titled to a' patient heating, as every judicious friend to revelation will be affured that the interefts of truth cannot suffer from the fullest and most open difcuffion of any fubject.

Our learned Enquirer fets out with fome obfervations on the canon of the New Teftament, and mentions a variety of circumftances which render it highly incredible that the facred books can have fuffered any fuch alterations or corruptions as affect their general authenticity.

It is, however, natural to fuppofe, that, in the courfe of feventeen hundred years, they must have been injured, to a certain degree, either through defign or negligence; and this, he fays, is the truth; for it is allowed, that there are feveral additions and interpolations in the facred volume, which, though they do not weaken the foundation of any doctrine, very often difturb the fenfe. Having produced three or four inftances, which the Author imagines to be of this kind, he goes on to make fome farther obfervations on the canon of the New Teftament, and on the characters of the ancient fathers from whom we have received it. Thefe obfervations are followed by an account of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Cerinthians, and Carpocratians; ancient Chriftian fects of whom it was neceffary to take notice, because they received a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel which had not the genealogy, er, indeed, by all that appears, either the first or fecond chapters.

The way being thus prepared for the principal fubject, our Author enters more directly upon it, by fhewing that the genealogy was wanting in fome ancient copies of St. Matthew, and that this might probably be the cafe with regard to the whole of the two fit chapters. It appears, from the teftimony of Epiphanius, that the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Cerinthians, Carpocratians, and others, ufed a Gofpel which began at what is now called the third chapter, and was written in Hebrew or Syro-chaldaic. Mr. Stephen Nye, formerly, and Dr. Worthington, very lately, have fuppofed that St. Matthew published different editions of his Gofpel, in different languages; each of them originals, and of equal authority. But it is juftly answered, that a double publication of the fame book is a thing never heard of, as to any book of either the Old Teftament or New, in all antiquity; and that this notion is, indeed, a modern thought, ftarted to remove certain difficulties with which men were preffed by the united teftimony of antiquity in favour of a Hebrew Gofpel by St. Matthew.

As the queftion, whether St. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Greek, is of confiderable importance in the prefent enquiry, the teftimony of the fathers concerning it is particularly examined; and the refult of the examination is, that they all agre in afirming that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in He

brew,

brew, for the ufe of the believing Jews. And is not this, fays our Author, what might naturally be expected? for how common foever the ufe of the Greek language might be, yet there doubtlefs were many in Paleftine unacquainted with it. The fame, reafons, therefore, that induced our Saviour to preach in the Syro-chaldaic tongue-might alfo induce, at leaft, one of his difciples to publish a Gospel in the fame language; namely, to inftruct and eftablifh the poor and ignorant, Jews who believed. One authentic Gofpel was fufficient to answer that purpofe; but as the whole race of man were immediately concerned in the contents of the New Teftament, the other parts of it were published in a language more univerfally known. Had Authors duly attended to this confideration, they would hardly have faid, that no reafon could be affigned why St. Matthew, more than any other Evangelift, fhould publish a Gofpel in Hebrew.'

The teftimony of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, and other fects, who were reputed heretical, being of fome weight with regard to the confirmation of our Enquirer's hypothefis, he endeavours to fhew that their evidence ought to be deemed credible and fufficient in points which do not concern their particular fentiments; and that they had neither any reafon, from the opinions entertained by them, to attempt expunging the firft and fecond chapters of St. Matthew, nor would it have been in their power to effect it, if they had had fuch an inclination. In farther fupport of his fcheme, the learned Author alleges, that these two chapters are not referred to by the apoftolical fathers, or by others, for fifty years at leaft, perhaps for a hundred and fourteen years, after St. Matthew's Gofpel was received by the Chriftian church. Some collateral arguments are added, from which we fhail tranfcribe what is advanced concerning the abfolute filence of St. Luke, respecting the many remarkable events fuppofed to be related by St. Mat

thew.

St. Luke hath given a clear, confiftent, and natural account of the birth of Jefus, and of all the events which followed it, till Jofeph and Mary carried him home to Nazareth. But this whole account is totally different from that which is found in the two first chapters of St. Matthew. There is not the most diftant hint in St. Luke of the appearance of a ftar in the East; of the vifit of the magi to Bethlehem; of the flight into Egypt; or of the flaughter of the infants. In fhort, the account given by St. Luke, and that which appears in thefe chapters, agree in no one circumftance but in Chrift's being born at Bethlehem of a virgin, and in his dwelling at Nazareth. It is very difficult to conceive that the perfon who fo particularly relates the appearance of angels to fhepherds in the field, to declare the

birth of Jesus, fhould yet be entirely filent about another appearance of a much more public nature; a ftar in the heavens, which announced the fame interefting event to people in diftant countries. Nor is it likely that a writer, whofe exprefs purpose it was to record the wonderful circumstances that attended the introduction of the Meffiah into the world, fhould omit the other extraordinary incidents which are found in the two firft chapters of St. Matthew, if he was acquainted with those incidents, and knew them to be true. What is ftill more, the account given by St. Luke, will not admit of the various tranf actions defcribed in these chapters.'

But there is no part of his fubject in which our Enquirer appears to fo great an advantage, as in his difcuffion of the difficulties that occur in the firft and fecond chapters of St. Matthew. These difficulties, which are numerous, important, and have been found infuperably embarraffing to the very best commentators, are difplayed by our Author in a clear and striking light. The following obfervations feem, among others, to merit particular attention.

ters.

St. Luke has given us a concise and clear account of the birth of Chrift, and other tranfactions that followed, but not the most diftant hint of feveral things mentioned in thefe chapHe tells us, that Jefus was born at Bethlehem; that when eight days were accomplished he was circumcifed; that when the days of Mary's purification were over, that is, at the end of forty days, he was brought to Jerufalem, and presented to the Lord; and that, when his parents had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. From hence it is evident, that the flight into Égypt could not be from Bethlehem. If ever it took place, it must have been from Nazareth; the intermediate time, between the birth of Jefus and his going to Nazareth, being fully accounted for by St. Luke.

The flight from Bethlehem was, therefore, impracticable; and from Nazareth it was altogether unneceffary, because the flaughter of the infants did not extend fo far. But let us hear the account given in this second chapter: "When Herod faw that he was mocked of the wife men, he fent forth, and flew all the children which were in Bethlehem, and in all the coafts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wife men." It is plain from these words, that Herod's cruel command was founded upon an affurance, that the infant Jefus continued at BethJehem at least more than a year after his birth; and yet this could not be the cafe; for his ftay there, as St. Luke expressly fays, was but forty days. In this view of the matter, how hall we account for the order which Jofeph received to flee

into Egypt? What reafon can be affigned for fuch a command ? The child Jefus could not be in any danger from the fury of Herod, for he was at Nazareth in Galilee, far from Bethlehem, not within its coafts, to which bounds we are told the flaughter was confined.

Is it credible that God would fend Jofeph into Egypt, to be out of the way of Herod, who would not think of killing any children at Nazareth? Had the flight been the confequence of Jofeph's own apprehenfion for the child's fafety, it might be eafily accounted for; but there appears to be no neceffity for his being warned of God to flee into Egypt. Suppofing that Nazareth was under the jurifdiction of Herod, he never would think of sending his bloody order fo far, because he had been very lately told by the chief priests and scribes, that the Meffiah was to be born in Bethlehem. There he might expect to find that infant of whom he was fo much afraid, and not fo many miles diftant from Bethlehem as Nazareth in Galilee.

St. Luke's account, which confines the ftay of Jofeph and Mary at Bethlehem to within forty days after the birth of Chrift, throws likewife a fresh difficulty upon the hiftory of the Magi. It is evident from the relation of the affair, as we have it in the prefent copies of St. Matthew, that the vifit of these wife men was made at Bethlehem: but at what time was it made? Not, certainly, in the firft forty days fucceeding the birth of our Lord; becaufe Herod's order, which was regulated by the information he had received from the Magi, included the flaughter of all the children who were under two years old, or at least had entered into the fecond year of their age Now we cannot fuppofe that Herod could be very long before he knew that the wife men had departed into their own country without returning to Jerufalem. As Bethlehem lay fo near to Jerufalem, this was a fact which he must have been acquainted with in a few days after it happened. The vifit, therefore, of the Magi muft have been paid at a time when, according to St. Luke, the child Jefus was not at Bethlehem."

In the laft fection of the work before us, the Author endeavours to account for the interpolation of the first and second chapters of St. Matthew, and fuppofes that there are two ways in which it might naturally be effected. This Gofpel, fays our Enquirer, according to the voice of all antiquity, was originally published in Hebrew, or Syro-chaldaic, a language in ufe only among the inhabitants of Paleftine and the adjacent parts. When it was tranflated into Greek, the other. Chriftians, not acquainted with the original language, depended altogether upon that verfion. It was, in general, faithfully made, liable to no material objection, and therefore foon acquired great repute. The little acquaintance which the body of Chriftians REV. Apr. 1771.

X

at

at that time had with the Syro-chaldaic tongue, left the translator at liberty to add, or, if he had been fo difpofed, to take away, what he pleafed, without much danger of detection. Suppofing then, that the tranflator of this Hebrew gofpel was a believing Jew, it is poffible that he might think a few prophecies, cited from the Old Teftament, would have confiderable influence upon fome of his unbelieving brethren abroad; who having never feen the original, would naturally think that the Greek copy was, in every refpect, a faithful tranflation of that original. However improper fuch quotations may now appear, yet, when we recollect that the ancients were not fuch accurate and clofe reafoners as the moderns, it will not, perhaps, be thought that our conjecture is altogether improbable. This, then, is not an unnatural way of accounting for the interpolation of these chapters.

Farther, this might eafily have happened without any the leaft defign. Thefe chapters might originally be no more than a kind of introduction to the golpel of St. Matthew, drawn up by the tranflator of it into Greek, and never intended by him to be confidered as a part of it. When this Geek copy was fpread abroad, thofe who knew nothing of the original would naturally think, that, as it was called the Gofpel by St. Matthew, it contained nothing but what was the authentic writing of that apoftle and accordingly it might be received as fuch in foreign countries;, that is, in the countries out of Judea.'

Such are the general outlines of a performance, the fubject of which is too important to pafs unnoticed by the friends of facred literature. In fome refpects the arguments of our Author might, perhaps, admit of farther confirmation; in others, the force of his reafonings, and the juftness of his criticisms, are, we think, liable to be called in queftion. Upon the whole, he feems to have been happier and more fuccefsful in ftating the internal than the external evidence relative to his enquiry. It ought to be obferved in his favour, that he does not pretend abfolutely to decide against the authenticity of the two first chapters of St. Matthew; but only to ftart a number of fufpicions and difficulties that may render their authority doubtful, and fubject them to a ftricter examination than they have ever yet received from the learned.

ART. X. Tracts on practical Agriculture and Gardening. In ubic the Advantage of imitating the Garden Culture in the Field is fully proved by a feven Years Courfe of Experiments. Particularly addreffed to the Gentlemen Farmers in Great Britain. With Obfervations made in a late Tour through Part of France, Flanders, and Holland: Alfo feveral useful Improvements in Stoves and Green-houfes. To which is added, a complete Chronological Catalogus