cast, in the first century, and he lived but a few years after the Gospel of Matthew was composed (fl. 80). That he was a Palestine Jew, Paulus has rendered altogether probable, in his Historia Cerinthi, contained in his Introduct. in Nov. Testament. Capita selectiora, and Schmidt in his Bibl. für Kritik und Exegese des N. Test. B. I. S. 181, Cerinth ein Judaisirender Christ. That he and Carpocrates made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is expressly asserted by Epiphanius (Haeres. XXX. 13), who says: "Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using the same Gospel with them [the Ebionites], endeavours to shew from the genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel κατὰ Ματθαῖον, that Christ sprung from the seed of Joseph and Mary. But they [the Ebionites] cutting off the genealogy in Matthew, begin their Gospel as I said before, viz., Eyévεro Ev ταῖς ἡμέραις Ηρώδου Βασιλέως τῆς ̓Ιουδαίας, etc.” By the same Gospel Epiphanius evidently means here the Gospel in Hebrew. This Gospel the Ebionites received, but they curtailed it by omitting the first two chapters; while Cerinthus and Carpocrates laboured to prove, from these very chapters, in their Hebrew copies, the merely natural and human origin of the Saviour.

So then we go back here to the very age of the apostles, and find Jews at that period using a Hebrew Gospel, which contains the chapters whose genuineness is now called in question.

Evidence simultaneous, from so many different quarters and in such a variety of ways, cannot be resisted. It is certain that in the next generation after the apostles, our canonical Matthew was the only authenic one to which the church catholic made appeal; and equally certain, that chapters I. II. constituted the same portion of it which they now do.

Such is the state of external evidence, that Matthew I. II. is genuine and contemporaneous with the whole book. In justice to the subject, however, it should not be dismissed, until we inquire whether there is any internal evidence which will serve to corroborate the testimony already exhibited. My answer to this inquiry is, that there are some phenomena in chap. III., which seem to be unaccountable in case the Gospel of Matthew originally began with the third chapter.

A

First the de in Matt. 3: 1 is deserving of special note. perfectly clear case it is, that a book could not commence with a de in the first clause, inasmuch as dé is such a connective particle as necessarily implies something antecedent in the discourse.

But if chapters I. II. did not originally belong to this Gospel, then there was in this case no antecedent.

I am aware that not a few Mss., and some of good authority, omit the d here; and so, also, several of the Versions. But, as Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. p. 23), no good reason can be given why de should be added, [to the text]. On the other hand, as this verse was the beginning of a xeqálaiov, or of an avayvavoua (lection), there is a very plain reason for its omission [in Lectionaries], specially as the matter which follows is very discrepant from that which precedes.' Hence Griesbach, concludes, respecting the particle in question, that "rectius retinetur." But if retained, it argues the necessity of precedent matter; i. e. the Gospel could not have begun here; and so the existence of chapters I. II., or at any rate of some matter of this kind, is of necessity implied.

I am aware that the usual answer to all this has been and still is, that the translator into Greek added the de, in order to keep up the connection between the two narratives, viz. that which precedes and that which follows. But why he needed to do this, cannot be well shewn. So great a transition would appear even to more advantage, so far as grammar or rhetoric is concerned, without the de than with it. And after all, it is a mere assumption, when one says that it was added by a translator. The Old Syriac translator, at any rate, found the de in the copy from which he made his version.

But dismissing this, let us see if there be not something more in the text here, which is deserving of particular notice.

What can be meant by ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις? « Those days" must necessarily refer to some days which had been already mentioned or alluded to. But if the first two chapters are not genuine, there is of course no such mention or allusion.

The Ebionite Gospel, which rejected these two chapters, instead of ἐκείναις, adds Ηρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς ̓Ιουδαίας. But what an emendation! In the days of Herod, who had been dead some twenty-eight years!

Nor is the appeal to Ex. 2: 11 for an analogical case, at all in point. Ex. 2: 11 runs thus: "It came to pass, in those days, when Moses was grown." The preceding verse (v. 10) says: "The child [Moses] grew; and she [his mother] brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son, etc." Now those days, in v. 11, may refer either to the period mentioned here, or to what is expressed in the phrase immediately sub

joined in v. 11. viz. when Moses was grown, which seems to be added for the sake of explaining what those days mean.

Nor can those days in Matt. 3: 1, be satisfactorily explained, by merely calling the phrase a Hebraism. True it is, that the Hebrews were accustomed thus to designate time. But in all cases, where, those, is employed with 2, the context shews the nature and object of reference.

There is another expression in chapter III. which would seem to be very strange, in case chapters I. II. were not originally integral parts of Matthew's Gospel. I refer to v. 13, where it is said: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee." Now if chap. I. II. are removed, there is no mention whatever of Jesus, nor of the place of his abode, previous to this declaration. Would it not be passing strange for a writer thus to introduce a most important personage wholly unknown to the reader, and thus to mention his place of abode, just as if it were already familiar to the reader? How can we account for a manner so abrupt, and such declarations without the least preparation for them?

On the other hand; supposing the first two chapters of Matthew to be genuine, we can easily explain all these expressions. 4 connects chap. III. with the preceding history. Ev uépais ἡμέραις intivais refers to what is said at the close of chap. II., viz., that Jesus came, with Joseph and Mary, and dwelt at Nazareth, and that during his abode there John the Baptist entered upon his public ministry. That Jesus "came from Galilee," 3: 13, is explained by 2: 22, where it is said that Joseph and Mary went to sojourn in the region of Galilee.'

That there is a large interval of time between the occurrences narrated in chap. II. and those in chap. III., is true enough. But as the writer had no intention of developing the private life of Jesus, the nature of the case required, that he should make a transition to the period of his public ministry. Transitions as great as these, are not unfrequent; specially in the prophetic parts of the Old Testament.

Let the reader now put all these facts together, and then ask himself, whether there is any probability that the two first chapters of Matthew are spurious? The external and internal evidence is certainly very strong in favour of the position, that they came from the hand of Matthew, the author of the whole book.

9. Examination of Objections.

(1) The Gospel of the Ebionites did not contain Matt. I. II.’ So Epiphanius declares; and very probably he has told us the truth. But then we have the same authority to prove, that the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and also that of Cerinthus, did contain these chapters. Jerome who translated the Nazarene Gospel, never intimates any deficiency here; which he surely would have done, had it been found in his copy.

Besides, we have a solution of this difficulty in the fact, that the Ebionites rejected the miraculous conception of Jesus. This led them to do the same thing, which the Manichaeans afterwards did for another reason drawn from their theology or philosophy, viz., to reject that portion of Matthew which disagreed with their speculations. So Marcion did, in respect to the Gospel of Luke; so some of the Romish church afterwards did with respect to the epistle to the Hebrews, in their disputes against the Montanists, who appealed to that epistle in order to shew that lapsed Christians could not be restored again to repentance; and so the Anti-millenarians did, at a later period, when they rejected the Apocalypse. So even Luther did, in respect to the epistle of James, when he disputed with the Romanists about the doctrine of justification by faith alone. There is no end of such subterfuges among men of ardent temperament, or of bigoted feelings in respect to particular sectarian points of doctrine. How could Mr. Norton say, (p. liv), that "he can perceive nothing in the prejudices or habits of mind [of the Ebionites] which led them to reject the facts [related in Matt. I. II.?]

All this, however, proves nothing except the strength of prejudice in a particular party among early Christians. Even the Hebrew Gospel of primitive times was mutilated, as we have seen, only by one small party; and the authority of this party can weigh but little indeed, in a matter like the present, where so much direct and positive testimony lies before us which is against them.

6

At all events, as Griesbach well remarks, (Comm. Crit. II. p. 52), nothing can be proved by the hints we have respecting the state of the Ebionite Gospel, until it shall be shown more clearly what relation this Gospel sustained toward our canonical Matthew, so that we can reason from the state of the former to that of the latter.'

The manner in which the Gospel of the Ebionites commences, shews what sort of a compilation it was: "It came to pass in the days of Herod, the King of Judea, that John came, baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, etc." So it is quoted in Epiphan. Haeres. XXX. 13; but in Haeres. XXX. 14, he gives us another beginning of this same Gospel : "It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judea, while Caiphas was high priest, there came a certain John, by name, baptizing with the baptism of repentance, etc." Here Luke 3: 2, respecting the high-priesthood of Caiphas, is intermingled with the text. In both, the wretched mistake is made of Herod being King of Judea, when John entered on his public ministry. Herod, the King of Judea, died the year after the birth of the Saviour, i. e. some twenty-eight years before John's public appearance, and after him there was indeed a Herod who was a tetrarch, but no Herod who was a king, as here quoted.

Shall we resort, now, to such a Gospel as this, for establishing the interpolation of Matt. I. II.? I trust not.

(2) The Protevangelium from which three of the Evangelists composed their narrations, did not probably contain Matt. I. II.'

Supposing now I should aver, that it did probably contain these chapters; my assertion would be just as good as the opposite one. Of the Protevangelium no ancient writer of the church ever spoke, heard, or dreamed. It is a phenomenon of Neology alone, first dreamed, I believe, among countless other like visions, by the great heresiarch Semler; and after him by others, whose imaginations were as lively as his; finally, however, dreamed even on English ground, and by a man who is now a bishop; but, last of all, scattered, as dreams are at the opening day, by an American at Cambridge, who has, one would think, so completely dissipated it that it will not soon make its appearance again.

(3) Mark begins his Gospel without any preface which relates the history of Jesus' infancy; and so Matthew probably began his, for Mark, who is the epitomator of Matthew, has not given us a word of the Gospel of the Infancy.'

Nor has he given us any of the Sermon on the Mount; nor of many other things contained in Matthew. Are these therefore to be rejected as spurious?

Besides; there is no satisfactory evidence that Mark copied