der 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 millennium, 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 the Hebrews wrote a Gospel in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding the church there." And in a fragment of the same author, which Grabe and others have published, it is said, "The Ο μεν δη Ματθαιος εν τοις Εβραιοις τη ίδια διαλεκτῳ αυτών, και γραφήν εξήνεγκεν Ευαγγελίου, του Πέτρου και του Παύλου εν Ρώμη ευαγγελιζομένων, και θεμελιούντων την εκκλησίαν. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. cap. 8. Gospel according to Matthew was written by the Jews; for they earnestly desired a Messiah of the posterity of David. Matthew, in order to satisfy them on this point, began his Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus." 8. The third witness to be adduced is Origen, who flourished in the former part of the third century. He is quoted by Eusebius, in a chapter wherein he specially treats of Origen's account of the sacred canon. "As I have learnt," says Origen, "by tradition, concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven; the first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language. Εκδεδωκότα αυτο τοις απο Ιουδαϊσμου πιτευσασι, γραμμασιν Εβραϊκοις συντεταγμένον.” In another place he says, "We begin with Matthew, who, according to tradition, wrote first, publishing his Gospel to the Hebrews, or the believers who were of the circumcision." Again,+ Again," Matthew, writing for the Hebrews, who expected him who was to descend from Abraham and David, says, The lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." Let it here be observed by the way, that the word Tapadoσiç, as used by ancient writers, and sometimes by the sacred penmen, does not entirely coincide in meaning with our word tradition. I have here however employed this word with the common run of interpreters, that I might not be thought desirous of saying more in the version than the original warrants. The word tradition with us imports, as the English lexicographer rightly explains it, "any thing delivered orally from age to age;" whereas Tapadoσiç properly implies, "any thing handed down from former ages, in whatever way it has been transmitted, whether by oral or by written testimony; or even any instruction conveyed to others, either by word or by writing." In this last acceptation we find it used in Scripture; "Hold the traditions, Taç Tapadoos, "which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle," 2 Thess. ii. 15. It is only when the epithet aypapoç, unwritten, is added to rapadoσis, that it answers exactly to the English word; whereas all historical evidence comes under the denomination Tapadosis. In this acceptation of the term, therefore, to say we have such a thing by tradition, is the same as to say, in English, "we have this account transmitted from former ages." In Papias and Ireneus there is no mention of tradition. They spoke of what they knew, as they had immediate and most credible attestations from those who were acquainted with the writers of the Gospels, and with every circumstance relating to the publication. Their manner of expressing * Hist. lib. vi. cap. 25. παραδοσις. † Αρξάμενοι απο του Ματθαίου, ὁς και παραδέδοται πρωτος λοιπων τοις Εβραιοις εκδεδωκέναι το Ευαγγελιον τοις εκ περιτομης πιστευουσιν. Comment. in Johan. + Ματθαιος μεν γαρ τοις προσδοκώσι τον εξ Αβρααμ και Δαβίδ, Εβραιοις γράφων, Βίβλος, φησί, γενέσεως Ιησου Χριστου υἱου Δαβίδ, υίου Αβρααμ. themselves on this head, is that of men who had the certain knowledge of what they affirm, and therefore consider it as indisputable. 9. It would be endless to bring authorities: Jerom, Augustin, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Eusebius, and many others, all attest the same thing, and attest it in such a manner as shows that they knew it to be uncontroverted, and judged it to be uncontrovertible. "But," say some modern disputants, "all the witnesses you can produce in support of this fact may, for aught we know, be reducible to one. Ireneus, perhaps, has had his information only from Papias; and Origen from Papias and Ireneus; and so of all the rest downwards, how numerous soever; so that the whole evidence may be, at bottom, no more than the testimony of Papias." But is the positive evidence of witnesses, delivered as of a well-known fact, to be overturned by a mere supposition, a perhaps? for that the case was really as they suppose, no shadow of evidence is pretended. Papias is not quoted on this article by Ireneus, nor is his name mentioned, or his testimony referred to. Nor is the testimony of either urged by Origen. As to Ireneus, from the early period in which he lived, he had advantages for information little inferior to those of Papias, having been, in his younger years, well acquainted with Polycarp the disciple of the apostle John. Had there then subsisted any account or opinion contradictory to the account given by Papias, Ireneus must certainly have known it, and would probably have mentioned it, either to confirm or to confute it. As the matter, stands, we have here a perfect unanimity of the witnesses, not a single contradictory voice: no mention is there, either from those fathers or from any other ancient writer, that ever another account of this matter had been heard of in the church. Shall we then admit a mere modern hypothesis to overturn the foundations of all historic evidence? 10. Let it be observed that Papias, in the words quoted from him, attested two things; that Matthew wrote the Gospel ascribed to him, and that he wrote it in Hebrew. These two points rest on the same bottom, and are equally, as matter of fact, the subjects of testimony. As to both, the authority of Papias has been equally supported by succeeding authors, and by the concurrent voice of antiquity. Now there has not any thing been advanced to invalidate his testimony, in regard to the latter of these, that may not, with equal justice, be urged to invalidate his testimony in regard to the former. This may be extended also to other points; for, that Mark was the writer of the Gospel commonly ascribed to him, rests ultimately on the same authority. How arbitrary then is it, where the evidence is the same, and exposed to the same objections, to admit the one without hesitation, and to reject the other? Wetstein, for removing this difficulty, has suggested a distinction, insinuating, that the former may be the testimony of Papias, the latter only his conjecture. But if the words of Papias himself be attended to, no conjecture was ever worse founded than this of Wetstein. Papias speaks of both in the same affirmative tone, as of matters of public notoriety. I shall conclude the argument with observing, that the truth of the report that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, is the only plausible account that can be given of the rise of that report. Certain it is, that all the prejudices of the times, particularly among the Greek Christians, were unfavourable to such an opinion. Soon after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, the Hebrew church, distinguished by the name Nazarene, visibly declined every day: the attachment which many of them still retained to the ceremonies of the law, in like manner the errors of the Ebionites and other divisions which arose among them, made them soon be looked upon by the Gentile churches as but halfchristian at the most. That an advantage of this kind would have been so readily conceded to them by the Greeks, in opposition to all their own prejudices, can be attributed only to their full conviction of the fact. 11. Dr. Lardner's doubts (for I can discover none in Origen) are easily accounted for. Averse, on one hand, to admit that there is any book in Scripture whereof we have only a translation, and sensible of the danger of acquiescing in an argument which would unsettle the whole foundations of his system of credibility, he is inclinable to compromise the matter by acknowledging both the Hebrew and the Greek to be originals; an opinion every way improbable, and so manifestly calculated to serve a turn, as cannot recommend it to a judicious and impartial critic. In this way of compounding matters, Whitby also, and some other disputants on the same side, seem willing to terminate the difference. Nay, even Beausobre and Lenfant, who have treated the question at more length, and with greater warmth than most others, conclude, somewhat queerly, in this manner: "As there is no dispute affecting the foundation, that is, the authority of St. Matthew's Gospel, such as we have it, the question about the language ought to be regarded with much indifference."* 12. Having said so much on the external evidence, I shall add but a few words to show, that the account of this matter given by the earliest ecclesiastical writers, is not so destitute as some may think of internal probability. In every thing that concerned the introduction of the new dispensation, a particular attention was for some time shown, and the preference, before every other nation, given to the Jews. Our Lord's ministry upon the earth Ainsi, n'y ayant point de dispute sur le fond de la chose même, c'est-à-dire, sur l'autorité de l'Evangile de S. Matthieu, tel que nous l'avons, la question de la langue doit être regardée avec beaucoup d'indifference. Preface sur S. Matthieu, iii. 5. was among them only. In the mission of the apostles, during his own life, they were expressly prohibited from going to the Gentiles, or so much as entering any city of the Samaritans, Matt. x. 5; and when, after our Lord's resurrection, the apostolical commission was greatly enlarged, being extended to all nations throughout the world, still a sort of precedency was reserved for God's ancient people. "It behoved the Messiah," said Jesus, in his last instructions to the apostles, "to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM," Luke xxiv. 46, 47. The orders then given were punctually executed. The apostles remained some time in Jerusalem, preaching, and performing miracles in the name of the Lord Jesus, with wonderful success. Peter, in the conclusion of one of his discourses, without flattering his countrymen that this dispensation of grace would, like the law, be confined to their nation, takes notice of their prerogative, in having it first offered to their acceptance: "To YOU FIRST," says he, "God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities," Acts iii. 26. And when the disciples began to spread their Master's doctrine through the neighbouring regions, we know, that till the illumination they received in the affair of Cornelius, which was several years after, they confined their teaching to their countrymen the Jews. And, even after that memorable event, wherever the apostles came, they appear first to have repaired to the synagogue, if there was a synagogue in the place, and to have addressed themselves to those of the circumcision, and afterwards to the Gentiles. What Paul and Barnabas said to their Jewish brethren at Antioch, sets this matter in the strongest light': "It was NECESSARY that the word of God should FIRST HAVE BEEN SPOKEN TO YOU: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles," Acts xiii. 46. Have we not then reason to conclude, from the express order, as well as from the example of our Lord, and from the uniform practice of his disciples, that it was suitable to the will of Providence, in this dispensation of grace, that every advantage should be first offered to the Jews, especially the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and that the gospel which had been first delivered to them by word, both by our Lord himself and by his apostles, should be also first presented to them in writing, in that very dialect in which many of the readers, at the time of the publication, might remember to have heard the same sacred truths, as they came from the mouth of him who spake as never man spake, the great oracle of the Father, the interpreter of God? 13. If the merciful dispensation was in effect soon frustrated by their defection, this is but of a piece with what happened in regard to all the other advantages they enjoyed. The sacred |