to intercede"!! By this philosophical discovery,

in those chapters being acquiesced in without dispute: this, I say, should be the natural inference, when we find the facts familiarly alluded to by the only one of the Apostolical Fathers whose subject led him to refer to them,-Ignatius; and again by Justin, who immediately succeeded the times of those fathers, and who in truth wrote both his First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho before the death of one of them, namely Polycarp. Many have been the occasions on which I have found myself compelled in the course of these volumes to protest against the disingenuousness of Unitarian critics in their treatment of ancient authorities; but, perhaps, there is no one, against whom such a protest is more loudly demanded, than against the writer whose objections I have been engaged in noticing. The foregoing observations, coupled with those which will be found subjoined to the present note, will probably appear to most readers sufficient to substantiate this charge; and yet they supply but a small part of what might be adduced in its support. At the same time, it remains to be remarked, that, notwithstanding the strained exertions of this writer against the authenticity of the introductory chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, he affords but very imperfect aid to the Editors of the Uni tarian Version; inasmuch as his arguments are principally directed against the genealogy, which they retain as ge nuine; and the proofs, by which he endeavours to overturn St. Matthew's relation of the circumstances attending the miraculous nativity of our Lord, are built upon the assumed genuineness of the history of the same event as given by St. Luke: so that if Dr. Williams be right in his results, the Editors are wrong in theirs: wrong in retaining the ge nealogy of St. Matthew, and wrong in rejecting the first two chapters of St. Luke.

* Review, p. 70.

the authority of St. Paul is completely and at

But to return to our immediate subject. We have seen that the testimony supporting the authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew carries us back to the age of the Apostles. A farther confirmation is had from the Syriac Version, whose date is justly referred to the same early age, and in which (as in every other Version of St. Matthew, including the Old Italic, whose antiquity is also unquestioned,) those two chapters are found to exist, And that evidence should not be wanting from any description of the early writers, we have the testimony of a Hebrew Christian, Hegesippus; who, as Eusebius informs us, was amongst the first successors of the Apostles; and who is described by Gobar, as Αρχαιος τε ανης και αποτολικος. In a fragment of this writer, we have a reference to part of the history in the second chapter of St. Matthew; from which Lardner pronounces, that it "appears plainly, that this part of St. Matthew's Gospel was owned by this Hebrew Christian:" so that, he adds, he must either have used our Greek Gospel; or if he used only the Hebrew edition of St. Matthew, this history must have been in it in his time,” (Lard. Works, vol. ii, p. 143.) How then stands the evidence upon the whole? The Syriac Version, which is one of Apostolical antiquity, and the Old Italic, both contain the two chapters. Ignatius, the only Apostolical Father who had occasion to make reference to them, does so. The Sibylline oracles do the same. Justin Martyr does the same. Celsus, the bitter enemy of the Christian faith, does the same. Hegesippus, a Hebrew Chris, tian, does the same. Irenæus, and all the fathers who succeed him, it is admitted on all hands, do the same. And the chap ters are at this day found in every manuscript and every version of the Gospel of St. Matthew which is extant throughout the world. Thus we have one continued and unbroken series of tes, timony from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and,

once set aside. His words, it is shewn, admit no

in opposition to this, we find only a vague report of the state of a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, said to be received amongst an obscure and unrecognised description of Hebrew Christians, who are admitted, even by the very writers who claim the support of their authenticity, to have mutilated the copy which they possessed, by removing the genealogy.—I should not have dwelt so long upon a subject, which is at this day so fully ascertained as the authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, did it not furnish a fair opportunity of exhibiting the species of evi dence, which Unitarian critics are capable of resisting; and the sort of arguments, with which they do not scruple to resist it.

I have mentioned above, that the first two chapters of St. Matthew are found in all the MSS. that are extant. To those hitherto commonly known, a late discovery in the library of this University enables me to add the testimony of one more, and that one of considerable antiquity. For this discovery the public is indebted to the great industry and accurate re search of the Rev. Doctor Barret, now Vice-Provost of Trinity College. This manuscript, which is a coder rescriptus, contains the Gospel of St. Matthew in the most ancient Greek character, of which a fac simile has been published by the University: and it has been satisfactorily shewn by the learned Editor not to be of later date than the sixth century. In this MS. we find the first two chapters of Mat thew's Gospel, with the exception of some parts wanting from mutilation: namely, the first sixteen verses of the first chapter, and from the seventh to the twelfth and from the twentieth to the twenty-third verse of the second chapter.It is a circumstance worthy of observation, that Dr. Williams, speaking of this manuscript, of which he had received an account previous to its publication, observes, "no information concerning our enquiry can be derived from this manuscript'

precise meaning. That however, which St. Paul

(Free Eng. p. xxi.) Now the course of the enquiry had been to discover MSS. that could justify the rejection of the first two chapters of St. Matthew, or at least of the genealogy. For that purpose, undoubtedly, this MS. could yield no information: but for that, which ought to be the purpose of an enquirer, it affords full information; viz. information of the fact, that at the date of the manuscript, the genealogy and the whole of the first two chapters of St. Matthew were deemed by its writer to be authentic, and were found as a genuine part of the Gospel in the MS. from which it was copied.

In support of what has been asserted (pp. 465, 466.) con. cerning Justin Martyr's reference to St. Matthew's Gospel, the following remarks will probably be deemed satisfactory.

The quotation from Isaiah vik 14. by Justin Martyr, is as follows: Ιδε η παρθένος εν γαςρι εξει, και τέξεται υιον και ερεσιν επι τω ονόματι αυτε, μεθ' ημων ο Θεος. (p. 53.) In another place (p. 223.) this is quoted with some little variation, anera being read for sέ, and there being added after vor the words, και καλέσεται το ονομα αυτ8 Εμμανοηλ. Now St. Matthew, and he only of the writers of the New Testament, has quoted this prophecy. Both he and Justin quote it in the same ap. plication. Both quote it in the third person, instead of the second, (thou shalt call,) in which it is given by both the Hebrew and Septuagint of the Prophet: and, what is most remarkable, both annex the interpretation of Emmanuel in the very same words, μs'nar o sos, God with us. So that, upon the whole, there can be no reasonable doubt of Justin's having taken the quotation from St. Matthew; as well from their mutual agreement in general, as from their common de parture from, and common addition to, the text of the prophet

ought to have said, Mr. B. informs us: viz. " that

66

as it stands both in the Hebrew and the Greek.-Again, in p. 54, Justin relates the declaration of the Angel to the Virgin in the manner described both by St. Matthew and St. Luke; and, having, through the first part of it, used the expressions of both indifferently, he concludes with these words, xa xaλéσeks to ονομα αυτό Ιησεν, αυτός γαρ σωσει τον λαόν αυτε απο των αμαρτιών auto; which last clause contains the very words of St. Mat. thew, words to be found in no other writer of the New Tes tament. Justin, moreover, to prove that he was giving a quotation from the Evangelists, adds, " as they have taught us, who have written the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ:" hereby clearly announcing, that he derived his information from more than one of the sacred historians, and therefore manifestly pointing out both St. Matthew and St. Luke, who only of the sacred historians had related the story of the angel's address to Mary. And yet, what is Dr. Williams's observation upon this passage of Justin?" The words supposed to be here cited from St. Matthew, are, for he shall save his people from their sins. This, however, is by no means certain; for all the other parts of the quotation are taken out of St. Luke, though in a manner somewhat disordered. These words, therefore, may be no more than a loose citation, by memory, from St. Luke, or a reference to some other passages of the same writersee Acts iv. 12. x. 43. The thought occurs in a variety of places in the New Testament; so that we are not necessarily obliged to conclude that there is an allusion to St. Matthew, and to no other Evangelist." He adds also, in a note, that

the manner in which the writers of the New Testament make citations from the old, plainly shews that they often quoted from memory." (Free Enq. p. 98.)--Here is surely most extraordinary reasoning. The very words of St. Matthew, to a letter, are used by Justin. The same words are