have fhewn, how very likely it was, the Fathers fhould fall into this mistake.

This is fo far from being a precarious fuppofition, that it may be made very evident by that which Epiphanius tells us ; viz. "That the Nazarenes, in his time, had the Gospel of "Matthew very complete in Hebrew; for without doubt it " is preferved by them till this day, as it was at first written "in Hebrew letters; but I cannot tell whether they have "taken away the genealogies from Abraham to Chrift, or "not "." Now from these words it is evident,

fo,

1. That he never faw the Gospel of the Nazarenes; and

2. He thought it to be the very fame with that which St. Matthew wrote; wherefore,

3. He could not but believe St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel at firft in Hebrew.

This was the cafe with Epiphanius; and if it was fo with one that was a native of Paleftine, that understood the Hebrew language; if, I fay, he was thus impofed upon by the Nazarenes, how much more eafily would thofe be impofed upon, who lived in diftant countries, and knew nothing at all of the language.

It seems indeed a little ftrange, that Origen and Jerome, who both understood the language, and faw the Gospel of the Nazarenes, fhould fall into this error. They compared frequently the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Greek copies together, and cite them very often in their works; nay, and Jerome tranflated this Gospel into Greek and Latin: they could not therefore be deceived, and think it the original of St. Matthew, and therefore conclude that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

a

This indeed feems to be a very confiderable objection,

Ἔχεσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον πληρέςατον Εβραιοι παρ' αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τέτο, και θὼς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη Εβραϊκοῖς

γράμμασιν, ἔτι σώζεται. Οὐκ οἶδα δὲ, εἰ καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας τὰς ἀπὸ τὸ ̓Αβραὰμ ἄχρι Χρισε περιεῖλον. Harel. 29. §. 9.

which has not, I think, been at all taken notice of yet. In anfwer to it, I obferve;

1. As to Origen, that he does not deliver it as his opinion, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but only as what he received by tradition; unless he mention it fomewhere else in his writings, befides that place cited by Eufebius. But,

2. Suppose both Jerome and he had afferted this, it might perhaps proceed from a too great respect to so universal a tradition. They found it was afferted by every body, and therefore they believed it: it is well known, how very little suspicious the firft Chriftians were of the traditions of the Church. But,

3. This will appear more probable, if we confider, who among the Gentile Chriftians was the firft author of this opinion. As far as we can trace it, it owes its original to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis ; who, though a person of a very weak genius, both credulous and fabulous, was very likely to be believed, even by Jerome and Origen. He was cotemporary with the Apoftles, and paffed under the specious character of being a hearer of St. John, an intimate of Polycarp, and a man of the greatest antiquity; and this poffibly might, in fome measure, influence these two learned men to give into the received opinion, without making themselves a strict inquiry thereinto.

4. This conjecture is very much confirmed by a remark, which Eufebius has made concerning this Papias, viz. "That he has related a great many fabulous ftories of our "Saviour, particularly that he fhould reign corporally on "earth, for a thousand years after the refurrection. Thefe

"things, fays Eufebius, he imagined, mistaking the Apostles' "meaning-for he was a perfon of a very mean genius, as 66 appears from his works; yet almost all Ecclefiaftical wri"ters were led by him into this mistake, influenced by the antiquity of the man; or as Valefius renders it, hominis "vetuftate fententiam fuam tuentibus, i. e. defending their "opinion by the argument of its author's antiquity." This now makes it more probable, that Origen and Jerome, who were able to confute it, fhould yet receive this common tradition.

Having here had occafion to mention Papias, as the first who published this opinion of St. Matthew's being written originally in Hebrew, I cannot but take notice of one thing in his teftimony, which feems to invalidate it, or at least to make it very dubious and uncertain. What I mean is this: he says, that St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew, and that every one interpreted it as they were able, ἡρμήνευσε δ ̓ αὐτὰ ὡς ἠδύνατο Exaros. Now hence it follows, that in his time there was no authentick Greek Version made, if there was any at all. This Father Simon (though it be to serve a bad purpose) does justly infer ; "If," fays he, "there had been in his time "(viz. Papias's) a Greek Verfion of the Gospel of St. Mat"thew, which had been made by fome Apostle, he would not "have failed to have told us of it." But notwithstanding this affertion of Papias, there feems to be very good reason to believe the contrary; for all the writers of that age, cotemporaries with Papias, and some of them older than he, when they cite this Gofpel, do cite it as it is in our present Greek copies. Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp (an acquaintance of Papias's), Irenæus (an acquaintance of Polycarp's), and Juftin Martyr, do cite this Gofpel in fuch a manner, as undeniably evidences, not only that they made ufe of the fame copies, but also the fame with our present Greek ones. This I affert upon a ftrict examination of this

a Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. l. 3. c. 39. bCritic. Hift. of the New Teft. Part 1. c. 9. p. 79.

Iren. Adv. Hæref. I. 5. c. 33. d Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 5. c. 20.

matter

matter in each of these authors. Now this could not possibly have been, if, according to Papias, every one tranflated as they were able, and there was no common verfion. Nothing can be more abfurd than to suppose, that they should all happen to make use of the fame Greek words. Befides, none of thefe Fathers, except Barnabas, did understand, or were able to tranflate at all out of the Hebrew. There must therefore (fuppofing St. Matthew to have wrote in Hebrew) been some common verfion at this time into Greek, and confequently Papias must be mistaken in this part of his teftimony; and if fo, it seems very reasonable to conclude, he was mistaken in the other part also. And thus I think we have set aside the first and most antient teftimony, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and that which, together with the tradition of the Nazarenes, seems to have led fo many of the Fathers into this mistake.

Upon the whole, this is what I judge to be clear from what has been faid: the Nazarenes made very early a translation of St. Matthew's Gospel into Hebrew, for the use of the Jews, with feveral additions; this they ftill called, The Gospel of St. Matthew, and declared to be his original; Papias, a filly and credulous writer, believed them; and fo, in fucceeding ages, the Nazarenes ftill declaring the fame, the opinion paffed from one to another without any contradiction".

CHAP. XIX.

Several Arguments, by which it appears probable, that St. Matthew did not write his Gospel in Hebrew. The Greek was the most common Language, and for that Reason that Gospel was most likely to be useful therein. The Suppofing it a Tranflation makes its Infpiration dubious. It is not probable, that the Original Hebrew would ever have been loft. The Hebrew one we have now, is certainly a Tranflation out of Greek.

THO

HOUGH there is not, that I know of, any one confiderable argument to prove, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, befides the teftimony of the Fathers; yet very great numbers of learned men have thought that of itself sufficient. The Papifts almost all, and a great many among the Proteftants (viz. Cafaubon, Grotius, Dr. Cave, Voffius, &c.), have submitted to the authority of the Fathers in this matter. On the other hand, the warmest advocates for the Reformation (viz. Calvin, Chemnitius, Chamier, Whitaker, Mich. Waltherus, &c.) contend, that our prefent Greek copies are. the original in which St. Matthew wrote.

Having in the foregoing Chapter endeavoured to fhew, how it came to pafs, that the Fathers fo univerfally fell into the mistake of St. Matthew's being wrote in Hebrew, I would now offer two or three other arguments, whereby it will appear, this Gofpel was originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew.

1. The Greek was the most proper language for St. Matthew to write in, in order to answer the ends and defigns of his writing. Here I must take it for granted, that St. Matthew's defign in writing, was the fame as that of the other writers of the New Testament, viz. the propagating the history and doctrines of Chrift, to as great a part of the world as poffible.

For