whose vernacular tongue was the Hebrew: for if it does, it affords an argument which is not without some weight.-Yet Paul might have written in Greek, even to Jews who spoke Hebrew. -But, according to the idiom of that day, the word &ßoacos was not confined to Jews who spake Hebrew, (as Hug has maintained,1) but denoted a circumcised Jew, in opposition to Enviorns. Paul in his second epistle to the Cor. XI, 22, denominates himself &ßoaios (a Hebrew), although he was a native of Asia Minor ; and he even makes a distinction between ¿Poαios and loganterns (Israelite) one born a Jew. Indeed Clemens himself extends the signification of the word &ẞoaoi so far as to embrace all who enjoyed the benefits of divine revelation.

Pantaenus, who was the teacher of Clemens, and to whom Clemens appeals,3 did not probably, infer that this epistle was addressed to Jews in Palestine, from its superscription πos ¿ppalovs, but from several misinterpreted passages of the epistle itself, (cap. I. 2. II. 13. XII. 25,) from which he concluded, that the readers of this epistle were such christians as had enjoyed the personal instruction of Christ.

The language of the epistle itself, especially the indefiniteness of certain Greek terms, (such as dia nan for covenant, 9: 15,) and the citations from the Old Testament, are evidence in favour of a Greek original. See Heinrich's Prolegomena in epist. Hänlein's Introduction to New Test. pt. II. No. 2. p. 760 &c. Schmidt's Introd. pt. I. p. 273 &c. Hug, pt. II. p. 308 &c.

ad Hebræos, p. 17.

1 Introduction, pt. II. p. 33 &c.

3 Euseb. H. E. VI. 14.

2 Strom. L. I. c. 5.

ILLUSTRATION 5.

Matthew's Gospel originally written in Hebrew.

The following evidence for a Hebrew original of Matthew, is presented in the work on "The Object of the Gospel of John," § 61.

Papias, Irenæus, and Origen, all testify that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Papias uses these words: Marvalos Ματθαιος ἑβραιδι διαλεκτῳ τα λογια συνεγραψατο, i. e. Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language. This information Papias probably derived from one or the other of his two friends in Palestine, Aristion and John the Presbyter, whom Eusebius denominates (uadras xvoiov) “Disciples of the Lord." Irenaeus, speaking of the four gospels, says: Mardalos ev tois ¿βραιοις, τη ίδια αυτων διαλεκτῳ γραφην εξηνεγκεν ευαγγελιου i. e. Matthew, among the Hebrews, wrote a gospel in their own language. He also asserts,3 that the Ebionites-(whose country was Palestine)-used only the gospel of Matthew. It is not easy to assign a reason why the Jewish Christians of Palestine used only Matthew's gospel, and not also that of Mark, which was published very early and under the authority of Peter the great apostle of the Jews; unless it be admitted, that Matthew's gospel and that only was written in their native tongue. Origen1 appeals to tradition (napadoσis), for proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew εβραικοις γραμμασι συντεταγ μενον.

According to the testimony of Eusebius,5 Pantaenus found the Hebrew gospel of Matthew in India (Arabia Felix), which had been brought thither by the Apostle Bartholomew.

1 Euseb. H. E. III. 39.

2 Euseb. H. E. V. 8.

3 Adv. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 26. § 2. III. c. 11, 7.

4 In Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.

5 Hist. Eccles. V. 10.

Jerome1 asserts, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes which he transcribed, was ipsum hebraicum Matthæi, i. e. the Hebrew itself of Matthew. See $2. Ill. 4.

The Hebrew character of Matthew's autograph is vindicated in the following works, Hänlein's Introduction to N. Test. pt. II. No 2. p. 313-329. Eichhorn's Introd. Part I. p. 461. -489. (on the proof derived from the supposed errors of the Greek translation, as discussed in p. 477-489 of Eichhorn's Introd.-see the Remarks of the Reviewer, in the Haller Litt. Zeitung, for 1805, p. 371-377.) Schmidt's Introd. pt. I. p. 30-35. pt. II. preface p. IV-VI. Feilmoser's Introd. to N. T. p. 23-46. Hug, on the contrary, maintains that Matthew was originally written in Greek, Introd. pt. II. p. 16—43, and also Schubert, in his Dissert. critico-exegetica, qua in sermonem, quo evangelium Matthæi conscriptum fuerit, inquiritur. Götting. 1809.

ILLUSTRATION 6.

Internal evidence for the integrity of the Gospels.

In our Greek text of Matthew, we may observe a certain regular coincidence with Mark's Gospel, and a uniformity of plan, which would doubtless have been destroyed, if subsequent interpolations or alterations had been made.2

By similar internal evidence, the integrity of the Gospels of Mark and John is established. In John's Gospel, the harmonious coincidence of the individual parts with the object of the apostle, (which was to confute the disciples of John the Baptist and the Cerinthians,) speaks for its integrity.3—And that Mark's Gospel has reached us unadulterated, is proved by the exact co

1 De Viris Illust. s. v. Matthaeus.

2 See "On the object of John's gospel," § 67. 64.

3 ibid. p. 221.

incidence of its present text with the plan which Luke drew from it.

ILLUSTRATION 7.

Faithfulness of the Greek translator of Matthew.

As our Greek text was the basis of all the versions of Matthew which have come to our knowledge, and as all the Fathers of the church used this text; we are authorised, by the great estimation in which this version was held, to believe that it possessed superior excellence, and was most faithful to the original. John undoubtedly supposed his readers to be familiar with our Greek translation of Matthew.1

CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

5. Historical credibility of the narrations contained in the New Testament.

As the intelligence concerning Jesus and his messengers, which is contained in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, is (according to § 2. 4.) derived from Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, it must possess the highest degree of credibility. For these witnesses lacked neither the means of knowing the truth, (1) nor motives to communicate it. Matthew and John were apostles and confidents of Jesus: Mark was under the influence of the apostles, especially of Peter; (2) and Luke was an eye-witness of part of the history of the apostle Paul, who was his teacher. Sustaining to him so intimate a relation, he could easily obtain from this apostle information relative to the earlier incidents of his life he was likewise his companion, during his residence in Palestine, where he had an opportunity to become intimately acquainted with the history of the other apostles and of Jesus.(3)

That the authors of the Gospels and of the Acts of the apostles, did not practise intentional deception; that, on the contrary, they composed their narratives with the utmost historical fidelity; is evident from the general character and appearance of their narrations,(4) as well as from the nature of the incidents which they relate. For these incidents were of such a nature that their truth necessarily must (5) and easily could (6) be investigated. Every false statement, therefore, would have been exposed to public reprehension, if it had been possible to find any such in their books.(7)