spoken in Palestine when Jesus was on earth, which was a sort of corrupted Hebrew, and has been termed SyroChaldaic.

The controversy on this point is of modern origin. It appears that the ancient Fathers of the Church, so far as they expressed any opinion on the subject, were unanimous in the conviction that Matthew's Gospel was written originally in Hebrew. Indeed, the evidence from their writings which is relied upon to prove that the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was actually composed by him, proves also (if it prove any thing) that he wrote it in the Hebrew dialect.

Dr. Campbell cites the following testimony concerning Matthew, from PAPIAS, who lived during the first part of the second century: "He wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able." The Doctor subsequently adds that this testimony had the uniform concurrence of "all succeeding writers in the church for fourteen hundred years." And he further says, that "Erasmus, who, though an eminent scholar, knew little or nothing of Hebrew, was the first who called in question a tradition which had so long and so universally obtained in the church."

The opinion of Papias was likewise the positively expressed opinion of Irenæus, Origen, Jerome, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Eusebius, and several others of the early Christian Fathers. Campbell says

*Preface to Matthew, § 2. Notes on the Gospels, p. 515.]

"it would be endless to bring authorities" corresponding with those I have named.*

Michaelis, Mill, Grotius, Owen, Dr. Clarke, and some others equally eminent, believed that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew language.

Professor Norton, of Cambridge, in his "Genuineness of the Gospels," takes the same view of the subject. He thinks that the first and second chapters of Matthew are spurious.

Dr. Olshausen, the distinguished German critic, says: "We have scarcely a testimony for the existence of Matthew, if we deny that his Gospel was written in Hebrew."†

It must be admitted, however, in justice to the other side of the question, that several learned and reputable men incline to the opposite opinion, viz. that the Gospel referred to was originally written in Greek. Prof. Stuart has labored strenuously to make it appear that such may possibly be the fact.‡

Dr. Campbell throws out some pretty strong intimations that this subject has not always been treated with strict impartiality. He says: "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."§ Of Lardner's comments on

* Preface to Matthew, section 9.

+Olshausen's "Genuineness of the Four Canonical Gospels," p. 28. Cited by Prof. Stuart in the Biblical Repository, for July, 1833. Art. vii. See Stuart's Article. Ibid. Campbell's notes, Pref. to Matt., sect. 3.

the subject of the original language of Matthew's Gospel, he remarks as follows: "Dr. Lardner's doubts are easily accounted for. Averse, on one hand, to admit that there is any book of 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."*

It is the uniform admission of ecclesiastical writers, that a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew (supposed to have been the original) was very much corrupted by some of the different sects in existence at an early period, who transcribed it for the use of themselves and others. I adduce, without comment, the following historical statements, from a work written by Broughton, a learned English divine, who was born in London, in 1704, and who sustained a high reputation as a scholar:

"The Hebrew or Syriac Gospel of St. Matthew was in use a long time among the Jews, who had been converted to Christianity: and when they retired to Pella, some time before the Romans laid seige to Jerusalem, they carried it thither with them. From thence this Gospel was diffused into Decapolis, and into all the coun

* Preface to Matthew, scct. 11,

tries on the other side of Jordan, where the judaizing Christians still made use of it in the time of Epiphanius, and Eusebius of Cæserea. But these Christians added several particulars to it; and afterwards the Ebionites corrupted it by additions and omissions, insomuch that in Origen's time, the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew no longer passed for authentic, and Eusebius ranks it among the spurious writings.

Here is an example or two of the corruptions of this Gospel. It is there said, that the man to whom Christ said, 'Sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and come follow me,' went away scratching his head. And Jesus Christ is made to say, 'My mother the Holy Ghost has taken me by one of my hairs, and has set me upon the high mountain of Tabor.'

The true Hebrew Gospel is no longer in being anywhere, as far as can be discovered. Those printed by Sebastian Munster, and du Tillet, are modern and translated into Hebrew from the Latin or Greek.

The Greek Version of St. Matthew's Gospel, and which at this day passes for the original, is as old as the apostolical times. The author is unknown. Some ascribe it to St. Matthew himself; others to St. James the less, Bishop of Jerusalem; others to St. John the Evangelist, or to St. Paul, or to St. Luke, or to St. Barnabus.

As to the Latin translation, it is agreed, that it was made from the Greek, and that it is almost as ancient as the Greek itself. But the author of it is as much un

known, and it is no less difficult to discover the time or occasion of this version."*

When were the Canonical Writings first separated from those which are now generally pronounced Apocryphal? To this query, I have been unable to find a very definite answer. Ecclesiastical historians do not speak very confidently, on this point. The following are the most decisive testimonies that I have met with:

MOSHEIM. "As to the time when and the persons by whom the books of the New Testament were collected into one body or volume, there are various opinions, or rather conjectures of the learned: for the subject is attended with great and almost inexplicable difficulties, to us of these latter times. It must suffice us to know, that before the middle of the second century, most of the books composing the New Testament, were in every christian church throughout the known world."†

"Not long after the Savior's ascension, various histories of his life and doctrines, full of impositions and fables, were composed, by persons of no bad intentions perhaps, but who were superstitious, simple, and piously fraudulent; and afterwards, various spurious writings were palmed upon the world, inscribed with the names

*"An Historical Dictionary of all Religions, from the Creation of the World to this Present Time. Compiled from the Best Authorities, by THOMAS BROUGHTON, A. M., Prebendary of Salisbury, and Vicar of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol. London: Printed for C. Davis, over-against Gray's Inn-Gate, Holbourn. MDCCXLV." Vol. ii. p. 75.

+ Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. (Murdock's edition) First Century, Part 2d, chap. ii. §16.