man characters, we should reckon it more suitable to the language of the Spirit to say righteous than virtuous, just than honest. 13. The only other use I have made of the notes, and that but seldom, is to remark passingly what may serve either to illustrate the character of the style of those writings, or to display the spirit which every where animates them; for in these we discover the intrinsic evidences they carry of a divine original. This has induced me, sometimes, to take notice also of the moral lessons to which some things naturally lead the attention of the serious reader. There is not on this ground the same hazard, as on the speculative questions of school divinity, of rousing even among Christians a whole host of opponents, or stirring up unedifying and undeterminable disputes. Practical observations, though too little minded, are hardly ever controverted. Besides, they are not of that kind of questions which genders strife, but are most evidently of that which ministers godly edifying. On this article some will think that I have been too sparing; but, in my judgment, it is only in very particular cases that the introduction of such hints is pertinent in a scholiast. When the scope of the text is manifestly practical, it is enough that we attend to the sacred authors. To enforce what they say, by obtruding on the reader remarks to the same purpose, might appear a superfluous, or even officious interruption. The effect is fully as bad when the observation, however good in itself, appears far-fetched; for the best things do not answer out of place. Perhaps the least exceptionable account that can be given of such remarks as are at once pertinent and efficacious, is, that they arise naturally, though not obviously, out of the subject. 14. To conclude: As I do not think it the best way of giving an impartial hearing to the sacred authors, to interrupt the reading of them every moment, for the sake of consulting either the glosses or the annotations of expositors, I have avoided offering any temptation to this practice, having placed the notes at the end. When a portion of Scripture, such as one of the sections of this version, is intended to be read, it is better to read it to an end without interruption. The scope of the whole is in this way more clearly perceived, as well as the connexion of the parts. Whereas when the reader finds the texts and the notes on the same page, and under his eye at once, the latter tend too evidently to awaken his curiosity, and before he has proceeded in the former far enough to have a distinct view of the scope of the passage, to call off his attention; but when they are separated, as in this work, it may be supposed, that a reader will finish at least a paragraph before he turn over to a distant part of the book. This method gives this advantage even to the notes, if judicious, that as the argument there used in favor of a particular reading, or of a particular rendering of a sentence, is often drawn from the scope and connexion of the place, he will be better qualified to judge of the justness of the criticism. It ought always to be remembered, that an acquaintance with the text is the principal object. Recourse to the notes may be had only occasionally, as a man, when he meets with some difficulty, and is at a loss how to determine, recurs to the judgment of a friend. For the same reason I have also avoided inserting any marks in the text referring to them. The reference is sufficiently ascertained in the notes themselves, by the common marks of chapter and verse. 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 ús dúvato Exaσtos. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 39. + Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T. c. 5. Prefatory Disc. to the Four Gospels. 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 not 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. 1 Chron. 29: 29. * Numb. 21: 14. |