prophets, expounded unto them from all the scriptures the things concerning himself; [Luke xxiv. 27.] and who told them, verse 44, That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning him. The attempt is made in opposition also to the testimony of the apostle Peter, who, speaking to Cornelius of Christ, said, To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [Acts x. 43. The Jewish and Christian revelations, therefore, are so closely connected, that if the former is removed as false, the latter must of necessity fall to the ground.

"It is the apostle of the Gentiles who hath set the Sinaitic covenant, or law of Moses, in a proper light; by shewing that it was no method of justification even to the Jews, but merely their national law delivered to them by God, not as governor of the universe, but as king in Israel, who had separated them from the rest of mankind, and placed them in Canaan under his own immediate government as a nation, for the purpose of preserving his oracles and worship amidst that universal corruption which had overspread the earth. Accordingly, this apostle hath proved, that, seeing the law of Moses contained a more perfect account of the duties of morality, and of the demerit of sin, than is to be found in any other national law, instead of justifying, it condemned the Jews by its curse, especially as it prescribed no sacrifice of any real efficacy to cleanse the consciences of sinners, nor promised them pardon in any method whatsoever : and that by the rigour of its curse, the law of Moses laid the Jews under the necessity of seeking justification from the mercy of God through faith, according to the tenor of the covenant of Abraham, which was the gospel and religion of the Jews. Thus, by the lights which St. Paul hath held up to us, the impious railings of the Manicheaus against the law of Moses, and against the God of the Jews, the author of that law, on the supposition that it was a rule of justification, are seen to be without foundation; as are the objections, likewise, which modern deists have urged against the Mosaic revelation, on account of God's dealings with the Israelites.

"It is St. Paul who hath most largely discoursed concerning the transcendant greatness of the Son of God above angels and all created beings whatever; and who hath shewn that, as the reward of his humiliation and death in the human nature, he hath, in that nature, obtained the government of the world for the good of his church, and will hold that government till he hath put down the usurped dominion which the apostate angels have so long endeavoured to maintain in opposition to the righteous government of God that as the last exercise of his kingly power, Christ will raise the dead, and judge the world, and render to every one according to his deeds and that when all the enemies of God and goodness are thus utterly subdued, the Son will deliver up the kingdom to the Father, that God may be over all in all places.

"It is this great apostle who hath made known to us many of the circumstances and consequences of the general judgment not mentioned by the other apostles. For besides repeating what Christ himself declared, that he will return a second time to this earth, surrounded with the glory of his Father, and attended by a great host of angels; that he will call all the dead forth from their graves; and that, by his sentence as judge, he will fix the doom of all mankind irreversibly; this apostle hath taught us the following interesting particulars that the last generation of men shall not dic; but that in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, Christ will change such of the righteous as are alive upon the earth at his coming. And, having said nothing of Christ's changing the wicked, the apostle has led us to believe that no change shall pass on them, consequently that the discrimination of the righteous from the wicked shall be made from the difference of the body in which the one and the other shall appear before the

tribunal, and that no particular inquiry into the actions of individuals will be needed to determine their different characters. The character of each will be shewn to all, by the nature of the body in which he appears to receive his sentence. The same apostle has taught us, that after sentence is pronounced upon all men, according to their true characters thus visibly manifested, the righteous shall be caught up in the clouds, to join the Lord in the air; so that the wicked being left alone on the earth, it follows that they are to perish in the flames of the general conflagration. He further informs us, that the righteous, having.joined the Lord in the air, shall accompany him in his return to heaven, and there live in an embodied state with God, and Christ, and the angels, to all eternity.

"It is St. Paul who hath given us the completest account of the spiritual gifts which were bestowed in such plenty and variety on the first Christians for the confirmation of the gospel. Nay, the form which the Christian visible church has taken under the government of Christ, is owing, in a great measure, to the directions contained in his writings. Not to mention that the different offices of the gospel ministry, together with the duties and privileges belonging to these offices, have all been established in consequence of his appointment.

Finally, It is St. Paul who, in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, hath given us a formal proof of the divine original of the gospel, which, though it was originally designed for the learned Greeks of that age, hath been of the greatest use ever since in confirming believers in their most holy faith, and stopping the mouths of adversaries.

"The foregoing account of the matters contained in the writings of the apostle Paul shews, that whilst the inspired epistles of the other apostles deserve to be read with the utmost attention, on account of the explications of particular doctrines and facts which they contain, and of the excellent precepts of piety and morality with which they abound, the epistles of Paul must be regarded as the grand repository in which the whole of the gospel doctrine is lodged, and from which the knowledge of it can be drawn with the greatest advantage. And therefore, all who wish to understand true Christianity, ought to study the epistles of this great apostle with the utmost care. In them, indeed, they will meet with things hard to be understood. But that circumstance, instead of discouraging, ought rather to make them more diligent in their endeavours to understand his writings, as they contain information from God himself concerning matters which are of the utmost importance to their temporal and eternal welfare."

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE LIVES AND WRITINGS OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

Introductory remark---Matthew---his life---the date of his gospel---the language in which it was written---to whom it was addressed--life of Mark---his gospel---when written--whether an epitome of Matthew---peculiarities in Mark---life of Luke---his gospel-when it was written---plan of the four evangelists---life of John--date of his gospel--his design in writing it---remarks on its last chapter---the moderation of the evangelists in speaking of our Lord's enemies--their means of information---credibility of their testimony---preaching and death of Matthew---the labours of Mark---his death--Luke writes the Acts---accounts of his death uncertain---John writes his first epistle--evidences of its authenticity---his design in writing it---when and where it was written, and to whom it was addressed---who is to be understood by antichrist---remarks on the second and third of John---the apocalypse--continuation of the life of John---remarkable story of his conduct towards a young man---his death.

IN whatever point of view we consider the conduct of our adorable Redeemer, we shall discover the most striking controversy between the spirit by which he was actuated, and the motives that influenced the most celebrated conquerors. Alexander, Cæsar, and the mighty Timur, were men formed of the same clay with ourselves, exposed to all the infirmities incident to human nature, and possessed of a legal authority over the persons and properties of comparatively but a few of mankind. They extended their command by acts of violence and deceit, waded through slaughter to the throne of empire, and then, in too many instances, shut the gates of mercy upon their fellows. Yet, as they fancied that there was something honorable in their crimes, they were anxious to find able and eloquent historians, who might transmit to posterity the memory of their achievments. Christ, on the contrary, though by nature he was rich, for our sakes became poor. Being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. was, indeed, a king, having an unquestionable right to universal dominion; yet he asserted not this claim by the battles of the warrior, but by the preaching of his word, and confirmed it by miracles of mercy, which were performed as well on his enemies as on his friends. Not one transaction of his spotless life shrinks from the severest scrutiny of impartial justice; but as he did not wish the propagation of his religion

to result from the exertion of distinguished human abilities, he was content to have his history recorded by the most artless writers, all of whom, Luke only excepted, were plain untutored men, who simply noted down such of the words and actions of their Master as they either witnessed or were credibly informed of, leaving them to make their own impression on the mind of the reader.

Concerning Matthew we have here but little to observe. He was originally a publican; and not only forsook a gainful employment for the sake of Christ, but made a feast to testify his joy on accourt of his conversion. He does not appear to have been at all distinguished from his brethren, but associated regularly with them from the time of his being called by Jesus to the descent of the Spirit at the feast of

Pentecost.

The time when the gospel of Matthew was written has been much disputed. Eusebius only says, that when Matthew was about to go to other people, he delivered his gospel to the Hebrews in their own language, without telling us when it was that Matthew left Judea. Dr. Larduer observes, that Theophylact, in the eleventh century, and Euthymius, in the twelfth, say that Matthew writ in the eighth year after our Saviour's ascension; Nicephorus Callisthi, in the fourteenth century, says that Matthew writ about fifteen years after Christ's ascension; and the Paschal Chronicle, in the seventh century, intimates the same thing. None of those writers expressly refer to more antient authors for their opinion. But it may be reckoned probable, that they collected it from the history in the Acts, and from the forementioned passage in Eusebius. They who thought that Matthew and the other apostles left Judea soon after the conversion of Cornelius, supposed his gospel might be writ in the eighth year of our Lord's ascension. And they who think that the apostles did not leave Judea to go to the Gentiles till the council of Jerusalem, [Acts xv.] supposed Matthew's gospel to have been writ in the fifteenth year of our Lord's ascension, of the vulgar account, forty-nine; but neither had for their opinion the express authority of Eusebius, or any other very antient writer. It is well known to be very common to insert articles in chronicles and such-like works. This article concerning the time of Matthew's gospel is probably a late edition.

According to the testimonies of most of the antients, as Papias, A. D. 116, Ireneus, in 178, Origen, in 230, Eusebius, in 315, Athenasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodore Mopsuestia, Jerome, Chrisostom, &c. this gospel was written in the Hebrew or Syriac language, which was then common in Judea; but the Greek version of it, which now passes for the original, is said to be as old as the apostolical times. However, many learned moderns, as Erasmus, Calvin, Le Clerc, &c. are of opinion that this gospel was first written in Greek, which was much used at that time throughout all the Roman empire, and particularly in Judea; and it is alledged, that Papias, who first advanced this opinion, was a weak and credulous man, Le Clerc, Jones, Basnage, Lardner, &c. are of this opinion. Dr. Lardner observes on this point, that if St. Matthew did not write till about thirty years after our Lord's ascension, which he thinks most probable, he would use the Greek language; but if he wrote his gospel within the space of eight years after Christ's ascension, it is most likely that he wrote in the Hebrew. He adds further, that there was very early a Greek gospel of St. Matthew cited and referred to by Clement of Rome Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others; that many of the antients do not seem to have fully believed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, because they have shewn very little regard to the Hebrew edition of it; that there are not, in our Greek gospel of St. Matthew, any marks of a translation; that there is no where any probable account who translated this gospel into Greck; and, besides, as the Greek gospel was translated into Hebrew..

in very early days of Christianity, many, not examining it particularly, nor indeed being able to do it for want of understanding the language, might conjecture that it was first writ in Hebrew. Hence, according to Dr. Lardner, sprung the opinion that Matthew published his gospel at Jerusalem or in Judea, for the Jewish believers, and at their request, before he went abroad to other people: whereas, he apprehends that this gospel, as well as the others, were writ and intended for believers of all nations; and that the Nazarene gospel was St. Matthew's gospel translated from Greek, with the addition of some other things taken from the other gospels, and from tradition. Allowing the date of the gospel already assigned, he cannot conceive the reason why Matthew should write in Hebrew any more than any other of the evangelists; for it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he understood Greek before he was called by Christ to be an apostle. Whilst a publican, he would have frequent occasions both to write and to speak Greek, and could not discharge his office without understanding that language. Lardner's credibility, &c. vol. xv. chap. 5.

In whatever language this gospel was written, the author appears to have considered himself as one who addresscd a people well acquainted with the subjects of its history. For, notwithstanding the particulars which are mentioned by him are of the most wonderful nature, he evidently takes no pains to obviate those objections that he must be sensible would occur to persons who were unacquainted with those remarkable events. He has given no explication of the manners and customs of the Jews. Throughout the whole of his history he has not given us so much as one date, whereby the reader can form a judgment of the age in which the transactions happened which he has recorded; so that the time when these events took place can only be fixed from his mentioning the names of Herod, Archelaus, and Pilate. Thus it pretty plainly appears that Matthew wrote immediately for the Jews.

There is little reason to doubt but that the evangelist Mark was the same as John Mark, the son of a pious woman called Mary, who lived at Jerusalem, and was an early convert to the religion of Christ. We find, from the history of the Acts, that the disciples used frequently to meet at her house for religious exercises; and that Peter, being well acquainted with this practice, immediately repaired thither after his miraculous release from imprisonment. She was the sister of Barnabas, as appears from Col. iv. 10. Therefore, when Barnabas and Paul went to preach to the Gentiles, Barnabas took with him his nephew Mark, in quality of their minister or assistant. [Acts xiii. 5.] When, however, they had arrived at Perga, Mark, discouraged by the difficulties of the way, forsook the apostles, and returned to Jerusalem. On this account, Paul refused to accept of him as a companion on a second journey, notwithstanding Barnabas so vehemently urged it, that their dispute led to their pursuing separate plans. [Acts xv. 36..41.] A complete reconciliation afterwards took place between Mark and Paul, as is certain from the terms in which the evangelist is mentioned in several epistles. He was, probably, a Levite, as his uncle Barnabas was of that order.

Concerning the gospel of Mark, Eusebius gives us the following account, in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History. When, therefore, the divine word had come to them, (i. e. to the inhabitants of Rome) the power of Simon became immediately extinct, and, together with the man himself, utterly perished But so great a splendor of piety shined upon the minds of the hearers of the divine word, that they did not rest satisfied with having once heard him, nor with having enjoyed the unwritten instruction of the celestial word; but intreated with much importunity Mark, to whom the gospel was ascribed, who was then a follower of Peter, that he would leave with them some written memorial of that doctrine which they had heard preached, nor did