Bible Commentaries
Matthew

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

INTRODUCTION

THE general title to all the inspired books of the Christian Revelation, Η Καινη Διαθηκη , could not be prefixed until the writings which it contains had been collected into one volume; for an account of which, those who have written on the canon of Scripture must be consulted. It first appears in a work of Origen, and by a common metonymy was transferred from the Christian dispensation or covenant itself to the books which record it. Διαθηκη was very early rendered into Latin by testamentum, instead of pactum, “covenant,” according to Jerome’s correction of the old Italic version, and thus passed into many ancient and most of the modern versions. There is, however, reason to conclude that testamentum, in the popular language of those ages, signified a covenant as well as a testament; for not only is the covenant with Noah rendered in the Italic version by testamentum, but in Isaiah 30:1, it is used for συνθηκη , which, has no other sense than covenant.

The NEW COVENANT is the appropriate description of Christianity; for though διαθηκη signifies any disposition or arrangement in general, yet that arrangement or disposition which respected human redemption, both in the Old and New Dispensation, took the form of mutual promises, under mutual conditions, which is the true character of a covenant. This sense of the word διαθηκη , has the support of numerous passages in the New Testament, where the term occurs: and there is indeed but one Hebrews 9:15, about which there can be any reasonable doubt; and even this, when it comes to be considered, will appear to be best interpreted in the sense of covenant. But were that solitary text excluded, the manner in which St. Paul opposes the law, which assuredly was not a testament, to the Gospel, in the phrases the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant, — the circumstance that the promises of Christ, and of our salvation through him, are expressed by the prophet by the phrase of making “a New Covenant with the house of Israel,” renders it imperative upon us to take the term διαθηκη , when considered as a general description of the whole body of Christian doctrine and promise, and of the writings which contain it, in the sense of Covenant. Some commentators, under the force of this argument, attempt to compromise the matter, and to explain διαθηκη by “a covenant, including within it a testamentary bequest;” an unnecessary, and not wholly an innoxious representation, as it somewhat eludes the real character of Christ’s death, the efficacy of which is not to be compared to that from which a testament derives its force, which is simply the death of the testator, of whatever kind, or under any circumstances; but to the efficacy of the ancient sacrifices by which the solemn covenants between God and man were typically ratified. We have nothing in the words of Christ, or of his apostles, to suggest to us the idea of our salvation and its numerous blessings being conveyed to us in any way answering to the idea of a testamentary bequest; but Christianity is the new and infinitely gracious covenant of God with mankind fully declared; in which he engages, according to the forms of the said covenant, as quoted from the prophet by St. Paul, to be merciful to our unrighteousness;

to remember our sins and iniquities no more; to put his laws into our minds, and to write them in our hearts; and to be to us a God, and to regard us as his people, and therefore to treat us as such in time and in eternity. The conveyance and security of all these comprehensive blessings of redemption were not simply by the death, but by “the blood of Christ;” that is to say, by his violent, sacrificial, and propitiatory death; which voluntary submission on his part was accepted by God on our account, as his resurrection from the dead publicly demonstrated. Thus this covenant of grace was confirmed and ratified to all who should, by complying with its terms, — “repentance toward God, and faith,” or trust “in our Lord Jesus Christ,” — come personally within its provisions and promises, so as to claim the fulness of all its blessings, “grace, mercy, and peace.” The true view of the Christian system, in brief, is, that it is “the new covenant in his blood;” and the appropriate description of that collection of sacred books, which illustrate and commend it, is, “The New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The usual title, The New Testament, is now, however, so familiar, that it would be affectation to disuse it; but still the distinction above made ought to be kept in mind.

The literal meaning of ευαγγελιον being good news, or joyful tidings, our term Gospel, compounded of two Saxon words, which signify good tidings, expresses it with happy precision. It is now generally used for the whole dispensation of mercy through Christ, to mankind; and in this general sense we find it in several passages of the New Testament. The word has, however, a restricted use, as the title of each account of the four evangelists. There it imports the history of the birth, actions, ministry, doctrine, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour; but with constant reference to the joyful import of this intelligence, and the unspeakable benefits which are thus conveyed to mankind. For the same reason the four inspired historians of our Lord are called “evangelists, publishers of good tidings; and they are four, not that many accounts of Christ, called also “gospels,” were not published even in early times, doubtless of various degrees of merit, and the most fabulous of them recording some truths which had been handed down by tradition; but these four only appeared invested with the authority of the Churches generally. Lardner has proved that no spurious or apocryphal gospels whatever were read in the assemblies of Christians when they appeared; nor admitted into the volume of Scripture; nor alleged as authority by different parties; nor noticed by the adversaries of the Christians. Up to the earliest times, however, the four gospels which we now possess are not only mentioned, but have this exclusive seal of their acknowledged inspiration put upon them, that they only were read in Churches, and they only referred to as infallible authorities in matters of controversy. Two of these were written by apostles, Matthew and John; and two by companions of the apostles, Mark and Luke, the former having been the companion of St. Peter, and the latter of St. Paul.

We have, therefore, in some Greek MSS. and ancient translations an arrangement of the gospels according to the rank of these authors, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; but in the majority of the Greek MSS., in all the old translations of Asia and Africa, and in catalogues of the canonical books, that chronological order is observed, which was most anciently and universally received, — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. This circumstance is important, as it assists us in explaining the peculiar character and object of each gospel. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, says, “Matthew, who at the first taught among the Jews, published his gospel when he was going to visit others. When Mark and Luke had also published their gospels, and these three had fallen into the hands of many, he, John, gave his approbation and testimony to their veracity; but something was defective in them, on which account John included in his gospel that space of time which the rest had omitted, and those parts of the history of our Saviour which occurred within it.” But long before this, in the second century, Irenæus declares that, as to this chronological succession, there was no uncertainty or difference of opinion. Whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek or Hebrew, not only tradition, but internal evidence, shows that it was in the first place designed for the Jews, and was therefore first published in Palestine. Mark certainly wrote for the use of Gentile converts, as appears from his adding explanations to names of places and of things which were familiar to Jews; and that he wrote at Rome, and for the use of the Latin converts in the first instance, is the best supported opinion. Luke inscribes his gospel to a Greek; and from his long connection with the Churches of Greece and Asia Minor, he wrote his gospel in that part of the world, and especially for their use. John wrote after the rest, and no doubt in Asia Minor. The very composition of his gospel shows that he had seen all the rest; and that his chief object was to supply many of the longer discourses of Christ, and to render his account the means of refuting the heresies which had recently grown up.

It may here be generally remarked that the evangelists do not profess to give a complete account of all the circumstances of our Lord’s life, nor to record all his miracles and discourses. This is expressly disclaimed by John: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book,” John 20:30. And again, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did.” The other evangelists also occasionally mention many important transactions in brief. In this, curiosity may be somewhat disappointed; but faith is edified. The manner of these writers — so simple and natural, so subdued as to their own emotions, and so far from any intention to produce effect upon the reader by so wonderful a narrative as that committed to them — has often been referred to as a strong internal proof of veracity. The absence of so many facts, conversations, and discourses from that narrative, which they were well able to supply, is a strong presumption of their inspiration. To add to the deep interest of their writings, and advance their own fame as authors, would have been strong motives to minds not under special Divine influence; and to gratify the eager desire of new Christians to know ALL the particulars possible respecting their adorable Lord, would present itself as a pious and laudable inducement to greater copiousness; but enough only is communicated to unfold the character and claims of Christ, the leading principles of his heavenly doctrine, and the evidence of his mission as it stood confirmed by stupendous miracles and accomplished prophecies. Enough is written “that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing we might have life through his name.” For the rest, the very tradition, though doubtless fondly cherished by many of the first believers, has been permitted to perish; and we are referred to that approaching state of perfect knowledge and vision when these will no doubt be among the subjects which shall be communicated by Christ to his glorified servants, or by those servants to each other.

Nor do the gospels taken together form a complete history; for although there are passages in each evangelist which do not occur in the others, they were so far from having the design of writing together one complete and consecutive history, that the same events and discourses frequently appear in each. This arose from the importance of the facts or doctrines which they each state, and generally from their connection with the evidence of our Lord’s mission. For as the gospels were at first published separately, it was necessary that each should contain sufficient to exhibit the true character of our Lord, the truths he came to declare, and the circumstances of his death and resurrection. In other respects, and subordinate to this leading design, they are modified by the particular views under which their composition was undertaken, and by that inspiration of the Holy Spirit which directed each evangelist, both as to insertions and omissions, with reference to that subsequent collection of their accounts which was to be made in the Church; that they might be read together, by Christians of succeeding times, who had not, as most of the primitive believers, though they might possess but one gospel, the opportunity of learning from some of the apostles, their companions, or their immediate successors, those farther particulars which the whole four gospels transmit to us. As to the number of evangelists, Chrysostom, in his prologue to the Homilies on Matthew, justly remarks, in answering the question, “How, then, was not one evangelist sufficient to say all?” — “Certainly, one might have sufficed; but as there are four such authors, who did not write at one and the same time, nor in the same place, who neither met together, nor acted in concert, and nevertheless speak as it were out of one mouth, hence arises a stronger proof of their credibility. But it is replied, the contrary rather took place, many passages being dissimilar. This also is a greater proof of credibility;

for if they agreed minutely in all, both as to circumstance and expression, their opponents would never believe that they had not written their memoirs by agreement, or by personal understanding.” “They are clearly separate and independent historians,” says Mr. Nares, “and their close agreement in the most important circumstances of their narratives, forms a coincidence of collateral testimonies which cannot be paralleled in any other example.”

It is disputed whether the title, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW, was originally affixed by himself. Of this we may be tolerably certain, that he did not give himself the appellation of “Saint,” however deserving of it in its highest sense. The title is indeed found differently varied in MSS.; and the probability is, that after the other gospels were published, the inscriptions were added for the sake of distinction, and to transmit the testimony of the primitive Churches as to the authors. Chrysostom, however, says that Matthew himself called his work. “The Gospel,” δια τουτο ευαγγελιον την ιστοριαν εκαλεσιν , κ . τ . λ . ( Homil. I, in Matthew Præf.) The titles of each finally became, with some variations in the MSS., the Gospel κατα Ματθειον , κατα Μαρκον , &c. “So the most ancient teachers of the Church cite them, not as the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, but according to Matthew, according to Mark,” &c. ( Hug’s Introduction.)

The time when St. Matthew’s gospel was published has been matter of debate among critics; some fixing it as near to the ascension of our Lord as A.D. 37, others extending it to A.D. 62, and others fixing upon several intermediate dates. The later dates rest chiefly upon an equivocal passage in Irenæus, and the more early have the reason of the case in their favour. It is much more probable that the first apostolic account of the life of our Lord should be written within a few years of his death, than that it should be so long delayed A.D. 61, or 62. Eusebius is express in fixing the time A.D. 41, in the third year of Caligula, that is, eight years after Christ’s ascension. It is true that, as a matter of evidence, this does not much affect any question; for the immediate spread of the Gospel among such multitudes in Palestine, and its metropolis, and elsewhere, can only be accounted for by the unquestionable and supernatural character of the facts on which the whole Christian system rested, and the evidence of the miracles wrought by the primitive teachers themselves; and farther, all the gospels, if fixed at the latest dates which have been assigned to them, were certainly published while a considerable number of persons were still alive, who from personal knowledge were able to affirm whether the alleged facts, so particularly stated by the evangelists as to time, place, and persons, were true relations or not. The Jews especially had every motive to sift these accounts, and transported would they have been could they have refitted them.

But this was never attempted. They attributed, on the contrary, the works of Christ to Satanic agency, and continued long to do so; and thus admitted the grand facts on which Christianity was founded by the very theory on which they accounted for them. Still many became Christians in Judea, and other countries, who could only be generally and vaguely acquainted with the public life and discourses of their Redeemer; persons brought to faith and salvation by the impression of the miracles of the apostles, the convincing native energy of truth, and the secret influences of grace upon their hearts, for whose confirmation in faith, and the holy comfort of the Gospel, that history of Christ, that exhibition of his doctrine, that powerful impression of his whole extraordinary character, which every single gospel contains, was essential. The gospels were books to be read in their assemblies, as being placed upon a level with the sacred books of the Old Testament by their inspiration, and as being also the key to law and the prophets; and copies were rapidly multiplied to be the light of every Christian family, to afford counsel, comfort, and the subject of hallowing meditations, to individuals in their walks through life. All these present strong reasons for an early composition of an authorized history of Christ, and favour, as a presumptive argument, the early dates ascribed to that of St. Matthew, which was undoubtedly the first published. Add to this, the greater number of critics agree in the opinion that it was published not later than about eight years after the ascension of our Lord.”

That the gospel of St. Matthew was first and more immediately designed for the Jews in Palestine, and of course also for the same people scattered throughout the principal cities of the world, appears to be indicated both by its early date, and from its being so eminently adapted to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus, by the frequency with which it points out the fulfilment of many of their ancient prophecies in him. A still farther proof is, that this evangelist does not, like Mark, whose history was anciently called the gospel of the Gentiles, add those explanatory remarks, as to various Jewish customs, sects, and other circumstances, which were sufficiently familiar to the Jews, but wholly unintelligible to almost all other people. When Mark represents the Pharisees as complaining “that the disciples of Jesus ate κοιναις χερσιν ; that is, literally, with common hands; in the supposition that his readers might not be acquainted with the Hebrew signification of the expression, he has added the explanation, that is to say, with unwashed hands, τουτ’ εστιν ανιπτοις . Still fearing that they could not thoroughly understand the ground of this complaint and the explanation of it, he clears up the matter by an observation on the customs and opinions of the Pharisees, and states that these never eat but with washed hands, imagining that they would otherwise be defiled. He explains what is called παρασκευη by the Jews, that is the Fore Sabbath, τουτ’ εστιν προσαββατον ; and what κορβαν means, as Josephus did for his Roman readers.

“Matthew recounts the same, even in the same expressions, and speaks of these and many other similar matters; but he abstains from every addition and observation for the instruction of his readers, supposing all this to be already known to them.

“Luke makes numerous observations of a geographical nature in order that his Theophilus, to whom the work was addressed, might briefly be instructed as much as possible concerning the place which was the scene of such an event.

“Matthew does not pursue a similar course. Finding it superfluous to make any observations for the purpose of throwing light upon the morals, customs, opinions, and mode of thinking, all of which might be proper, as to Palestine; he also conducts himself in the same manner with regard to the geography, and is unmindful that his narrations might be unintelligible and obscure to any person who was not acquainted with the country, neighbourhood, cities,” &c. ( Hug’s Introduction, vol. ii, p. 6.)

This seems sufficiently decisive as to the Jews being the persons this evangelist had primarily in view, in writing his gospel; but the question will naturally arise, Why then did Matthew write in Greek? It has been a long disputed question whether he did not write originally in Hebrew, that is, in the dialect of Palestine, vaguely so called. Those who contend that the gospel was written originally in Greek, reply to the question, that that language was then very generally used in the civilized world, and particularly in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, &c. This followed from the Macedonian conquests, and the establishment of Greek colonies by the successors of Alexander, as far as Babylonia, Persia, and even India. In Egypt the numerous Jews there colonized had long before required for their religious use the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which gave rise to the Septuagint version. Antioch, Tyre, Sidon, and other places adopted the language of the conquerors; and even the Roman public edicts were in those cities ordered to be exposed in the Latin and Greek languages. The Greek language and manners prevailed in many of the cities of the Jews for several ages. Even in Rome debates in Greek were sometimes heard. Tiberius and other of the Roman emperors answered such foreign ambassadors as spake Greek in the same language. The Roman officers of rank appear to have all spoken Greek, and in many of the provinces the judges gave judgments in it; so that this was the language of the courts of law. Thus it was in Syria and Phenicia, and, as several learned men who have largely investigated this subject have shown, there is no doubt that Pilate and Festus used the Greek tongue in Judea; as neither in Josephus, nor in the New Testament, have we any hint that they made use of an interpreter. With the higher classes of Jews the Greek was a necessary branch of education; but great numbers of the common people of different ranks learned it by connection and intercourse, in a more imperfect manner, but still in a sufficient degree for the ordinary purposes of life, with the numerous foreigners, and Hellenistic Jews, who abounded in their principal cities, and flocked to Jerusalem at their festivals.

Our Lord is therefore supposed, not unfrequently, to have spoken in the prevailing Greek dialect; and judging from the apparently immediate communication between Philip and “the Greeks,” that is to say, foreign Jews who did not speak the Hebræo-Aramean language of Palestine, who desired to see our Lord, the apostles also at that time were familiar with it. On this account, too, we observe that Jesus at once converses with these Greeks. As therefore a gospel written in Greek would be so largely understood even in Palestine, and when read in the assemblies of the Christians could be so easily rendered into the common tongue, for the instruction of all, a constant practice in the synagogues as to the Hebrew Scriptures, little restriction was placed upon its utility by its being composed in Greek; while its benefit would be largely extended among that still more numerous class of Jews who lived beyond the boundaries of Palestine, in every noted city and country of the Roman empire, and who, though they might in some instances understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament, in scarcely any could they know the mixed Hebrew dialect of Judea. To all these the Greek was universally vernacular. When, however, we speak of the Greek language as in use among the Jews, whether in Palestine or in distant places, the general reader needs to be informed that, as Professor Winer has observed, “in the age which succeeded Alexander the Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, η κοινη διαλεκτος , which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with not a few provincialisms; and partly a language of popular intercourse was formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together; while the Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the Seventy, the writers of the Apocrypha and of the New Testament.

“All the nations who after Alexander’s death came under Greek rulers, and gradually adopted the language of their conquerors in the common intercourse of life, particularly the Syrians and Hebrews, spoke the Greek less purely than the native Grecians, and enstamped upon it more or less of the characteristics of their respective vernacular tongues. Since now all the Jews who spoke the Greek language are commonly called Hellenists, so the dialect used by them has obtained the appellation of Hellenistic. On this account the New Testament diction has been called Hellenistic.” ( Winer’s Grammar, pages 22 and 27.)

The chief difference between the classical Greek and the Hellenistic lies in the idiom: the inflections are the same, but the phrase is different. The sacred language, the Hebrew, and, in some instances, the Palestinian dialect, have each left its impress upon it. The phraseology, indeed, is often Hebrew, though the words are Greek; still it contains fewer Hebrew grammatical constructions than the Septuagint. The style of the New Testament was a circumstance, however, no doubt determined by the Holy Ghost himself, and by which we may conclude, in spite of the fastidiousness of many critics, the truth has been more fully enunciated than if the refined language of the Greek rhetors had been adopted; as at least being more simple, and for this reason more capable of nearly literal translation into the various tongues of mankind. We are always to remember that the Gospel was communicated “in words which the Holy Ghost taught,” and that the reasons for the choice must have been determined by infinite wisdom. Some of these are even obvious; as, for instance, that it affords a strong point of evidence that the language of the New Testament writers should be the language of men in the precise circumstances, and living in the precise places, which they profess. The only conclusion to which any critic could come in reading the histories of the four evangelists is, that their works, being written in Greek, yet in none of the proper dialects of that language, and with such a resemblance to the Hebrew in idiom, were written by native Jews, — by Jews, too, living before the last expulsion of that people from their ancient seats; which is just what the Christian Church has always affirmed of them. That they were plain men, too, unacquainted with even that sort of philosophy which among the higher Jews was known and studied, is equally clear from the entire absence of all allusions to it in their writings. Here nothing of human speculation appears, nothing of rhetorical art, nothing of the inventive power of genius; and the reason is given by St. Paul, that “our faith might not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.”

Some very learned but mistaken men, indeed, who appear to have been scandalized at the assertion, that the Greek of the New Testament was not classical, have bent their efforts to exhibit parallel phrases taken from the most approved Greek authors, and have, in fact, in some instances, succeeded. But the point is now generally given up as of no importance; or rather, because the fair admission of the fact, as far as it goes, is to the honour of the Gospel. It is certain that the style lacks neither clearness nor strength, — two of the greatest qualities of writing; and how far it might have suffered in these respects by the trimming of the grammarian in a fastidious age, we know not. Few men of real taste would even exchange the prayers composed in the time of Elizabeth for the very same prayers cast into what is now called classical English; and not only does the style of St. Paul, for instance, rise to the fulness of perspicuity and vigour, but it has passages of elegant beauty and lofty majesty, to which no parallel can be found. The power which raised, sustained, and subdued the world with this force and majesty, could easily have conformed the idiom and construction to Greek usage and rules; but the Spirit designed not to speak independent of the men; but the men were to speak and write by the Spirit and to preserve that appropriate dialect to which they and their countrymen were accustomed; yet so that, while their dialect preserved its distinctive character, it should yet be so under immediate control and direction, that as their Master spake “as never man spake,” so they should write as never men wrote.

Reasons have been given above in favour of the opinion, that St. Matthew first wrote his gospel, in the Greek tongue, with which he, as a man in office, and of at least respectable education, was no doubt familiar: but it is proper also to state the opposite opinion. So uniform is the testimony of antiquity, that he wrote a Hebrew gospel, meaning thereby one in the common language of Judea, that, did not the fathers rely wholly upon the testimony of a passage from Papias only, whom they have all followed, and of whose judgment Eusebius, though he receives his testimony in this respect, speaks very lightly, this question could nat have been so warmly disputed. In the list of names ranged on each side of this controversy there is perhaps nothing to turn the scale, so high is the authority of most of them, both continental and British, in researches of this kind; but the question is, in fact, of almost no importance, since the undoubted antiquity of St. Matthew’s Greek gospel is so high as to reach to the lifetime of that apostle himself, to whom those fathers who allow that he wrote the gospel in Aramean ascribe the translation of that into Greek, or the composition of two original works. Eusebius expressly points out a passage quoted from the Psalms, in which St. Matthew, in his Greek translation, departed from the Septuagint, and rendered into Greek from his own view of the sense of the Hebrew text: and although Origen does not speak of St. Matthew’s gospel as a Greek translation of that written for the Jews in their own language, which he believed to exist, yet he speaks of the gospel which St. Matthew wrote for all classes of Christians composing the whole Church under heaven, which a work written in the Palestinian dialect could not be; and so, in fact, he gives his testimony to St. Matthew being the author of the gospel in Greek commonly received as his, and indeed never questioned from the earliest times. Several of the learned have therefore adopted the theory of two originals, alleging the consent of antiquity for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek. Still, however, though the latter is a conclusive argument, the former, the consent of antiquity, is not in this case sufficiently decisive, to preponderate against those weighty reasons which those have adduced who advocate but one original in Greek. That there would be unauthorized but still very interesting accounts of our Lord’s history, some longer and some shorter, written by many with honest intentions, even before Matthew wrote, is very probable; and we have strong proofs of the great antiquity of a work in the popular language, called “The Gospel according to St. Matthew,” and another, “The Gospel according to the Hebrews,” meaning the Jews in Palestine, and another, “The Gospel according to the Apostles,” if these were not varied forms of the same work, framed by the Nazaræans and Ebionites, Judaizing Christian sects, who in a short time became strongly tinctured with Gnosticism, and the perfect counterparts of those against whom St. Paul so strongly inveighs in several of his epistles.

These gospels are referred to by Ignatius, Origen, Jerome, and others; and it was their very antiquity which led them probably to conclude them to be transcripts more or less corrupted, of the supposed Matthew’s gospel according to the Hebrews, or, what is the same, the Hebrew Aramean “Gospel according to St. Matthew.” It is, however, a remarkable fact, that none of the fathers had ever seen this alleged uncorrupted gospel of St. Matthew. Its disappearance ought also to be accounted for. This has been done by some modern critics, by considering it as the consequence of the dispersion of the Jews after the taking of Jerusalem, and the disuse of their vernacular language. But this ought rather to have diffused so precious a work as an original gospel written by an apostle, and of course of equal authority with his gospel in Greek, which was universally received. Such a work ought to have been found among the faithful Hebrew Christians in various places into which they fled for shelter, under the special protection of Christ, who had warned them to escape on the first approach of the Roman armies to Jerusalem. Had such a work been required from St. Matthew, on the ground of general usefulness to the Palestinian Jewish believers, numerous copies of it must have been taken, both in Judea and in Syria; and yet “Origen obtained no trace of it; he could nowhere find any thing but the book καθ’ Εβραιους , the value of which he left to each individual’s judgment; yet the discovery of Matthew in his original language was of no less consequence to him, as his perseverance in investigations of this nature was indefatigable.

In the same manner as he laboured upon the Old Testament for the sake of restoring the Septuagint, by reference to the original text and the other existing critical aids, so also was he occupied with a recension of the New Testament. The many faults which had crept into Matthew, of which he expressly complains, were to be remedied in no more effectual way than by consulting the original text, as he had done in the Old Testament. He made, during twenty-eight years, various journeys for critical purposes; he drew many unused and forgotten manuscripts out of their obscurity, in which they would perhaps have decayed, for the sake of leaving no means unessayed to amend the Biblical text. His journeys were directed through Palestine and Syria, and at Tyre he laboriously formed his critical apparatus. In spite of these troublesome and voluntary investigations, which this scientific man made, he nowhere discovered any trace of such an original gospel of Matthew. Pamphilus, a Phenician from Barut, famed as a martyr, as the teacher of Eusebius, and, on account of his Biblical learning, as a scholar, established, for the Church at Cesarea, a library, celebrated among the ancients, to furnish books, for which he most carefully explored every direction. The treasure there provided in Biblical literature attracted Jerome, also, who made use of it to advantage. But for this collection Pamphilus had obtained no Hebrew copy of Matthew: it was only the Nazaræan book that he could procure, which Jerome, who translated it, here examined. So fruitless were the endeavours of the ancients to obtain a sight of the pretended original text of the evangelist, that its existence seems to have been a mere report, and it nowhere appears to have existed.” ( Hug’s Introduction, vol. 2:58, 59.)

But another subject has been largely discussed by the persevering critics of modern times, and especially in Germany; and has led to the most patient and acute investigations, which, however, as in most similar cases, have terminated by ranging those who have engaged in them on different sides. The chief benefit has been an instructive display of the different principles upon which the learned conduct such inquiries, and the eliciting of much information, which, if it does not serve the main point, is often useful in others not at first intended. The remarkable agreement among the three first evangelists, not only in facts, but in words; the use of the same expression for many verses together; the differences which then arise, and which again subside into the same exact correspondence; are circumstances which, it is supposed, can only be accounted for by assuming,

1. That each evangelist embodies many of the same oral traditions common among the immediate disciples of our Lord; or,

2. That the later evangelists saw and copied partially the writings of the preceding; or,

3. That there was one original document, from which Archetypus Evangeliorum, or ωρωτευαγγελιον , each selected at pleasure.

In this country, Bishop Marsh has adopted and largely defended this hypothesis of a common document. “Whoever,” says he, “thinks it possible that three texts so closely allied could have been formed independently of each other, may easily convince himself of the contrary by translating a page from any language, and then comparing his own version of it with any other; for he will find that, though the same in substance, they are not identically alike. The argument is strengthened, if we find three authors not only making choice of identical words in common use, but such as are unusual, and which they do not employ themselves on other occasions.” These discussions have unhappily been carried on both in Germany and England, either in entire forgetfulness, or with too little consideration, of the inspiration of the evangelists. These writers have been treated as mere human authors; and this has led to the misapplication, and, indeed, often the impertinent obtrusion, of a vast mass of acute and laboured criticism. But a reference to the original circumstances of the case will always serve to clear our way out of the labyrinths in which bold but theory-loving critics often entangle themselves and their readers. As to the public actions of Christ, they would be remembered by multitudes; but would be stated with great variety by different persons; and, through human infirmity, where there was no ill design, would often be greatly altered in their transmission from those who witnessed them, to those who did not. Many of the sayings of Christ were at the time designedly enigmatical, and could not be understood until after his ascension: and even then only by those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit; and as for his longer discourses, human memory was so inadequate to retain them faithfully, that one of his own promises to his apostles was to send the Spirit to bring them “to remembrance.” Thus a large body of facts and conversations were floating, so to speak, for some years in the minds and discourses of his disciples, all correct as to substance, but more or less confused as to their full import and exact character, until the day of pentecost; when what had been accurately remembered was explained, what was forgotten was revived, and what was feebly apprehended was fully seized by the mind. These gifts were bestowed on many, and especially upon those who were appointed to preach the Gospel, and convert others.

Every apostle, and every teacher, and no doubt many of the more immediate disciples of our Lord who had followed him from the beginning, were therefore qualified to write one of those accounts which we call a gospel; as he was qualified, by his miraculous endowments, to declare them orally: and among them the agreement in substance, and very often in words, must have been obvious; a circumstance which could only create surprise, provided the special gift and office of the Holy Spirit, to take of “the things of Jesus and show to them.” were denied or left out of the argument. From this inspiration it would not, indeed, follow that each of the apostles in his preaching should express the same truth always in exactly the same words; though, as that might in many cases be necessary for the clear enunciation of a doctrine delivered by their Lord, that would be provided for by Him under whose influence they were: and it is therefore quite probable that these primitive preachers, without any concert with each other, and in distant places, did sometimes deliver the same thing in various phrase, and sometimes in the same, as we see it done in the writings of the evangelists. So as to the oral information concerning facts in the history of our Lord, with which they furnished the new converts in different places, they would impart some more copiously and circumstantially than others, as the case of the people, and many other circumstances, seemed to require; some laying more stress upon one, some upon another, and some giving the same relation more copiously, others more curtly; still influenced in all by that Spirit which was always with them. Of this primitive preaching, so far as it related to the instruction of inquirers or new converts, before any gospel had been published, or where copies had not reached, the gospels themselves maybe considered as an exact counterpart; only with this difference, that as all the first inspired preachers were not directed to write, those who were appointed to this office were placed under special superintendence, that each writing should be fitted to answer its end as to the persons for whom it was immediately designed, as that of St. Matthew, in the first instance, for the Jews; those of Mark, the companion of St. Peter, and Luke, the companion of St. Paul, for the churches generally, but the latter rendered more copious than the former; and that of St. John, to counteract the growing Gnostic errors as to the person of Christ, and to preserve his longer discourses; while the whole, when collected and preserved, as in the intention of their divine Author they were always designed to be, should be for the benefit of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, and be adapted to refute every species of fundamental error to the end of time.

If the MATTER of the gospels be inspired, we must conclude that the FORM was determined by the same authority, but still under a rule; that while man was made use of by the Holy Spirit, the character and circumstances of the writer should be preserved, not displaced. There would be, therefore, in these writings, a substantial agreement, and there would often be an entire similarity; — a substantial agreement, because in such writings there can be nothing but truth; and this would chiefly apply to those things which they had known “accurately from the beginning,” and which were remembered by them; — and an entire similarity, as to those things which had been specially “brought to their remembrance,” because that would be done, probably, as to all the disciples at the day of pentecost, in the same words; and, if so, in the same words, or nearly so, afterward, as to those inspired to write the gospels, which words would be in the same language in which they wrote. There appears, therefore, not the least force in the circumstance of their frequent verbal agreement to impel us to either of the conclusions which has been considered inevitable; that the evangelism copied from each other; or that they each copied from a common original gospel, the Archetypus Evangeliorum, as it has been called. “I admit, indeed,” says Bishop Randolph, “of a common document; but that document was no other than the preaching of our blessed Lord himself. In looking up to him, the author of their faith and mission, and to the very words in which he was wont to dictate to them, which not only yet sounded in their ears, but were also recalled by the aid of his Holy Spirit, promised for that very purpose, they have given us their gospels, often agreeing in words, though not without much diversification, and always in sense.”

Harmonies of the gospels, or attempts to form one consecutive account out of the four in chronological order, have but ill repaid the labour bestowed upon them, because almost all harmonists have attempted too much. In different languages, they approach to near two hundred in number; and still disappointed, one has followed another into the same field of hopeless toil. One mischievous effect has, indeed, sometimes resulted. Discrepances among the evangelists have been often complained of, when the real discrepance has not been between evangelist and evangelist, but between them and the false schemes of the harmonists themselves. As it has been remarked, the evangelists manifestly never intended, either together or separately, to give an exact and full chronological and historical account of our Lord’s life and ministry; but to state those particulars which should display his character, and show the fulfilment of prophecy in him; to record the substance of his teaching, and those events of his birth, life, death, and resurrection, which form the basis of his religion. The order of time was with them, therefore, but a secondary consideration, and, in several instances, appears to have been thought of no importance. Such a general order and succession as the case required is, however, sufficiently manifest; and by considering this, several passages derive illustration and force. This is generally within the power of every reader, as he may be easily assisted by lists of parallels. It may be useful, however, to remark that harmonies may be divided into two general classes, — those which assume that the chronological order has been observed in the gospels; and those which, allowing that this order has been more or less neglected, profess, on very different schemes, to correct the supposed irregularity.

Matthew, who had also the name of Levi, was, at an early period of our Lord’s ministry, called to follow him, as he was sitting at the receipt of custom at Capernaum, upon the sea of Galilee. This was called Christ’s “own city,” because of his most frequent residence there, after he left Nazareth, Matthew 4:13. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Matthew, who was also a resident there, had heard his preaching, knew his character, and was already a believer. On this occasion he was, however, bidden to “follow” him; the import of which command he knew was, to become, in a more formal and intimate manner, his disciple, and to continue with him in all places, as the celebrated Jewish rabbins were attended by their chosen scholars. It implied, also, his seeking more perfect instruction in Christ’s heavenly doctrine. This explains the readiness with which Matthew obeyed the call; and the joy that he felt in being admitted into the number of our Lord’s peculiar disciples, — those who were permitted to behold all his works, to hear all his conversations and discourses, and to be trained to teach his doctrines to others, — was expressed by his making a great feast for his fellow publicans, at which Jesus and his disciples attended. The publicans were odious to the stricter Jews, especially the Pharisees; not, however, let it be observed, always on account of their rapacity, though that might be chargeable upon many, but because they submitted to collect the Roman imposts, — a mark of subjection which the pride of the Pharisees affected to disown, although their country was, in fact, a Roman province. That there were respectable men among even the publicans, appears from the example of Zaccheus and Levi, or Matthew. When they classed them emphatically with “sinners,” it was therefore because they thought the office, when held by a Jew, an apostacy from, or at least an offence against, Judaism. In modern language, we should call Matthew a custom-house officer, because his office was to receive the dues paid at the port of Capernaum upon goods landed there; and that he was of the higher rank, may be gathered from his making the great feast just mentioned, at which he entertained a very large company. He was finally made one of the twelve apostles. Of his labours out of Judea we have nothing certain; but the fathers seem to agree that he left Palestine on some foreign evangelic mission.