April 23, was the laft time I had an opportunity of feeing her. The preceding week fhe had been exercifed with fome temptations, but was then delivered from them. And the enemy, (I believe) was never permitted to moleft her any more. She was exceeding happy, and calmly waiting for the bour of her diffolution; that being freed from an afflicted body, her fpirit might enter into the joy of her LORD. She viewed death with fuch undaunted courage, and had fo ftrong a hope of eternal Glory, as I never faw in any one before. She cried out,

And let this feeble body fail;

And let it faint and die;

My foul fhall quit this mournful vale,
And foar to world's on high:
Shall join the disembodied faints,
And find its long fought Reft,
(That only blifs for which it pants)
In the Redeemer's Breaft.

She often faid, "O the pain, the blifs of dying! But "the Pain is nothing; the Blifs is all!"

when she could get no reft, the frequently said,

He fmiles and chears my mournful heart,
And tells of all his pain;

"All this (fays he) I bore for thee;"
And then he fmiles again.

In the night,

As her Father was taking leave of her one morning, be fore a short journey, and weeping over her, the faid, “Father, "do give me up: I am afraid left you fhould offend the "LORD, by withing to keep me longer here. The LORD "gives me fufficient Grace for thefe trying times; and if he lays more upon me, he will fupport me." On a fimilar occafion fhe likewife faid, "Have you not received "Good at the hand of the LORD, and fhall you not receive "evil? The LORD has done all things well."

Two days before her departure, fhe fung fo loud, as to be heard over a great part of the house, "Vital spark of heavenly flame."

May 16. She appeared fenfible that this would be the last day of her pilgrimage on Earth. While her mother and fome others were ftanding by, he cried out with great rapture,

"For me, my elder brethren flay,
"And Angels becken me away,
"And JESUS bids me Come!"

She

She lay fill for a little while, but prefently broke out again, in a manner that aftonished all around her, "Hark! don't you hear? Hark! They whifper; angels fay, Sifter, fpirit, come away!" She then defired her eldeft brother and an uncle to be called, whom she had often intreated to feck the LORD. And when all the family were kneeled round her, to commend her to GOD, she had juft ftrength to fay to her brother, Thomas, turn to the LORD, or else "I fhall never fee thee again!" She would have spoken to her uncle, but could only fix her eyes upon him for a few minutes, and then the powers of nature failed, and the yielded up her foul into the hands of GoD.

York, July 6, 1793.

SAMUEL HODGSON.

Authenticity of the Gofpels demonftrated. From Dr. CAMPBELL'S Preface to the Gofpel according to St. MATTHEW.

I

[Continued from page 27.]

Shall conclude the argument with obferving, that the truth of the report, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, is the only plaufible account that can be given of the rife of that report. Certain it is, that all the prejudices of the times, particularly among the Greek Chriftians, were unfavourable to fuch an opinion. Soon after the destruction of the temple of Jeru falem, the Hebrew church, diftinguished by the name Naza rene, vifibly declined every day; the attachment which many of them ftill retained to the ceremonies of the law, in like manner the errors of the Ebionites, and other divifions which arofe among them, made them foon be looked upon, by the Gentile churches, as but half-chriftian at the most. That an advantage of this kind would have been fo readily conceded to them by the Greeks, in oppofition to all their own prejudices, can be attributed only to their full conviction of the fact.

Dr. Lardner's doubts (for I can difcover none in Origen) are easily accounted for. Averfe, on one hand, to admit that there is any book of Scripture whereof we have only a translation, and fenfible of the danger of acquiefcing in an argu ment which would unfettle the whole foundations of his fyftem of credibility, he is inclinable to compromife the matter by acknowledging both the Hebrew and the Greek to be originals, an opinion every way improbable, and fo-manifeftly calculated to ferve a turn, as cannot recommend it to a judicious and impartial critic. In this way of compounding

matters

matters, Whitby alfo, and fome other difputants on the fame. fide, feem willing to terminate the difference. Nay, even Beaufobre and Lenfant, who have treated the queftion at more length, and with greater warmth, than molt others," conclude in this manner : "As there is no difpute affecting "the foundation, that is, the authority of St. Matthew's "Gofpel, fuch as we have it, the question about the language ought to be regarded with much indifference."

Having faid fo much on the external evidence, I fhall add but a few words, to fhow, that the account of this matter, given by the earlieft ecclefiaftical writers, is not fo deftitute. of internal probability. In every thing that concerned the in-. troduction of the new difpenfation, a particular attention was for fome time shown, and the preference, before every other nation, given to the Jews. Our Lord's miniftry upon the earth was among them only. In the miffion of the Apostles, during his own life, they were exprefsly prohibited from going to the Gentiles, or fo much as entering any city of the Samaritans (Matt. x. 5.); and when, after our Lord's refurrection, the apoftolical commiffion was greatly enlarged, being extended to all nations throughout the world, ftill a fort of precedency was referved for God's ancient people. It behoved the Meffiah, faid Jefus, in his laft inftructions to the Apoftles, to Juffer, and to rife from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and remiffion of fins fhould be preached in his name among all nations, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM. (Luke, xxiv. 46, 47.) The orders then given were punctually executed. The Apoftles remained fome time in Jeru lem, preaching, and performing miracles in the name of the Lord Jefus, with wonderful fuccefs, Peter, in the conclufion of one of his difcourfes, without flattering his countrymen, that this difpenfation of grace would, like the law, be confined to their nation, takes notice of their prerogative, in having it firft offered to their acceptance. To YOU FIRST, fays he, God having raifed up his Son Jefus, fent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities, Acts iii. 26. And even after the difciples began to ipread their Master's doctrine through the neighbouring regions, we know that till the illumination they received in the affair of Corne lius, which was feveral years after, they confined their teaching to their countrymen the Jews. And even after that, memorable event, wherever the Apoftles came, they appear firit to have repaired to the Synagogue, if there was a Synagogue in the place, and to have addreffed themselves to thofe of the cir cumcifion, and afterwards to the Gentiles. What Paul and Barnabas faid, to their Jewish brethren at Antioch, fets this matter in the ftrongest light. It was NECESSARY that the word of God fhould FIRST HAVE BEEN SPOKEN TO YOU:

but

but feeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlafling life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles, Acts xiii. 46. Have we not then reafon to conclude, from the exprefs order, as well as from the example of our Lord, and from the uniform practice of his difciples, that it was fuitable to the will of Providence, in this difpenfation of Grace, that every advantage fhould be first offered to the Jews, efpecially the inhabitants of Jerufalem; and that the Gofpel, which had been first deli vered to them by word, both by our Lord himself, and by his Apoftles, fhould be alfo firft prefented to them in writing, in that very dialect in which many of the readers, at the time of the publication, might remember to have heard the fame facred truths, as they came from the mouth of Him who spake as never man fpake, the great oracle of the Father, the interpreter of God?

If the merciful difpenfation was in effect foon fruftrated, by their defection; this is but of a piece with what happened in regard to all the other advantages they enjoyed. The facred depofit was firft corrupted among them, and afterwards it difappeared for that the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, ufed by the Nazarenes (to which, as the original, Jerom fometimes had recourfe, and which, he tells us, he had tranflated into Greek and Latin), and that the Gofpel alfo ufed by the Ebionites, were, though greatly vitiated and interpolated, the remains of Matthew's original, will hardly bear a reasonable doubt. Their lofs of this Gofpel proved the prelude to the extinction of that Church. But we have reafon to be thankful that what was most valuable in the work, is not loft to the Chriflian community. The version we have in Greek, is written with much evangelical fimplicity, entirely in the idiom and manner of the Apoftles. And I freely, acknow ledge, that if the Hebrew Gofpel were ftill extant, fach as it was in the days of Jerom, or even of Origen, we should have much more reason to confide in the authenticity of the common Greek tranflation, than in that of an original wherewith fuch unbounded freedoms had been taken. The paffages quoted by the ancients from the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, which are not to be found in the Gofpel according to St. Matthew, bear intrinfic marks, the most unequivocal, of the bafcnefs of their origin.

It may be proper here to enquire a little more particularly what language it was that the ancient ecclefiaftical writers meant by Hebrew, when they fpoke of the original of this Gofpel. I fhould have fcarcely thought this enquiry neceffary, had I not obferved that this matter has been more mifunderflood, even by authors of fome eminence, than I could have imagined. Beaufobre and Lenfant in particular,

go

fo far as to argue against the probability of the fact, becanfe, what we commonly call Hebrew, the language of the Old Teftament, was not then fpoken either in Palestine, or any where elfe, being understood only by the learned. And that the common language of the country was not meant, they conclude, from the ufe which Eufebius, who calls the original of Matthew's Gofpel Hebrew, makes of the word. Syriac, when he fays of Bardafenes, that he was eloquent in the Syrian language. "Thus," fay they, he knew how to diftinguish between Hebrew, and the language of the "country, which he calls Syriac." But in this, thefe critics themselves, have unluckily fallen into a mistake, in fuppofing that Syriac was, in the time of our Lord and his Apoftles, or, during the fubfiflence of the Jewifh polity, the language of Paleftine. That their language at that time had a mixture of the Syrian language, is acknowledged; but not that it was the fame. It was what Jerom very aptly calls Syro-chal daic, having an affinity to both languages, but much more to the Chaldean tham to the Syrian. It was, in fhort, the lan guage which the Jews brought with them from Babylon after the captivity, blended with that of the people whom they found, at their return, in the land, and in the neighbouring regions. It is this which is invariably called Hebrew in the New Teftament, I might have faid in Scripture, no language whatever being fo named in the Old Teftament. It is deno minated Hebrew, as Lightfoot has, from fome rabbinical writings, with great probability, fuggefted, becaufe the language of those who returned from captivity, would readily be called, by thofe who poffeffed the land, lingua transflu viana, or tranfeuphratenfis, the language of the people be-' yond the Euphrates, the river which they had paffed in returning to their own country; and the name, as often hap-. pens, would be retained, when the language was much altered. Abram was in Canaan called the Hebrew, for this reason, probably, becaufe he was from the farther fide of the great river, not because he was defcended from Heber, one indeed in the line of his progenitors, but one of whom nothing remarkable is mentioned to diftinguifh him from the reft. Heber' was neither the firft after the fons of Noah, nor the immediate father of the Patriarch. Accordingly the word is, in that paffage where Abram is fo named, which is the first time it occurs, rendered by the Seventy éparns tranfitor. The" Canaanites, amongst whom he fojourned, appear to have ufed the name Hebrew in a manner fimilar to that wherein the Italians ufe the word tramontani, for all who live north of the Alps. The peculiarity, in refpect both of religion' XVII. Feb. 1794.

L

and