of such a statement the consequence cannot well be predicated.  This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much.  He demurs to my statement that our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been translated from the Hebrew at all:  “If he had said that it is not a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would have been nearer the truth.” [122:1]

That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid of at all costs.  Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources.  We have seen that he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have been correct.  Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not know exactly what Papias said.  “He may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.”  How unlimited a field for conjecture is thus opened out.  We do not know more of what Papias said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may have said something more, which may have been consistent with any theory we may advance.  “Or, on the other hand,” Dr. Lightfoot continues, “he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew.” [122:2] Who would think that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of vague evidence extracted from the Fathers?  It is true that Dr. Lightfoot continues:  “In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to conjecture.  But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself.” [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias, and set aside exactly as much as he does not like.  In fact, he clearly demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.

In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel of the Hebrews “for the original of our St. Matthew,” Dr. Lightfoot, in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew, has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself.  Apart from the general flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias, the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake, Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been “recognised,” and which he declares to have been our first Gospel.  It is well known at least that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our present Gospel “according to Matthew” than to any of the