namely, Hegesippus, who lived in the latter half of the second century, and before his conversion to Christianity was of the Jewish religion. Now since the Jewish converts especially may be supposed to have used a Hebrew Gospel, the testimony of Hegesippus would in this respect, as well as on account of its antiquity, be of very great importance in the present inquiry. But since Eusebius, from whom alone we can derive information on this subject, the works of Hegesippus being no longer extant, has not quoted the words of this writer relative to a Hebrew Gospel, but speaks only in his own person, and uses expressions, which are not decisive, I admit that the account of Hegesippus, in the form in which we have it, does not furnish us with any certain information in regard to the language, in which St. Matthew wrote. The passage in question is as follows' : εκ τε το καθ Εβραιες ευαγγελις, και το Συριακό, και ιδιως εκ της Εβραιδος διαλεκτο τινα τίθησι, εμφαίνων εξ Εβραιων εαυτον πεπιτευκεναι. Here Eusebius says, that Hegesippus quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews: but since he has not added that this Gospel was the same as the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, this passage is indecisive.

1

1 Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. 22.

m This To Eugiano was probably the Syriac translation of Tatian's Diatessaron, on which Ephrem the Syrian wrote a commentary, See Assemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. i. p. 12, 13, and Beauso bre Histoire des Manichéens, Tom. I. p. 304.

SECTION V.

Examination of the question, whether Origin and Eusebius in any part of their writings have argued, as if they supposed St. Matthew wrote in Greek.

IT appears from the preceding section that the testimony of the ancient writers, who have said any thing expressly on this subject, is unanimous in favour of a Hebrew original. But Dr. Masch has endeavoured to draw over Origen and Eusebius to his party by the aid of an induction from certain passages in their writings, which in his opinion imply a Greek original : whence he argues, that in the places, where Origen and Eusebius have related in positive terms that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, they have related what they themselves did not believe. Before I examine the passages, which Dr. Masch has selected for this purpose, I must beg leave to observe that, even if they imply what he supposes, they will not prove that Origen and Eusebius entertained the sentiments which he ascribes to them. Perhaps no author can be produced, who is so uniformly consistent and systematical, as never to advance a sentiment in one part of his writings, from which inferences may be deduced, that are at variance with what he has asserted elsewhere. We do not examine every sentence which we write in its full extent, and in all its consequences: and therefore as we do not always foresee the use which may be made of what we have written, we may at one time indirectly contradict an opinion, which at another time we had directly affirmed. Suppose an author then thus circumstanced, and that his real opinion was required. Ought it to be determined by the passage where the notion was only implied, or by the passage, where it was expressly declared? Origen says in express terms that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew: Eusebius says the same, not only where he quotes from other writers, but where he

speaks in his own person, and where he speaks professedly on the subject. Admitting then that two other passages can be produced, for instance from their commentaries on the Bible, in which the same authors have written in a manner which appears to be inconsistent with their former positive assertions, I ask, whether their direct testimony is not to be preferred to that which they have given only by implication? I think no doubt can be made that it ought. Besides, when a man assumes the character of an historian, he is more attentive to the facts, which he relates, than when he merely alludes to them in a commentary. This we know from our own experience: and every one who has passed through a regular course of divinity in any of our German universities may have had an opportunity of observing, that his professor in reading lectures on exegetical or dogmatical theology, has been guilty of inaccuracies relative to dates and councils, which he would have avoided in reading lectures on ecclesiastical history.

Thus far I have argued, as if the passage produced by Dr. Masch really contradicted those, which I have quoted in the preceding section. I will now examine the passages themselves, and see whether they warrant the conclusions, which have been drawn from them.

1. Origen in his Commentary on St. Matthew " rejects the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' ch. xix. 19. and says: It is manifest, that there is a material difference in the manuscripts, which

"Pag. 381. of the Cologne edition, or Vol. III. p. 671 of the Benedictine edition..

According to Dr. Masch's representation, p. 146. one might Suppose that these words applied to Matth. xix. 19. and that Origen meant to say, there was a difference in the MSS. in respect to the words, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' But as far as I understand Origen, this is not his meaning: he observes only in general terms, that many alterations had been made in the MSS. of St. Matthew's Gospel; and from this general assertion endeavours to justify a critical conjecture at the place in question.

has been occasioned either by the negligence of transcribers, or by the audaciousness of those who have ventured to alter the Scriptures, or by the liberties which have been taken in adding or erasing, in order to improve the text'.' Now as Origen, says Dr. Masch', was accustomed to correct the Greek versions of the Old Testament by the assistance of the Hebrew, he would hardly have neglected in the present instance, where he doubted the genuineness of a passage in the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, to have had likewise recourse to the Hebrew original, as the surest means of determining the question, if a Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel had existed.-This is the objection: I will now proceed to the answer.

That Origen did not appeal to a Hebrew original, in order to determine the authenticity of doubtful passages in the Greek Gospel, I readily admit: but I cannot consider this neglect as a proof, that no Hebrew original existed. Dr. Masch indeed asserts, p. 147, that Origen had read, and occasionally quoted a Hebrew Gospel, which was reported to be that of St. Matthew: but as I know not on what authority this assertion is made, I cannot enter into a discussion of it'. If Origen was in possession of the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, we are not certain that he considered this Gospel as the same with the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew: and therefore his neglect to appeal to it in the case in question will prove nothing. But suppose Origen really believed that a Hebrew Gospel in his possession was St. Matthew's original: yet an

› Jerom not only had read the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, but translated it into Latin, and moreover was inclined to believe that it was the original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Yet in his Commentary on this Gospel he leaves it unnoticed in places where he examines the authenticity of readings: for instance, xn, Matth. v. 22. He thought probably that, even if it was the original, it was too corrupted to be of any service in a case of cri

ticism.

appeal to it would not have been the only decisive method of determining the authenticity of a text, since an original itself may be corrupted as well as a translation. In examining a doubtful passage of the Latin version, in St. Luke or St. John's Gospel for instance, of which no doubt is entertained that they were written originally in Greek, we do not instantly conclude that the passage is genuine, when we have found that it is in the Greek Gospel of St. Luke or St. John: for the Greek may be corrupted as well as the Latin. Now it is not improbable that Origen thought the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew had been so corrupted, as to render it an improper criterion in settling the text of the Greek and if it was the same, as that which the Nazarenes used, he did not think so without

reason.

Further if we read in connection all that Origen has written on the passage, ، Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' our surprize that he did not appeal to the Hebrew Gospel will be still more diminished. He alleges various arguments, and, as far as I can judge, in the name of others, rather than in his own, to shew that a doubt may be entertained of the authenticity of the passage in question, but comes to no absolute decision either one way or the other. His principal argument is the following. Jesus appears to have approved the young man's answer, All this have I kept from my youth,' because St. Mark immediately adds, Then Jesus beholding him, loved him.' But if the commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' had been observed by this young man from his youth, there failed nothing to his moral accomplishments; since the love of our neighbour is the fulfilling of the law and consequently Jesus would not have replied, If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.'-It appears from what I have already said, that Origen's inquiry in the present in

9 Tom. III. p. 669-672.