who, though an eminent scholar, knew little or nothing of Hebrew, was among the first who called in question a tradition which had so long and so universally obtained in the church. "The faults of Erasmus," says Simon,† were blindly followed by Cardinal Cajetan, who, not knowing either Greek or Hebrew, was incapable of correcting them." The cardinal has since been almost deserted by the Catholics; and the principal defenders of this new opinion have been Protestants. It is very unlucky for the discovery of truth, when party spirit in any degree influences our inquiries. Yet it is too evident, that there has been an infusion of this spirit in the discussion of the present question. "If we give up," says the staunch polemic, the originality of the Greek text, we have no Gospel by Matthew which can be called authentic; for, to admit that the translation of one book of Scripture may be so denominated, is equally absurd as to admit it of them all; and if we admit this point, what becomes of our controversy with the Romanists about the decree of the council of Trent, asserting the authenticity of the Vulgate?" Whitby, who enters warmly into this dispute, urges,‡ amongst other things, the improbability that Providence, which has preserved all the other canonical books in their original languages, should have suffered the original of this Gospel to be so soon lost, and nothing of it to remain in the church but a translation. That all the books are extant which have been written by divine inspiration, is not so clear a case as that author seems to imagine. It will hardly be pretended, that it is self-evident, and I have yet seen no attempt * Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ̔Εβραΐδι διάλεκτῳ τὰ λογία συνέταξατο· ἡρμενεύσε δ ̓ avrà as dúvato ExaσTOS. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 39. to prove it. The book of wars of the Lord,* the book of Jasher,† the book of Nathan the Prophet, the book of Gad the Seer, and several others, are referred to in the Old Testament, manifestly as of equal authority with the book which refers to them, and is fuller in point of information. Yet these are, to all appearance, irrecoverably lost. Other epistles, beside those we have, there is reason to think the apostles wrote by the same Spirit. Paul, in what is called his First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 5: 9, plainly refers to what he had written to them in a former epistle now extant. The artificial methods which have been adopted for eluding the manifest sense of his words, serve only to demonstrate how unfriendly the spirit of the controvertist is to the discernment of the critic. And, if we regard the authority of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, Paul wrote more epistles than one to the Philippians, as this venerable father expressly tells us in his letter to that church, ch. iii. Further, is not what is spoken, equally valuable with what is written, by inspiration? Yet, how small a portion of the words of Him who spake as never man spake, has it pleased Providence to cause to be committed to writing? How little, comparatively, is recorded of the discourses of those poor fishermen of Galilee, whose eloquence, in spite of all its disadvantages, baffled the wisdom of the learned, the power of the mighty, and the influence of the rich, converting infidels and idolaters by thousands, to a doctrine to which all their education, prejudices and passions, rendered them most reluctant, the doctrine of the crucified Messiah? God bestows his favors, both spiritual and temporal, in various measure, to different individuals, nations, and ages of the world, as he thinks fit. Those of former times enjoyed many advantages which we have not, and we enjoy some which they had not. It is enough for us that this only is required as our duty, that we make the proper use of the Scriptures, and of all the other advantages which through the goodness of God we enjoy; for every man is accepted according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not, 2 Cor. 8: 12. But, indeed, this mode of arguing with regard to Providence appears to me quite unsatisfactory, as proceeding on the notion that we are judges in matters which, in my opinion, are utterly beyond the reach of our faculties. Men imagining themselves to know perfectly what it is proper for the Ruler of the universe, in any supposed circumstance, to do, conclude boldly, that he has done this or that, after such a particular manner, or such another; a method which, in a creature like man, can hardly be accounted either modest or pious. From the motives by which men are commonly influenced we may judge with some likelihood what in particular circumstances their conduct will be. This is level to our capacity, † Josh. 10: 13. * Numb. 21: 14. 1 Chron. 29: 29. 1 and within the sphere of our experience. But let us not presume to measure the acts of Omnipotence, and of Infinite Wisdom, by our contracted span. Were we, from our notions of convenience, to determine what God, in possible cases, real or hypothetical, has done, or would do, we should, without hesitation, pronounce that the autographies, the identical writings of the sacred penmen, (which are, in strictness, the only originals or perfect standards), would have been preserved from accidents, that they might serve for correcting all the corruptions which should, in process of time, through the mistakes, the carelessness, or the bad intention of transcribers, be introduced. For who can deny, that the sense of a writing may be as much injured by the blunders of a copyist as by those of a translator? But if those have not the Gospel who cannot have recourse to some copy in the original language, not the ten-thousandth part of those called Christians have yet partaken in that inestimable blessing. For how small comparatively, is the number of those who can read the sacred writers in their own languages? If, therefore, it is truth we desire, and not the confirmation of our prejudices, let us renounce all such delusive reasonings a priori from supposed fitnesses, of which we are far, very far indeed, from being competent judges; and let us satisfy ourselves with examining, impartially, the evidences of the fact. 4. The proper evidence of ancient facts is written testimony. And for this fact, as we observed before, we have the testimony of Papias, as Eusebius, who quotes his words, assures us. For a fact of this kind, a more proper witness than Papias could hardly be desired; if not a contemporary of the apostles, or rather, if not known to them, a contemporary of their disciples, and who had been a hearer of two men, Aristion, and John the elder, whom he calls disciples of the Lord. He was one, therefore, who had it in his power to be certified of any fact relating to the ministry of the apostles, and that by persons who had been intimately acquainted with them. Now, by the character transmitted to us of Papias, he was particularly inquisitive about the sayings and actions of our Lord; and, for this purpose, cultivated an acquaintance with those who had seen and heard him, and could give him the fullest information of all that he did and taught. "I took no delight," says he, "as most men do, in those who talk much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate strange precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which the Lord hath entrusted us with, and which proceed from the truth itself." It would not be easy for me to imagine what could be objected to so clear an evidence in so plain a case a matter of fact which falls within the reach, even of the lowest understanding; for this is one of those points on which, if the simplest man alive should deviate from truth, every man of sense would impute his deviation to a defect of a very different kind from that of understanding. Yet this is the only resource to which those who controvert the testimony of Papias have betaken themselves. 5. Eusebius had said of Papias,* that "he was a man of slender parts, as may be discovered from his writings." This the historian mentions, in order to account for the sentiments of that ancient writer concerning the millenium, who, in the opinion of Eusebius, interpreted too literally and grossly what the apostles had seen meet to veil under figurative language. But, not to enter here into the nature of Christ's reign for a thousand years on the earth, before the general resurrection, (a question foreign to the present purpose; and on which if Papias erred, he erred along with many not deficient in understanding), a man may be very unfit for judging rightly of a theological or critical question, who would be allowed, by every person of common sense, a competent witness in questions of plain fact which had fallen under his observation; as whether Matthew had been accounted from the beginning the writer of such a Gospel, and whether he wrote it in Hebrew or in Greek. 6. It seems to be another objection to the testimony of Papias, that he adds, "which every one interpreted as he was able;" as if he could be understood to mean, that every one was able to interpret Hebrew. This clause is an elliptical idiom of that sort, to which something similar, in familiar conversation, will be found to occur in most languages. Nobody is at a loss to perceive the meaning to be, "For some time there was no interpretation in common use, but every one who attempted interpreting, did it the best way he could." The manner in which this addition is made, is to me, on the contrary, a confirmation of the testimony; as it leads me to think, (but in this I may be deceived), that Papias had not from testimony this part of the information he gives; but that it was what he himself remembered, when there was no version of Matthew's Gospel generally received, but every one who could read it in its own language, Hebrew, and either in writing or in speaking had recourse to it, translated it as well as he could. Thus, our Scottish Highlanders may say at this moment, that till very lately they had no translation of the Bible into their mother tongue, that they had only the English Bible, which every one interpreted to them as he was able. Could a reasonable person, on hearing such a declaration, imagine that any thing had been advanced which could be called either absurd or unintelligible? 7. The next authority I shall recur to is that of Ireneus bishop of Lyons in Gaul, who in his youth had been a disciple of Polycarp. He says, in the only book of his extant, that "Matthew among * Εφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρός ὢν τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων, τεκμη ραμένον εἰπεῖν, φαινεται. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 39. † Ο μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραῖοις τῇ ἴδια διάλεκτῳ αὐτῶν, καὶ γρα |