and corrected one another. At last the whole narrative, as it was exhibited in the Gospels, came to be the settled and permanent testimony of the apostles; not something taken up by chance, not something taken by a stenographer as it happened to be uttered, but the settled story upon which they had concluded as to substance and as to expression, after from twenty to forty years of a continuous utterance, for which they were willing to lay down their lives. So we have things that are absolutely certain to us, because they were not the utterances of simply temporary interpreters, but were the settled convictions and beliefs of the apostolic witnesses. This, then, is the origin of the Gospels, and these are their main characteristics.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

THE stream that flowed from the Garden of Eden, we are told, was parted into four heads; and so the water of life comes to us through four Gospel channels. It is the first of these, the Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel of sacrifice, to which I call your attention to-day.

The writer of this Gospel is Matthew. Matthew was not his original name. His name was Levi, instead. In Mark and Luke no other name is given to him but this. It seems to have been a case of change of name at a particular epoch in his life; just as Saul, when he was converted to Christ, changed his name to Paul; and just as Simon, when he made his great confession, became Peter; and so a change of heart, a change of purpose, a change of life was indicated that made him. a new man. It would seem as if Levi's following Christ was the time when his name too was changed, and Levi became Matthew. Levi would signify "servant of the Lord"; Matthew would signify "the Lord's free man."

Levi was a publican; and by publican, in those days, was meant not innkeeper, but rather receiver of public taxes, a tax-gatherer. He was a tax-gatherer under Herod Antipas. Something of contempt attached itself to this calling of a tax-gatherer, at least under the circumstances under which Matthew attempted it. As tax-gatherer he had probably acquired a large knowl

edge of human nature. He had acquired accurate business habits, and, more than that, I suppose we may say that he had acquired practice in writing; so it is possible that Matthew was the earliest of those who composed a Gospel; and it is quite possible that the logical and philosophical grouping of his Gospel may evince the grasp and skill which he had acquired.

Matthew was a humble man. He calls himself Matthew the Publican; as if always to remember the low degree from which he had sprung; as if to call attention to the fact that it was a strange and wonderful thing that the Lord had ever set his love upon him. He not only calls himself so, but he avoids all mention of any particular qualification in him for his work. Matthew was probably a man of means. Luke tells us that, after he was called to be a disciple, he made a great feast to Jesus; but Matthew himself makes no mention of it.

Matthew is distinguished by what we call self-effacement. He ignores himself continually. He makes as little mention of himself as John does, even less than John does; for, although John does not mention his own name, John does speak of a certain disciple whom Jesus loved that can be no other than John. After the first calling of Matthew, and the relating of that incident by which he became a disciple of Jesus, there is absolutely no mention of Matthew, except his mere name in the list of the apostles; and thus we get the impression that he is a man of great humility, that he merges himself in Christ, and thinks there is nothing worthy to be mentioned of himself.

We know little about Matthew during our Saviour's

Ꭰ

life, and we know almost next to nothing of his work after the Saviour's death. Tradition says he went to Ethiopia, preached the gospel there, and suffered martyrdom, being slain while engaged in prayer. Even this tradition is denied by some, especially by Clement of Alexandria; so we may say that we know almost nothing about Matthew, except that he was a publican, a humble man, the author of this Gospel.

Yet this humble disciple of Christ, this apostle who never cared to have his own name mentioned, has become the first of the Evangelists; just as that Mary, from whom Christ cast out seven demons, was the first to announce the gospel of the resurrection to the apostles. It is a blessed thought to me that the names of these apostles, who so merged themselves in Christ and his kingdom as to be lost sight of entirely, the names of these twelve apostles, every one, are to be written on the foundation-stones of the New Jerusalem; so that, although they got no honor upon the earth, they will get the honor that comes from God only.

Now in regard to the language in which this Gospel is written. There is a dispute in regard to this matter, as to whether the original writing of it was in Hebrew or in Greek. Here we come to a problem of very great interest. I cannot go into it at length. I can only indicate to you the nature of it. It is the unanimous testimony of the early church that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew," wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language which every one interpreted," i. e., I suppose, every one translated into Greek, "as he was able to "; and it is of additional interest that, at the time

Matthew wrote, there was already existing a Greek translation, for the word "interpreted" is a Greek word, and intimates that people heretofore interpreted the Gospel as they were able; but, now that the Greek translation existed, there was no need any longer of this individual interpretation.

Those who hold this view are themselves divided into two different parties. One of them holds that the original Gospel, written by Matthew in Hebrew, was very brief, much briefer than our present Gospel; and that, subsequently, with the aid of the oral tradition which then existed, Matthew himself wrote a Greek translation, enlarging it as he wrote, so that our present Greek Gospel is a translation of the briefer original Gospel written by Matthew himself. Those who hold this view think that the earlier Hebrew Gospel was corrupted, and that it became the Apocryphal book which is entitled the Gospel of the Hebrews.

There is a difficulty connected with this hypothesis that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, which makes it doubtful whether we ought to accept it, even although we have in its favor the almost unanimous tradition of the early church. The difficulty is just this: Whenever Matthew, in his Greek Gospel, quotes from the Old Testament, in giving us the words of Christ, he quotes not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek; and it would seem very strange, if he were writing a Hebrew Gospel, that he should not quote from the original Hebrew instead. Again, when Matthew gives us the words of Christ, he gives us almost always the same words which we find in the other synoptic Gospels, gives us the words of Christ very much as