approbation. The gospel of Mark is supposed to be but two years posterior in date to that of Matthew. The precise year, however, cannot be determined with certainty; and it is a matter of no importance, since we have ascertained the author and the time in which he lived.

Mark has generally been supposed to be the same person who is mentioned in the acts and some of Paul's epistles, who is called John, and was the nephew of Barnabas. But as this person was the attendant of Paul and Barnabas, and is nowhere in scripture said to have accompanied Peter in his apostolical mission, which ancient writers inform us the author of the gospel did, Dr Campbell has justly concluded that these were different persons. The author of the gospel is certainly meant by Peter when he says Marcus my son salute you*.

That Mark wrote his gospel in Greek, is as evidently conformable to the testimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. The cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, anxious to exalt the language in which the vulgate was written, have maintained that this Evangelist published his work in Latin. The only appearance of testimony which has been produced in support of this opinion is the inscription subjoined to this gospel in Syriac, and in some other oriental versions. But these postscripts are not the testimonies of the translators: they proceed from the conjecture of some transcriber; but when written, or by whom, is equally unknown. Against positive testimony, therefore, they are entitled to no credit.

From the Hebraisms in the style, we should readily conclude that the author was by birth and education a Jew. There are also expressions which show that he had lived for some time among the Latins, as καπνικός, "centurion," and στρατιώτης, "sentinel;" words which do not occur in the other gospels. There are other internal evidences that this gospel was written beyond the confines of Judea. The first time the Jordan is mentioned, ποταμός, "river," is added to the name for explanation; for though no person in Judea needed to be informed that Jordan was a river, the case was different in distant countries. The word Gehenna, which is translated Hell in the New Testament, originally signified the Valley of Hinom, where infants had been sacrificed by fire to Moloch, and where a continual fire was afterwards kept up to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the Evangelist adds, by way of explanation, πυρ το απεσταλμένον, "the unquenchable fire." Instead of the word Mammon, he uses the common term θησαυρός, "riches." When he employs the oriental word Corban, he subjoins the interpretation ἀπὸ δῶρον, that is, "a gift." These peculiarities will corroborate the historical evidence that has been already mentioned, that Mark intended his gospel for the use of the Gentiles.

It has been affirmed that this evangelist is the abridger of Matthew. It is true that Mark sometimes copies the expressions used by Matthew; but he is not to be confounded as a mere abridger, for he omits altogether several things related by Matthew, viz. our Lord's pedigree, his birth, the visit of the Magians, Joseph's flight into Egypt, and the cruelty of Herod. Dr Lardner has given a list of thirty-three passages, where-

in circumstances are related which are omitted by the other evangelists. There is one parable, and an account of two miracles peculiar to Mark. The parable or similitude is mentioned in chap. iv. 26. One of these miracles was the curing of a deaf and dumb man, chap. vii. 31, 37. The other was the giving sight to a blind man at Bethsaida, chap. viii. 22, 26. The style of Mark, instead of being more concise than that of Matthew, is more diffuse. That he had read Matthew's gospel cannot be doubted, but that he abridged it, is a mistake.

According to the testimony which has been already produced, Mark derived his information from the apostle Peter. It would be improper, therefore, not to remark from that this evangelist has omitted many things tending to Peter's honour, which are related in the other gospels, and has given the most particular account of Peter's fall. This gospel is seven times cited by Irenaeus, and nine times by Tertullian.

That the author of the gospel which is the third in Gospel order was Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, is evident from the testimonies of Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and many succeeding writers. But it has been disputed whether he was a Jew or a Gentile. That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul. If he had been an uncircumcised Gentile, exceptions would have been made to him, especially at Jerusalem; but nothing of that kind appears. It is also rendered highly probable, from his mode of computing time by the Jewish festivals, and from his frequent use of the Hebrew idiom. It has been supposed that Luke was one of the 70 disciples; but he does not pretend to have been a witness of our Lord's miracles and teaching; on the contrary, he tells us in his introduction, that he received his information from others.

- The design of Luke in writing his gospel was to refute pernicious and imperfect and inaccurate histories of our Saviour, which had then been published. What these were, it is impossible now to determine, as they are not mentioned by any contemporary writer, and probably did not survive the age in which they were composed.

It has been supposed that Luke chiefly derived his information from the apostle Paul, whom he faithfully attended in his travels; but, from Luke's own words, we are led to conclude, that the principal source of his intelligence, as to the facts related in the gospel, was from those who had been eye and ear witnesses of what our Lord both did and taught. Now Paul evidently was not of this number. It was from conversing with some of the twelve apostles or disciples of our Lord, who heard his discourses and saw his miracles, that he obtained his information.

As to the time when this gospel was written, we have hardly any thing but conjecture to guide us. But as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, have ranged it after those of Matthew and Mark, we have no reason to doubt but they were written in the same order.

The gospel by Luke has supplied us with many interesting particulars which had been omitted by both Matthew and Mark. It has given a distinct narration of the circumstances attending the birth of John the Baptist and the nativity of our Saviour. It has given Scripture.

Dr Campbell's Preface to Luke's Gospel.

an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zaccheus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for 18 years; the cure of the droppical man; the cleansing of the ten lepers; the inhospitable treatment of our Saviour by the Samaritans, and the instructive rebuke which he gave on that occasion to two of his disciples for their intemperate zeal; also the affecting interview which he had after his resurrection with two of his disciples. Luke has also added many edifying parables to those which the other evangelists had recorded. Most of these are specified by Irenaeus as particularly belonging to this gospel, and has thereby shewn to us, without intending it, that the gospel of Luke was the fame in his time that it is at present.

The style of this evangelist abounds as much with Hebraisms as any of the sacred writings, but it contains more of the Grecian idiom than any of them. It is also distinguished by greater variety and copiousness; qualities which may be justly ascribed to the superior learning of the author. His occupation as a physician would naturally induce him to employ some time in reading, and give him easier access to the company of the great than any of the other evangelists. As an instance of Luke's copiousness, Dr Campbell has remarked that each of the evangelists has a number of words which are used by none of the rest; but in Luke's gospel the number of such peculiarities or words, used in none of the other gospels, is greater than that of the peculiar words found in all the three other gospels put together; and that the terms peculiar to Luke are for the most part long and compound words. The same judicious writer has also observed, that there is more of composition in Luke's sentences than is found in the other three, and consequently less simplicity. Of this the very first sentence is an example, which occupies no less than four verses. Luke, too, has a greater resemblance to other historians, in giving what may be called his own verdict in the narrative part of this work; a freedom which the other evangelists have seldom or never ventured to use. He calls the Pharisees lovers of money; in distinguishing Judas Iscariot from the other Judas, he uses the phrase, he who proved a traitor, (ος και εναντι πρεδας). Matthew and Mark express the same sentiment in milder language, "he who delivered him up." In recording the moral instructions of our Lord, especially his parables, this evangelist has united an affecting sweetness of manner with genuine simplicity.

This gospel is frequently cited by Clemens Romanus, the contemporary of the Apostles, by Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. Irenaeus has made above a hundred citations from it. In his lib. iii. adv. Haeret. c. 14. he vindicates the authority and perfection of Luke's gospel, and has produced a collection of those facts which are only recorded by this evangelist.

That the gospel which is placed last in our editions of the New Testament was written by John, one of our Saviour's apostles, is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Christians. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida in Galilee, by his wife Salome, and the brother of James, furnished the elder or greater. He was the beloved disciple of our Saviour, and was honoured, along with Peter and James, with many marks of distinction which were not conferred on the other disciples. He possessed a high degree of intrepidity and zeal, a warm and affectionate heart, and was strongly attached to his master. His brother James and he were honoured with the title of Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder. He was anxious to refrain whatever he considered as a mark of disrespect against his master, and to punish his enemies with severity. He was incensed against some persons for attempting to cast out demons in the name of Jesus; and required them to desist because they were not his disciples. James and he proposed to our Saviour to call down fire from heaven to punish the inhospitable Samaritans. Nor was the courage of John less ardent than his zeal. When Peter had disowned his Lord, and all the other disciples had fled, John continued to attend his master. He was present at his trial, and followed him to the cross, where he was a spectator of his sufferings and death. The interview between Jesus and this disciple at Calvary, though concisely related, is an event which will strongly affect every man of feeling, while it convinces him of the unalterable affection of Jesus to his beloved disciple, as well as discovers his respectful tendernefs for his mother. See John.

The ancients inform us, that there were two motives which induced John to write his gospel: the one, that for writing he might refute the heresies of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, who had attempted to corrupt the Christian doctrine; the other motive was, that he might supply those important events in the life of our Saviour which the other evangelists had omitted. Of the former of these motives Irenaeus gives us the following account: "John, desirous to extirpate the errors sown in the minds of men by Cerinthus, and some time before by those called Nicolaitans, published his gospel; wherein he acquaints us that there is one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they say, one who is the Creator of the world, and another who is the father of the Lord; one the son of the Creator, and another the Christ, from the supercelestial abodes who descended upon Jesus, the son of the Creator, but remained impalpible, and afterwards fled back into his own pleroma or fulness." As Irenaeus is the most ancient author who has written upon this subject, many appeals have been made to his authority. The authority of Irenaeus is certainly respectable, and we have often referred to his testimony with confidence; but we think it necessary to make a distinction between receiving his testimony to a matter of fact, and implicitly adopting his opinion. He does not tell us, that he derived his information from any preceding writer, or indeed from any person at all. Nay, he seems to have believed that John wrote, against these heresies by a prophetic spirit; for he says in another place, chap. xx. 30. "As John the disciple of our Lord affirms us, saying, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name; FORESEEING these blasphemous notions that divide the Lord, so far as it is in their power."

Indeed it seems very improbable that an apostle should write a history of our Lord on purpose to confute the wild opinions of Cerinthus or any other heretic. Had John considered such a confutation necessary, it is more likely that he would have introduced it into an epistle than blended it with the actions of his venerable Master. But were the opinion of Irenaeus well-founded, we should surely discover some traces of it in the gospel of John; yet except in the introduction, there is nothing that can with the least shadow of probability be applied to the opinions of Cerinthus; and few, we presume, will affirm, that the gospel of John was composed merely for the sake of the first eighteen verses.

The intention of John in writing his gospel was far more extensive and important than to refute the opinions of a few men who were to sink into oblivion in the course of a few centuries. It was evidently (according to the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria) to supply the omissions of the other evangelists: It was to exhibit the evidences of the Christian religion in a distinct and perspicuous manner: It was, as he himself in the conclusion of his gospel assures us, to convince his readers, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through his name.* Now it will appear to any person who reads this gospel with attention, that he has executed his plan with astonishing ability, and has given the most circumstantial and satisfactory evidence that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God. After declaring the pre-existence of Jesus, he proceeds to deliver the testimony of John the Baptist, and selects some of the greatest miracles of Jesus, to prove his divine mission. In the fifth chapter he presents us with a discourse which our Saviour delivered in the temple in the presence of the Jews, wherein he states in a very distinct manner the proofs of his mission from, 1. The testimony of John; 2. His own miracles; 3. The declaration of the Father at his baptism; 4. The Jewish Scriptures. Indeed the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, naturally arises from almost every miracle which our Saviour is said to have performed, and from every discourse that he delivered. This declaration is very often made by our Saviour himself; particularly to the woman of Samaria, to Nicodemus, and to the blind man whom he had cured.

It must be evident to every reader, that John studiously passes over those passages in our Lord's history and teaching which had been treated at large by the other evangelists, or, if he mentions them at all, he mentions them slightly. This confirms the testimony of ancient writers, that the first three gospels were written and published before John composed his gospel. Except the relation of our Saviour's trial, death, and resurrection, almost every thing which occurs in this book is new. The account of our Saviour's nativity, of his baptism, and of his temptation in the wilderness, is omitted; nor is any notice taken of the calling of the twelve apostles, or of their mission during our Saviour's life. It is remarkable, too, that not one parable is mentioned, nor any of the predictions relating to the destruction of Jerusalem. All the miracles recorded by the other evangelists are passed over, except the miraculous supply of provision, by which five thousand were fed: and it is probable that this miracle was related for the sake of the discourse to which it gave birth. The other miracles which are mentioned are few in number, but in general they are minutely detailed. They consist of these: the turning of water into wine at Cana; the cure of the diseased man at the pool of Bethesda; the cure of the man that had been blind from his birth; the restoring of Lazarus to life; and the healing of the servant's ear which Peter had cut off. But valuable would this gospel be, though it had only recorded the consolation of Jesus to his disciples previous to his departure; which exhibits a most admirable view of our Saviour's character, of his care and tender regard for his disciples. Having opened every source of comfort to their desponding minds; exhorted them to mutual love, and to the obedience of his Father's precepts; having warned them of the impending dangers and sorrows—our Saviour concludes with a prayer, in the true spirit of piety and benevolence; ardent without enthusiasm, sober and rational without lukewarmness.

The time in which this gospel was written has not been fixed with any precision. Irenaeus informs us, that which it was written at Ephesus, but leaves us to conjecture whether it was written before or after John's return from Patmos. He was banished to Patmos by Domitian, who reigned 15 years, and according to the best computation died A.D. 96. The persecution which occasioned the exile of John commenced in the 14th year of Domitian's reign. If John wrote his gospel after his return to Ephesus, which is affirmed by Epiphanius to have been the case, we may fix the date of it about the year 97 (f).

This gospel is evidently the production of an illiterate Jew, and its style is remarkable for simplicity. It abounds more with Hebraisms than any of the other gospels; and contains some strong oriental figures which are not readily understood by an European.

This gospel is cited once by Clemens Romanus, by Often quoted Barnabas three times, by Ignatius five times, by Justin Martyr fix times, by Irenaeus, and above forty times by Clement of Alexandria.

The book which we intitle the Acts of the Apostles connects the gospels and the epistles. It is evidently a continuation of Luke's gospel, which appears both from the introduction and from the attestations of ancient Christians. Both are dedicated to Theophilus; and in the beginning of the Acts a reference is made to his gospel, which he calls a former treatise, recording the actions and discourses of Jesus till his ascension to heaven. Luke is mentioned as the author of the Acts of the Apostles by Irenaeus, by Tertullian, by Origen, and Eusebius.

From the frequent use of the first person plural, it is manifest that Luke the author was present at many of

(f) It has been argued from a passage in this gospel, that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. In speaking of the pool of Bethesda, John uses the present tense: His words are, "There is at Jerusalem." Now if these words had been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is urged the past tense would have been used, and not the present. This argument is more specious than forcible. Though Jerusalem was demolished, does it follow that the pool of Betheldawas dried up? Scripture, the transactions which he relates. He appears to have accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi. He attended him also to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome, where he remained for two years. He is mentioned by Paul in several of those epistles which were written from Rome, particularly in the 2d epistle to Timothy, and in the epistle to Philemon.

This book contains the history of the Christian church for the space of about 28 or 30 years, from the time of our Saviour's ascension to Paul's arrival at Rome in the year 60 or 61. As it informs us that Paul resided two years in Rome, it must have been written after the year 63; and as the death of Paul is not mentioned, it is probable it was composed before that event, which happened A.D. 65.

The Acts of the Apostles may be divided into seven parts. 1. The account of our Saviour's ascension, and of the occurrences which happened on the first Pentecost after that event, contained in chap. i. ii. 2. The transactions of the Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem, in Judea, and Samaria, chap. iii.—ix. xi. 1—21. xii. 3. Transactions in Caesarea, and the admission of the Gentiles, chap. x. 4. The first circuit of Barnabas and Paul among the Gentiles, chap. xi. 22. xiii. xiv. 5. Embassy to Jerusalem, and the first council held in that city, chap. xv. 6. Paul's second journey, chap. xvi.—xxi. 7. His arrestment, trial, appeal to Caesar, and journey to Rome, chap. xxii. to the end of the book.

The Acts of Apostles are cited by Clemens Romanus, by Polycarp, by Justin Martyr, thirty times by Irenaeus, and seven times by Clemens Alexandrinus.

All the essential doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion were certainly taught by our Saviour himself, and are contained in the gospels. The epistles may be considered as commentaries on the doctrines of the gospel, addressed to particular societies, accommodated to their respective situations; intended to refute the errors and false notions which prevailed among them, and to inculcate those virtues in which they were most deficient.

The plan on which these Letters are written is, first, to decide the controversy, or refute the erroneous notions which had arisen in the society to which the epistle was addressed: And, secondly, to recommend those duties which their false doctrines might induce them to neglect; at the same time inculcating in general exhortations the most important precepts of Christian morality.

Of the epistles fourteen were written by St Paul. These are not placed according to the order of time in which they were composed, but according to the supposed precedence of the societies or persons to whom they were addressed. It will be proper, therefore, to exhibit here their chronological order according to Dr Lardner.

A TABLE of St PAUL'S EPISTLES, with the Places where, and times when, written, according to Dr Lardner.

<table> <tr> <th>Epistles</th> <th>Places</th> <th>A. D.</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1 Thessalonians</td> <td>Corinth</td> <td>52</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2 Thessalonians</td> <td>Corinth</td> <td>52</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Galatians</td> <td>Corinth or Ephesus</td> <td>near the end of 52 or beginning of 53</td> </tr> </table>

Epistles. Places. A. D. 1 Corinthians Ephesus 53 1 Timothy Macedonia 56 Titus Macedonia or near it bef. the end of 56 2 Corinthians Macedonia about October 57 Romans Corinth about February 58 Ephesians Rome about April 61 2 Timothy Rome about May 61 Philippians Rome bef. the end of 62 Colossians Rome bef. the end of 62

ome bef. the end of 62 Hebrews {Rome or Italy} in Spring of 63

SCR [34] SCR

A. D. Scripture. the beginning of 53 56 about October 57 about February 58 about April 61 about May 61 bef. the end of 62 bef. the end of 62 bef. the end of 62 in Spring of 63

A TABLE of the CATHOLIC EPISTLES, and the REVELATION, according to Dr Lardner.

<table> <tr> <th>Epistle.</th> <th>Place.</th> <th>A. D.</th> </tr> <tr> <td>James</td> <td>Judea</td> <td>{or beg. of 61}</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The two epistles of Peter</td> <td>Rome</td> <td>64</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1 John</td> <td>Ephebus</td> <td>about 80</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2d and 3d of John</td> <td>Ephebus</td> <td>between 80 and 90</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Jude</td> <td>Unknown</td> <td>64 or 65</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Revelation</td> <td>Patmos or Ephesus</td> <td>95 or 96</td> </tr> </table>

It is more difficult to understand the epistolary writings than the gospels; the cause of which is evident. Their obscurity is often cited by the early Christians.

The epistles.

General plan of them.

Arranged in chronological order.

It is more difficult to understand the epistolary writings than the gospels; the cause of which is evident. Many things are omitted in a letter, or slightly mentioned, because supposed to be known by the person to whom it is addressed. To a stranger this will create much difficulty. The business about which St Paul wrote was certainly well known to his correspondents; but at this distance of time we can obtain no information concerning the occasion of his writing, of the character and circumstances of those persons for whom his letters were intended, except what can be gleaned from the writings themselves. It is no wonder, therefore, though many allusions should be obscure. Besides, it is evident from many passages that he answers letters and questions which his correspondents had sent him. If these had been preserved, they would have thrown more light upon many things than all the notes and conjectures of the commentators.

The causes of obscurity which have been now mentioned are common to all the writers of the epistles; but there are some peculiar to St Paul. 1. As he had an acute and fertile mind, he seems to have written with great rapidity, and without attending much to the common rules of method and arrangement. To this cause we may ascribe his numerous and long parentheses. In the heat of argument he sometimes breaks off abruptly to follow out some new thought; and when he has exhausted it, he returns from his digression without informing his readers; so that it requires great attention to retain the connection. 2. His frequent change of person, too, creates ambiguity: by the pronoun he sometimes means himself; sometimes any Christian; sometimes a Jew, and sometimes any man. In using the pronoun we he sometimes intends himself; sometimes comprehends his companions; sometimes the apot- Scripture. tles; at one time he alludes to the converted Jews, at another time to the converted Gentiles. 3. There is a third cause of obscurity; he frequently propounds objections, and answers them without giving any formal intimation. There are other difficulties which arise from our uncertainty who are the persons he is addressing, and what are the particular opinions and practices to which he refers. To these we may add two external causes, which have increased the difficulty of understanding the epistles. 1. The dividing them into chapters and verses, which dissolves the connection of the parts, and breaks them into fragments. If Cicero's epistles had been so disjointed, the reading of them would be attended with less pleasure and advantage, and with a great deal more labour. 2. We are accustomed to the phraseology of the epistles from our infancy; but we have either no idea at all when we use it, or our idea of it is derived from the articles or system which we have espoused. But as different sects have arbitrary definitions for St Paul's phrases, we shall never by following them discover the meaning of St Paul, who certainly did not adjust his phraseology to any man's system.

The best plan of studying the epistles is that which was proposed and executed by Mr Locke. This we shall present to our readers in the words of that acute and judicious author.

"After I had found by long experience, that the reading of the text and comments in the ordinary way proved not so successful as I wished to the end proposed, I began to suspect that in reading a chapter as was usual, and thereupon sometimes consulting expositors upon some hard places of it, which at that time most affected me, as relating to points then under consideration in my own mind, or in debate against others, was not a right method to get into the true sense of these epistles, I saw plainly, after I began once to reflect on it, that if any one should write me a letter as long as St Paul's to the Romans, concerning such a matter as that is, in a style as foreign, and expressions as dubious as his seem to be, if I should divide it into fifteen or sixteen chapters, and read one of them to-day, and another tomorrow, &c. it is ten to one I should never come to a full and clear comprehension of it. The way to understand the mind of him that writ it, every one would agree, was to read the whole letter through from one end to the other all at once, to see what was the main subject and tendency of it: or if it had several views and purposes in it, not dependent one of another, nor in a subordination to one chief aim and end, to discover what those different matters were, and where the author concluded one, and began another; and if there were any necessity of dividing the epistle into parts, to make the boundaries of them.

"In the prosecution of this thought, I concluded it necessary, for the understanding of any one of St Paul's epistles, to read it all through at one sitting, and to observe as well as I could the drift and design of his writing it. If the first reading gave me some light, the second gave me more; and so I persisted in reading constantly the whole epistle over at once till I came to have a good general view of the apostle's main purpose in writing the epistle, the chief branches of his discourse wherein he prosecuted it, the arguments he used, and the disposition of the whole.

"This, I confess, is not to be obtained by one or two hasty readings; it must be repeated again and again with a close attention to the tenor of the discourse, and a perfect neglect of the divisions into chapters and verses. On the contrary, the safest way is to suppose that the epistle has but one business and one aim, till by a frequent perusal of it you are forced to see there are distinct independent matters in it, which will forwardly enough show themselves.

"It requires so much more pains, judgment, and application, to find the coherence of obscure and abstract writings, and makes them so much the more unfit to serve prejudice and preoccupation when found; that it is not to be wondered that St Paul's epistles have with many passed rather for disjointed, loose, pious discourses, full of warmth and zeal, and overflows of light, rather than for calm, strong, coherent reasonings, that carried a thread of argument and consistency all through them."

Mr Locke tells us he continued to read the same epistle over and over again till he discovered the scope of the whole, and the different steps and arguments by which the writer accomplishes his purpose. For he was convinced before reading his epistles, that Paul was a man of learning, of sound sense, and knew all the doctrines of the gospel by revelation. The speeches recorded in the Acts of the Apostles convinced this judicious critic that Paul was a close and accurate reasoner: and therefore he concluded that his epistles would not be written in a loose, confused, incoherent style. Mr Locke accordingly followed the chain of the apostle's discourse, observed his inferences, and carefully examined from what promises they were drawn, till he obtained a general outline of any particular epistle. If every divine would follow this method, he would soon acquire such a knowledge of Paul's style and manner, that he would peruse his other Epistles with much greater ease.

"That the Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth by St Paul, is ascertained by the testimony of the ancient Christians. It was composed in the year 58, in the 24th year after Paul's conversion, and is the seventh epistle which he wrote. From the Acts of the Apostles its date, we learn that it must have been written within the space of three months; for that was the whole period of Paul's residence in Greece, (Acts xx. 1, 2, 3.)"

The following analysis of this epistle we have taken from a valuable little treatise, entitled A Key to the New Testament, which was written by Dr Percy bishop of Dromore. It exhibits the intention of the apostle, and the arguments which he uses to prove his different propositions, in the most concise, distinct, and connected manner, and affords the best view of this Epistle that we have ever seen.

"The Christian church at Rome appears not to have been planted by any apostle; wherefore St Paul, lest it should be corrupted by the Jews, who then swarmed in Rome, and of whom many were converted to Christianity, sends them an abstract of the principal truths of the gospel, and endeavours to guard them against those erroneous notions which the Jews had of justification, and of the election of their own nation.

"Now the Jews assigned three grounds for justification. First, 'The extraordinary piety and merits of their ancestors, and the covenant made by God with these holy men.' They thought God could not hate the chil- Scripture. dren of such meritorious parents; and as he had made a covenant with the patriarchs to bless their posterity, he was obliged thereby to pardon their sins.' Secondly, 'A perfect knowledge and diligent study of the law of Moses.' They made this a plea for the remission of all their sins and vices. Thirdly, 'The works of the Levitical law,' which were to expiate sin, especially circumcision and sacrifices. Hence they inferred that the Gentiles must receive the whole law of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.

"The doctrine of the Jews concerning election was, 'That as God had promised to Abraham to bless his seed, to give him not only spiritual blessings, but also the land of Canaan, to suffer him to dwell there in prosperity, and to consider him as his church upon earth:' That therefore this blessing extended to their whole nation, and that God was bound to fulfil these promises to them, whether they were righteous or wicked, faithful or unbelieving. They even believed that a prophet ought not to pronounce against their nation the prophecies with which he was inspired; but was rather to beg of God to expunge his name out of the book of the living.

"These previous remarks will serve as a key to unlock this difficult Epistle, of which we shall now give a short analysis. See Michaelis's Lectures on the New Testament.

"I. The Epistle begins with the usual salutation with which the Greeks began their letters, (chap. i. 1—7.).

"II. St Paul professes his joy at the flourishing state of the church at Rome, and his desire to come and preach the gospel (ver. 8—10.): then he insensibly introduces the capital point he intended to prove, viz.

"III. The subject of the gospel (ver. 16, 17.), that it reveals a righteousness unknown before, which is derived solely from faith, and to which Jews and Gentiles have an equal claim.

"IV. In order to prove this, he shows (chap. i. 18—iii. 20.) that both Jews and Gentiles are 'under sin,' i.e. that God will impute their sins to Jews as well as to Gentiles.

"His arguments may be reduced to these following (chap. ii. 17—24.). 1. 'The wrath of God is revealed against those who hold the truth in unrighteousness; i.e. who acknowledge the truth, and yet sin against it.' 2. The Gentiles acknowledged truths; but, partly by their idolatry, and partly by their other detestable vices, they sinned against the truth they acknowledged. 3. Therefore the wrath of God is revealed against the Gentiles, and punisheth them. 4. The Jews have acknowledged more truths than the Gentiles, and yet they sin. 5. Consequently the Jewish sinners are yet more exposed to the wrath of God (ch. ii. 1—12.). Having thus proved his point, he answers certain objections to it. Obj. 1. 'The Jews were well grounded in their knowledge, and studied the law.' He answers, If the knowledge of the law, without observing it, could justify them, then God could not have condemned the Gentiles, who knew the law by nature (ch. ii. 13—16.). Obj. 2. 'The Jews were circumcised.' Ans. That is, ye are admitted by an outward sign into the covenant with God. This sign will not avail you when ye violate that covenant (ch. ii. 25. to the end). Obj. 3. 'According to this doctrine of St Paul, the Jews have no advantage before others.' Ans.

Yes, they still have advantages; for unto them are committed the oracles of God. But their privileges do not extend to this, that God should overlook their sins, which, on the contrary, Scripture condemns even in the Jews (ch. iii. 1—19.). Obj. 4. 'They had the Levitical law and sacrifices.' Ans. From hence is no remission, but only the knowledge of sin, (ch. iii. 20.).

"V. From all this St Paul concludes, that Jews and Gentiles may be justified by the same means, namely, without the Levitical law, through faith in Christ: And in opposition to the imaginary advantages of the Jews, he states the declaration of Zechariah, that God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews, (ch. iii. 21. to the end.

"VI. As the whole blessing was promised to the faithful descendants of Abraham, which both Scripture and the Jews call his children, he proves his former assertion from the example of Abraham; who was an idolater before his call, but was declared just by God, on account of his faith, long before the circumcision. Hence he takes occasion to explain the nature and fruits of faith, (ch. iv. 1. v. 11.).

"VII. He goes on to prove from God's justice, that the Jews had no advantages over the Gentiles with respect to justification. Both Jews and Gentiles had forfeited life and immortality, by the means of one common father of their race, whom they themselves had not chosen. Now as God was willing to restore immortality by a new spiritual head of a covenant, viz. Christ, it was just that both Jews and Gentiles should share in this new representative of the whole race (ch. v. 12. to the end).—Chap. v. ver. 15, 16. amounts to this negative question, 'Is it not fitted that the free gift should extend as far as the offence?'

"VIII. He shows that the doctrine of justification, as stated by him, lays us under the strongest obligations of holiness, (ch. vi. 1. to the end).

"IX. He shows that the law of Moses no longer concerns us at all; for our justification arises from our appearing in God's sight, as if actually dead with Christ on account of our sins; but the law of Moses was not given to the dead. On this occasion he proves at large, that the eternal power of God over us is not affected by this; and that whilst we are under the law of Moses we perpetually become subject to death, even by sins of inadvertence, (ch. vii. 1. to the end).

"X. Hence he concludes, that all those, and those only, who are united with Christ, and for the sake of his union, do not live according to the flesh, are free from all condemnation of the law, and have an undoubted share in eternal life, (ch. viii. 1.—17.).

"XI. Having described their blessedness, he is aware that the Jews, who expected a temporal happiness, should object to him, that Christians notwithstanding endure much suffering in this world. He answers this objection at large, (ch. viii. 18. to the end).

"XII. He shows that God is not the less true and faithful, because he doth not justify, but rather rejects and punishes, those Jews who would not believe the Messiah, (ch. ix. x. xi.). In discussing this point, we may observe the cautious manner in which, on account of the Jewish prejudices, he introduces it (ch. ix. 1.—5.), as well as in the discussion itself.

"He shows that the promises of God were never made to all the posterity of Abraham, and that God al- ways reserved to himself the power of choosing those sons of Abraham whom, for Abraham's sake, he intended to bless, and of punishing the wicked sons of Abraham; and that with respect to temporal happiness or misery, he was not even determined in his choice by their works. Thus he rejected Ishmael, Esau, the Israelites in the desert in the time of Moses, and the greater part of that people in the time of Hagar, making them a sacrifice to his justice, (ch. ix. 6.—29.).

"He then proceeds to show, that God had reason to reject most of the Jews then living, because they would not believe in the Messiah, though the gospel had been preached to them plainly enough, (ch. ix. 30. x. to the end). However, that God had not rejected all the people, but was still fulfilling his promise upon many thousand natural descendants of Abraham, who believed in the Messiah, and would in a future period fulfil them upon more; for that all Israel would be converted, (ch. xi. 1—32.). And he concluded with admiring the wise counsels of God, (ver. 33. to the end).

"XIII. From the doctrine hitherto laid down, and particularly from this, that God has in mercy accepted the Gentiles; he argues, that the Romans should con- federate and offer themselves up wholly to God. This leads him to mention in particular some Christian duties, (ch. xii.), viz.

"XIV. He exhorts them to be subject to magistrates (ch. xiii. 1—7); the Jews at that time being given to sedition.

"XV. To love one another heartily (ver. 2—10.). And,

"XVI. To abstain from those vices which were considered as things indifferent among the Gentiles, (ver. 11. to the end).

"XVII. He exhorts the Jews and Gentiles in the Christian church to brotherly unity, (ch. xiv. 2. xv. 13.).

"XVIII. He concludes his Epistle with an excuse for having ventured to admonish the Romans, whom he had not converted; with an account of the journey to Jerusalem; and with some salutations to those persons whom he meant to recommend to the church at Rome." See Michaelis's Lectures on the New Testament.

Corinth was a wealthy and luxurious city, built upon the isthmus which joins the Morca to the northern parts of Greece. In this city Paul had spent two years founding a Christian church, which consisted of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, but the greater part Gentiles.

About three years after the apostles had left Corinth, he wrote this Epistle from Ephesus in the year 56 or 57, and in the beginning of Nero's reign. That it was written from Ephesus, appears from the salutation with which the Epistle closes, (chap. xvi. 19.). "The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord." From these words it is evident, in the first place, that the Epistle was written in Asia. 2dly, It appears from Acts xviii. 18, 19, that Aquila and Priscilla accompanied Paul from Corinth to Ephesus, where they seem to have continued till Paul's departure.

St Paul had certainly kept up a constant intercourse with the churches which he had founded; for he was evidently acquainted with all their revolutions. They seem to have applied to him for advice in those difficult cases which their own understanding could not solve; and he was ready on all occasions to correct their mistakes.

This Epistle consists of two parts. 1. A reproof for those vices to which they were most prone; 2. An answer to some queries which they had proposed to him.

The Corinthians, like the other Greeks, had been accustomed to see their philosophers divide themselves into different sects; and as they brought along with them into the Christian church their former opinions and customs, they wished, as before, to arrange themselves under different leaders. In this Epistle Paul condemns these divisions as inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, which inculcates benevolence and unanimity, and as opposite to the conduct of Christian teachers, who did not, like the philosophers, aspire after the praise of eloquence and wisdom. They laid no claim to these nor to any honour that cometh from men. The apostle declares, that the Christian truths were revealed from heaven; that they were taught with great plainness and simplicity, and proved by the evidence of miracles, (chap. i. 1.). He diffuses them from their divisions and animosities, by reminding them of the great trial which every man's work must undergo; of the guilt they incurred by polluting the temple or church of God; of the vanity of human wisdom; and of glorying in men. He admonishes them to esteem the teachers of the gospel only as the servants of Christ; and to remember that every superior advantage which they enjoyed was to be ascribed to the goodness of God, (chap. iii. 4.).

2. In the fifth chapter the apostle considers the case of a notorious offender, who had married his stepmother; and tells them, that he ought to be excommunicated. He also exhorts the Christians not to associate with any person who led such an openly profane life.

3. He censures the Corinthians for their litigious disposition, which caused them to prosecute their Christian brethren before the Heathen courts. He expresses much warmth and surprise that they did not refer their differences to their brethren; and concludes his exhortations on this subject, by assuring them that they ought rather to allow themselves to be defrauded than to seek redress from Heathens (chap. v. 1—9.).

4. He inveighs against those vices to which the Corinthians had been addicted before their conversion, and especially against fornication, the criminality of which they did not fully perceive, as this vice was generally overlooked in the systems of the philosophers, (chap. vi. 10. to the end).

Having thus pointed out the public irregularities with which they were chargeable, he next replies to certain questions which the Corinthians had proposed to him by letter. He, 1. Determines some questions relating to the marriage state; as, 1st, Whether it was good to marry under the existing circumstances of the church? And, 2d, Whether they should withdraw from their partners if they continued unbelievers? (chap. vii.).

2. He instructs them how to act with respect to idol offerings. It could not be unlawful in itself to eat the food which had been offered to idols; for the consecration of flesh or wine to an idol did not make it the property of the idol, an idol being nothing, and therefore incapable incapable of property. But some Corinthians thought it lawful to go to a feast in the idol temples, which at the same time were places of resort for lewdness, and to eat the sacrifices whilst praisies were sung to the idol. This was publicly joining in the idolatry. He even advises to abstain from such participation as was lawful, rather than give offence to a weak brother; which he enforces by his own example, who had abstained from many lawful things, rather than prove a scandal to the gospel, (chap. viii. ix. x.).

3. He answers a third query concerning the manner in which women should deliver any thing in public, when called to it by a divine impulse. And here he censures the unusual dress of both sexes in prophesying, which exposed them to the contempt of the Greeks, among whom the men usually went uncovered, and the women veiled.

Being thus led to the consideration of the abuses that prevailed in their public worship, he goes on to censure the irregularities which were committed at their love-feasts, or, as we term them, the Lord's Supper. It was a common practice with the Greeks at their social suppers for every man to bring his own provisions along with him, not, however, to share them with the company, but to feast on them in a solitary manner. Thus the rich ate and drank to excess, whilst the poor were totally neglected. The Corinthians introduced the same practice in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, thus confounding it with their ordinary meals, and without ever examining into the end of the institution. It was this gross abuse that Paul reproves in the 11th chapter. He also censures their conduct in the exercise of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; he shows them they all proceeded from the same spirit, and were intended for the instruction of Christian societies; that all Christians ought to be united in mutual love; and that tenderness ought to be shewn to the most inconsiderable member, as every one is subservient to the good of the whole (chap. xii.). In the 13th chapter he gives a beautiful description of benevolence, which has been much and justly admired. He represents it as superior to the supernatural gifts of the spirit, to the most exalted genius, to universal knowledge, and even to faith. In the 14th chapter he cautions the Corinthians against ostentation in the exercise of the gift of languages, and gives them proper advices.

4. He affirms the resurrection of the dead, in opposition to some of the Corinthians who denied it, founding it on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which he considers as one of the most essential doctrines of Christianity. He then answers some objections to the resurrection, drawn from our not being capable of understanding how it will be accomplished (chap.xv.). He then concludes with some directions to the Corinthian church concerning the manner of collecting alms; promises them a visit, and salutes some of the members.

The second Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Macedonia in the year 57, about a year after the former. See 2 Cor. ix. 1.—5, viii. and xiii. 1.

St Paul's first Epistle had wrought different effects among the Corinthians: many of them examined their conduct; they excommunicated the incestuous man; requested St Paul's return with tears; and vindicated him and his office against the false teacher and his adherents. Others of them still adhered to that adversary of St Paul, expressly denied his apostolic office, and even Scripture, furnished themselves with pretended arguments from that Epistle. He had formerly promised to take a journey from Ephesus to Corinth, thence to visit the Macedonians, and return from them to Corinth (2 Cor. i. 15, 16.). But the unhappy state of the Corinthian church made him alter his intention (verse 23.), since he found he must have treated them with severity. Hence his adversaries partly argued, 1. That St Paul was irreligious and unfeedy, and therefore could not be a prophet: 2. The improbability of his ever coming to Corinth again, since he was afraid of them. Such was the state of the Corinthian church when St Paul, after his departure from Ephesus, having visited Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.), received an account of the above particulars from Titus (2 Cor. vii. 5, 6.), and therefore wrote them his second Epistle about the end of the same year, or the beginning of 58.

But to give a more distinct view of the contents of this Epistle:

1. The apostle, after a general salutation, expresses his sense of the grateful sense of the divine goodness; professing his confidence in God, supported by a sense of his own integrity; makes an apology for not having visited the Corinthians as he had intended, and vindicates himself from the charge of fickleness, (chap. i.).

2. He forgives the incestuous man, whose conduct had made so deep an impression on the apostle's mind, that one reason why he had deferred his journey to Corinth was, that he might not meet them in grief, nor till he had received advice of the effect of his apostatical admonitions. He mentions his anxiety to meet Titus at Troas, in order to hear of their welfare; expresses his thankfulness to God for the success attending his ministry, and speaks of the Corinthians as his credentials, written by the finger of God, (chap. ii. iii. 1.—6.).

3. He treats of the office committed to him of preaching the redemption; and highly prefers it to preaching the law: to which probably his adversaries had made great pretences. They had ridiculed his sufferings; which he shows to be no disgrace to the gospel or its ministers; and here he gives a short abstract of the doctrine he preaches, chap. iii. 6. v. to the end).

He expatiates with great copiousness on the temper with which, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions, he and his brethren executed their important embassy; and with great affection and tenderness he exhorts them to avoid the pollution of idolatry, (chap. vi.). He endeavours to win their confidence, by telling them how much he rejoiced in their amendment and welfare, and how sorry he had been for the distress which his necessary reproofs had occasioned, (chap. vii.). He then exhorts them to make liberal contributions for the Christians in Judea. He recommends to them the example of the Macedonians, and reminds them of the benevolence of the Lord Jesus. He expresses his joy for the readiness of Titus to assist in making the collection; and makes also honourable mention of other Christian brethren, whom he had joined with Titus in the same communion, (chap. viii.). He then, with admirable address, urges a liberal contribution, and recommends them to the divine blessing, (chap. ix.).

4. Next he obviates some reflections which had been thrown thrown on him for the mildness of his conduct, as if it had proceeded from fear. He affirms his apostolical power and authority, cautioning his opponents against urging him to give too sensible demonstrations of it, (chap. x.). He vindicates himself against the insinuations of some of the Corinthians, particularly for having declined pecuniary support from the church; an action which had been ungenerously turned to his disadvantage. To show his superiority over those designing men who had opposed his preaching, he enumerates his sufferings; gives a detail of some extraordinary revelations which he had received; and vindicates himself from the charge of boasting, by declaring that he had been forced to it by the desire of supporting his apostolical character, (chap. xi. xii.). He closes the Epistle, by assuring them with great tenderness how much it would grieve him to demonstrate his divine commission by severer methods.

The Galatians were descended from those Gauls who had formerly invaded Greece, and afterwards settled in Lower Asia. St Paul had preached the gospel among them in the year 51, soon after the council held at Jerusalem, (Acts xvi. 6.). Asia swarmed at that time with zealots for the law of Moses, who wanted to impose it on the Gentiles, (Acts xv. 1.). Soon after St Paul had left the Galatians, these false teachers had got among them, and wanted them to be circumcised, &c. This occasioned the following Epistle, which Michaelis thinks was written in the same year, before St Paul left Thefalonica. Dr Lardner dates it about the end of the year 52, or in the very beginning of 53, before St Paul set out to go to Jerusalem by way of Ephesus.

The subject of this Epistle is much the same with that of the Epistle to the Romans; only this question is more fully considered here, "Whether circumcision, and an observance of the Levitical law, be necessary to the salvation of a Christian convert?" It appears, these Judaizing Christians, whose indirect views St Paul exposes (Acts xv. 1. Gal. v. 3, 9.), at first only represented circumcision as necessary to salvation; but afterwards they insisted upon the Christians receiving the Jewish festivals, (Gal. iv. 10.).

As St Paul had founded the churches of Galatia, and instructed them in the Christian religion, he does not set before them its principal doctrines, as he had done in the Epistle to the Romans; but referring them to what he had already taught (chap. i. 8, 9.), he proceeds at once to the subject of the Epistle.

As it appears from several passages of this Epistle, particularly chapter i. 7, 8, 10. and chapter v. 11. that the Judaizing Christians had endeavoured to persuade the Galatians that Paul himself had changed his opinion, and now preached up the Levitical law; he denies that charge, and affirms that the doctrines which he had taught were true, for he had received them from God by immediate revelation. He relates his miraculous conversion; affirms his apostolical authority, which had been acknowledged by the disciples of Jesus; and, as a proof that he had never inculcated a compliance with the Mosaic law, he declares that he had opposed Peter at Antioch for yielding to the prejudices of the Jews.

Having now vindicated his character from the suspicion of fickleness, and shown that his commission was divine, he argues that the Galatians ought not to submit to the law of Moses: 1. Because they had received the Holy Ghost and the gift of miracles, not by the law, but by the gospel, (chap. iii. 1—5.). 2. Because by which the promises which God made to Abraham were not the people restricted to his circumcised descendants, but extended to all who are his children by faith, (chap. iii. 6—18.). Mozes was In answer to the objection, To what then serveth the law? he replies, That it was given because of transgression; that is, to preserve them from idolatry till the Messiah himself should come. 3. Because all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, are made the children of God by the Epistle on faith, or by receiving the Christian religion, and therefore do not stand in need of circumcision, (chap. iii. 26—29.). From the 1st verse of chap. iv. to the 11th, he argues that the law was temporary, being only fitted for a state of infancy; but that the world, having attained a state of manhood under the Messiah, the law was of no farther use. In the remaining part of chapter iv. he reminds them of their former affection to him, and assures them that he was still their sincere friend. He exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty with which Christ had made them free; for the sons of Agar, that is, those under the law given at Mount Sinai, are in bondage, and to be cast out; the inheritance being designed for those only who are the free-born sons of God under the spiritual covenant of the gospel.

The apostle next confutes the false report which had been spread abroad among the Galatians, that Paul himself preached up circumcision. He had already indirectly refuted this calumny by the particular account which he gave of his life; but he now directly and openly contradicts it in the following manner:

1. By affluring them, that all who thought circumcision necessary to salvation could receive no benefit from the Christian religion, (chap. v. 2—4.).

2. By declaring, that he expected justification only by faith, (verse 5, 6.).

3. By testifying, that they had once received the truth, and had never been taught such false doctrines by him, (verse 7, 8.).

4. By intimating that they should pass some censure on those who misled them (verse 9, 10.), by declaring that he was persecuted for opposing the circumcision of the Christians, (verse 11.).

5. By expressing a wish that those persons should be cut off who troubled them with his doctrine.

This Epistle affords a fine instance of Paul's skill in managing an argument. The chief objection which the advocates for the Mosaic law had urged against him was, that he himself preached circumcision. In the beginning of the Epistle he overturns this flander by a statement of facts, without taking any express notice of it; but at the end fully refutes it, that it might leave a strong and lasting impression on their minds.

He next cautions them against an idea which his arguments for Christian liberty might excite, that it consisted in licentiousness. He shows them it does not consist in gratifying vicious desires; for none are under stronger obligations to moral duties than the Christian. He recommends gentleness and meekness to the weak (chap vi. 1—5.), and exhorts them to be liberal to their teachers, and to all men (ver. 6—10.). He concludes concludes with exposing the false pretences of the Judaizing teachers, and asserting the integrity of his own conduct.

Ephesus was the chief city of all Asia on this side Mount Taurus. St Paul had passed through it in the year 54, but without making any stay, (Acts xviii. 19—21.) The following year he returned to Ephesus again, and stayed there three years, (chap. xix.). During his abode there he completed a very flourishing church of Christians, the first foundations of which had been laid by some inferior teachers. As Ephesus was frequented by persons of distinction from all parts of Asia Minor, St Paul took the opportunity of preaching in the ancient countries (ver. 10.); and the other churches of Asia were considered as the daughters of the church of Ephesus; so that an Epistle to the Ephesians was, in effect, an epistle to the other churches of Asia at the same time.

Dr Lardner shows it to be highly probable that this epistle was written in the year 61, soon after Paul's arrival at Rome.

As Paul was in a peculiar manner the apostle of the Gentiles, and was now a prisoner at Rome in consequence of having provoked the Jews, by affecting that an observance of the Mosaic law was not necessary to obtain the favour of God, he was afraid lest an advantage should be taken of his confinement to unsettle the minds of those whom he had converted. Hearing that the Ephesians stood firm in the faith of Christ, without submitting to the law of Moses, he writes this Epistle to give them more exalted views of the love of God, and of the excellence and dignity of Christ. This epistle is not composed in an argumentative or didactic style: The first three chapters consist almost entirely of thanksgivings and prayers, or glowing descriptions of the blessings of the Christian religion. This circumstance renders them a little obscure; but by the assistance of the two following epistles, which were written on the same occasion, and with the same design, the meaning of the apostle may be easily discovered. The last three chapters contain practical exhortations. He first inculcates unity, love, and concord, from the consideration that all Christians are members of the same body, of which Christ is the head. He then advises them to forsake the vices to which they had been addicted while they remained heathens. He recommends justice and charity; strenuously condemns lewdness, obscenity, and intemperance, vices which seem to have been too common among the Ephesians. In the 6th chapter he points out the duties which arise from the relations of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants; and concludes with strong exhortations to fortitude, which he describes in an allegorical manner.

The church at Philippi had been founded by Paul, Silas, and Timothy (Acts xvi.), in the year 51, and had continued to show a strong and manly attachment to the Christian religion, and a tender affection for the apostle. Hearing of his imprisonment at Rome, they sent Epaphroditus, one of their pastors, to supply him with money. It appears from this epistle that he was in great want of necessaries before this contribution arrived; for as he had not converted the Romans, he did not consider himself as entitled to receive supplies from them. Being a prisoner, he could not work as formerly; and it was a maxim of his never to accept any pecuniary assistance from those churches where a faction had been raised against him. From the Philippians he was not averse to receive a present in the time of want, because he considered it as a mark of their affection, and because he was assured that they had conducted themselves as sincere Christians.

It appears from the apostle's own words, that this letter was written while he was a prisoner at Rome, (chap. i. 7, 13. iv. 22.) and from the expectation which he discovers (chap. ii. 24.) of being soon released and restored to them, compared with Phil. v. 22. and Heb. xiii. 13, where he expresses a like expectation in stronger terms, it is probable that this epistle was written towards the end of his first imprisonment in the year 62.

The apostle's design in this epistle, which is quite different from the practical kind, seems to be, "to comfort the Philippians under the concern they had expressed at the news of his imprisonment; to check a party-spirit that appears to have broken out among them, and to promote, on the contrary, an entire union and harmony of affection; to guard them against being seduced from the purity of the Christian faith by Judaizing teachers; to support them under the trials with which they struggled; and, above all, to inspire them with a concern to adorn their profession by the most eminent attainments in the divine life." After some particular admonitions in the beginning of the 4th chapter, he proceeds in the 8th verse to recommend virtue in the most extensive sense, mentioning all the different foundations in which it had been placed by the Grecian philosophers. Towards the close of the epistle, he makes his acknowledgments to the Philippians for the reasonable, and liberal supply which they had sent him, as it was so convincing a proof of their affection for him, and their concern for the support of the gospel, which he preferred far above any private secular interest of his own; expressly disclaiming all selfish, mercenary views, and assuring them with a noble simplicity, that he was able upon all occasions to accommodate his temper to his circumstances; and had learned, under the teachings of Divine grace, in whatever station Providence might see fit to place him, there-with to be content. After which, the apostle, having encouraged them to expect a rich supply of all their wants from their God and Father, to whom he devoutly ascribes the honour of all, concludes with salutations from himself and his friends at Rome to the whole church, and a solemn benediction, (verse 10. to the end;) and declares, that he rejoiced in their liberality chiefly on their own account.

The epistle to the Colossians was written while Paul was in prison (chap. iv. 3.), and was therefore probably the Colossians composed in the year 62. The intention of the apostle, as far as can be gathered from the epistle itself, was to secure the Colossians from the influence of some doctrines that were subversive of Christianity, and to excite them to a temper and behaviour worthy of their sacred character. A new sect had arisen, which had blended the oriental philosophy with the superstitious opinions of the Jews.

They held, 1. That God was surrounded by demons or angels, who were mediators with God, and therefore the Colossians were to be worshipped. 2. That the soul is defiled by the body; that all bodily enjoyments hurt the soul, which they believed to be immortal, though they seem to have denied the Jews. Scripture. denied the resurrection of the body, as it would only render the soul sinful by being reunited to it. 3. That there was a great mystery in numbers, particularly in the number seven; they therefore attributed a natural holiness to the seventh or Sabbath day, which they observed more strictly than the other Jews. They spent their time mostly in contemplation; abstained from marriage, and every gratification of the senses; used washings, and thought it sinful to touch certain things; regarded wine as poison, &c.

The arguments against these doctrines are managed with great skill and address. He begins with expressing great joy for the favourable character which he had heard of them, and assures them that he daily prayed for their farther improvement. Then he makes a short digression, in order to describe the dignity of Jesus Christ; declares that he had created all things, whether thrones or dominions, principalities and powers; that he alone was the head of the church, and had reconciled men to the Father. The inference from this description is evident, that Jesus was superior to angels; that they were created beings, and ought not to be worshipped. Thus he indirectly confutes one doctrine before he formally opposes it. Paul now returns from his digression in the 21st verse to the sentiments with which he had introduced it in the 13th and 14th verses, and again expresses his joy that the Philippians remained attached to the gospel, which was to be preached to the Gentiles, without the restraints of the ceremonial law. Here again he states a general doctrine, which was inconsistent with the opinions of those who were zealous for the law of Moses; but he leaves the Colossians to draw the inference, (chap. i.).

Having again assured them of his tender concern for their welfare, for their advancement in virtue, and that they might acknowledge the mystery of God, that is, that the gospel was to supersede the law of Moses, he proceeds directly to caution them against the philosophy of the new teachers, and their superstitious adherence to the law; shows the superiority of Christ to the angels, and warns Christians against worshipping them. He censures the observation of Sabbaths, and rebukes those who required abstinence from certain kinds of food, and cautions them against persons who assume a great appearance of wisdom and virtue, (chap. ii.).

In the 3d chapter he exhorts them, that, instead of being occupied about external ceremonies, they ought to cultivate pure morality. He particularly guards them against impurity, to which they had before their conversion been much addicted. He admonishes them against indulging the irascible passions, and against committing falsehood. He exhorts them to cultivate the benevolent affections, and humility, and patience. He recommends also the relative duties between husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. He enjoins the duties of prayer and thanksgiving (chap. iv. 2.), and requests them to remember him in their petitions. He enjoins affability and mild behaviour to the unconverted heathens (verse 6th); and concludes the epistle with matters which are all of a private nature, except the directions for reading this epistle in the church of Laodicea, as well as in the church of Colosse.

This epistle is addressed to the inhabitants of Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia, a large and populous city. It appears from the Acts, chapter xvii. 1, that the Christian religion was introduced into this city by Paul and Silas, soon after they had left Philippi. At first they made many converts; but at length the Jews, ever jealous of the admission of the Gentiles to the same privileges with themselves, stirred up the rabble, which assaulted the house where the apostle and his friends lodged; so that Paul and Silas were obliged to flee to Berea, where their success was soon interrupted by the same restless and implacable enemies. The apostle then withdrew to Athens; and Timothy, at his desire, returned to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 2.), to see what were the sentiments and behaviour of the inhabitants after the perfection of the Jews. From Athens Paul went to Corinth, where he stayed a year and six months; during which, Timothy returned with the joyful tidings, that the Thessalonians remained steadfast to the faith, and firmly attached to the apostle, notwithstanding his flight. Upon this he sent them this epistle, A. D. 52, in the 12th year of Claudius.

This is generally reckoned the first epistle which Paul wrote; and we find he was anxious that it should be read to all the Christians. In chap. v. 27, he uses these words; "I adjure you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." This direction is very properly inserted in his first epistle.

The intention of Paul in writing this epistle was evidently to encourage the Thessalonians to adhere to the Christian religion. This church being still in its infancy, and oppressed by the powerful Jews, required to be established in the faith. St Paul, therefore, in the three first chapters, endeavours to convince the Thessalonians of the truth and divinity of his gospel, both by the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost which had been imparted, and by his own conduct when among them.

While he appeals, in the first chapter, to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, he is very liberal in his commendations. He vindicates himself from the charge of timidity, probably to prevent the Thessalonians from forming an unfavourable opinion of his fortitude, which his flight might have excited. He asserts, that he was not influenced by selfish or dishonourable motives, but that he was anxious to please God and not man. He expresses a strong affection for them, and how anxious he was to impart the blessing of the gospel. He congratulates himself upon his success; mentions it to their honour that they received the gospel as the word of God and not of man, and therefore did not renounce it when persecution was raised by the Jews. He expresses a strong desire to visit the Thessalonians; and assures them he had been hitherto retained against his will.

As a farther proof of his regard, the apostle informs them, that when he came to Athens, he was so much concerned, least, being discouraged by his sufferings, they should be tempted to cast off their profession, that he could not forbear sending Timothy to comfort and strengthen them; and expresses, in very strong terms, the sensible pleasure he felt, in the midst of all his afflictions, from the favourable account he received of their faith and love; to which he adds, that he was continually praying for their farther establishment in religion, and for an opportunity of making them another visit, in order

o promote their edification, which lay so near his heart, (chap. iii. throughout).

Having now shewn his paternal affection for them, with great address he improves all that influence which his zeal and fidelity in their service must naturally have given him to inculcate upon them the precepts of the gospel. He recommends charity, in opposition to the prevailing practice of the heathens; justice, in opposition to fraud. He praises their benevolence, and encourages them to cultivate higher degrees of it. He recommends industry and prudent behaviour to their heathen neighbours. In order to comfort them under the loss of their friends, he assures them that those who were fallen asleep in Jesus should be raised again at the last day, and should, together with those who remained alive, be caught up to meet their Lord, and share his triumph, (chap. iv.). He admonishes them to prepare for this solemn event, that it might not come upon them unawares; and then concludes the epistle with various exhortations.

The second epistle to the Thessalonians appears to have been written soon after the first, and from the same place; for Silvanus or Silas, and Timothy, are joined together with the apostle in the inscriptions of this epistle, as well as the former.

The apostle begins with commending the faith and charity of the Thessalonians, of which he had heard a favourable report. He expresses great joy on account of the patience with which they supported persecution; and observes that their persecution was a proof of a righteous judgment to come, where their persecutors would meet with their proper recompense, and the righteous be delivered out of all their afflictions. He assures them of his constant prayers for their further improvement, in order to attain the felicity that was promised, (chap. i.).

From misunderstanding a passage in his former letter, it appears that the Thessalonians believed the day of judgment was at hand. To rectify this mistake, he informs them that the day of the Lord will not come till a great apostasy has overspread the Christian world, the nature of which he describes (g). Symptoms of this mystery of iniquity had then appeared; but the apostle expresses his thankfulness to God that the Thessalonians had escaped this corruption. He exhorts them to steadfastness, and prays that God would comfort and strengthen them, (chap. ii.).

He requests the prayers of the Thessalonians for him and his two assistants, at the same time expressing his confidence that they would pay due regard to the instructions which he had given them. He then proceeds to correct some irregularities. Many of the Thessalonians seem to have led an idle disorderly life; these he severely reproves, and commands the faithful to shun their company if they still remained incorrigible.

When the first Epistle to Timothy was written, it is difficult to ascertain. Lardner dates it in 56; Mill, when written, Whitby, and Macknight, place it in 64: but the arguments on which each party founds their opinion are too long to insert here.

Timothy was the intimate friend and companion of Paul, and is always mentioned by that apostle with much affection and esteem. Having appointed him to superintend the church of Ephesus during a journey which he made to Macedonia, he wrote this letter, in order to direct him how to discharge the important trust which was committed to him. This was the more necessary, as Timothy was young and inexperienced, (1 Tim. iv. 12.). In the beginning of the epistle he reminds him of the charge with which he had intrusted him, to wit, to preserve the purity of the gospel against the pernicious doctrines of the Judaizing teachers, whose opinions led to frivolous controversies, and not to a good life. He shows the use of the law of Moses, of which these teachers were ignorant. This account of the law, he assures Timothy, was agreeable to the representation of it in the gospel, with the preaching of which he was intrusted. He then makes a digression, in the fulness of his heart, to express the sense which he felt of the goodness of God towards him.

In the second chapter, the apostle prescribes the manner in which the worship of God was to be performed in the church of Ephesus; and in the third explains the qualifications of the persons whom he was to ordain as bishops and deacons. In the fourth chapter he foretells the great corruptions of the church which were to prevail in future times, and instructs him how to support the sacred character. In the fifth chapter he teaches Timothy how to admonish the old and young of both sexes; mentions the age and character of such widows as were to be employed by the society in some peculiar office; and subjoins some things concerning the respect due to elders. In the sixth chapter he describes the duties which Timothy was to inculcate on slaves; condemns trifling controversies and pernicious disputes; censures the excessive love of money, and charges the rich to be rich in good words.

That the second Epistle to Timothy was written from Rome is universally agreed; but whether it was written during his first or second imprisonment has been much disputed. That Timothy was at Ephesus or in Asia Minor when this Epistle was sent to him, appears from the frequent mention in it of persons residing at Ephesus. The apostle seems to have intended to prepare Ti. Deign and mothy for those sufferings which he foresaw he would be exposed to. He exhorts him to constancy and perseverance, and to perform with a good conscience the duties of the sacred function.

The false teachers, who had before thrown this church into confusion, grew every day worse: infomuch that not only Hymenaeus, but Philetus, another Ephesian heretic, now denied the resurrection of the dead. They were led into this error by a dispute about words. At first they only annexed various improper significations to the word resurrection, but at last they denied it altogether (h); pretending that the resurrection of the dead was only a resurrection from the death of sin, and

(g) For an explanation of this prophecy, Dr Hurd's sermons may be consulted. He applies it to the papal power, to which it corresponds with astonishing exactness.

(h) This is by no means uncommon among men; to begin to dispute about the signification of words, and Scripture, so was already past. This error was probably derived from the eastern philosophy, which placed the origin of sin in the body (chapter ii.). He then forewarns him of the fatal apostasy and declension that was beginning to appear in the church; and at the same time animates him from his own example and the great motives of Christianity, to the most vigorous and resolute discharge of every part of the ministerial office.

This Epistle is addressed to Titus, whom Paul had appointed to preside over the church of Crete. It is difficult to determine either its date or the place from which it was sent. The apostle begins with reminding Titus of the reasons for which he had left him at Crete; and directs him on what principles he was to act in ordaining Christian pastors: the qualifications of whom he particularly describes. To shew him how cautious he ought to be in selecting men for the sacred office, he reminds him of the arts of the Judaizing teachers, and the bad character of the Cretans (chap. i.).

He advises him to accommodate his exhortations to the respective ages, sexes, and circumstances, of those whom it was his duty to instruct; and to give the greater weight to his instructions, he admonishes him to be an example of what he taught (chap. ii.). He exhorts him also to teach obedience to the civil magistrate, because the Judaizing Christians affirmed that no obedience was due from the worshippers of the true God to magistrates who were idolaters. He cautions against censoriousness and contention, and recommends meekness; for even the best Christians had formerly been wicked, and all the blessings which they enjoyed they derived from the goodness of God. He then enjoins Titus strenuously to inculcate good works, and to avoid useless controversies; and concludes with directing him how to proceed with those heretics who attempted to sow division in the church.

The Epistle to Philemon was written from Rome at the same time with the Epistles to the Colossians and Philippians, about A.D. 62 or 63. The occasion of the letter was this: Onesimus, Philemon's slave, had robbed his master and fled to Rome; where, happily for him, he met with the apostle, who was at that time a prisoner at large, and by his instructions and admonitions was converted to Christianity; and reclaimed to a sense of his duty. St Paul seems to have kept him for some considerable time under his eye, that he might be satisfied of the reality of the change; and, when he had made a sufficient trial of him, and found that his behaviour was entirely agreeable to his profession, he would not detain him any longer for his own private convenience, though in a situation that rendered such an assistant peculiarly desirable (compare ver. 13, 14.), but sent him back to his master; and, as a mark of his esteem, entrusted him, together with Tychicus, with the charge of delivering his Epistle to the church at Colosse, and giving them a particular account of the state of things at Rome, recommending him to them, at the same time, as a faithful and beloved brother (Col. iv. 9.).

And as Philemon might well be supposed to be strongly prejudiced against one who had left his service in so infamous a manner, he sends him this letter, in which he employs all his influence to remove his suspicions, and reconcile him to the thoughts of taking Onesimus into his family again. And whereas St Paul might have exerted that authority which his character as an apostle, and the relation in which he stood to Philemon as a spiritual father, would naturally give him, he chooses to entreat him as a friend; and with the softest and most infatuating address urges his suit, conjuring him by all the ties of Christian friendship that he would not deny him his request: and the more effectually to prevail upon him, he represents his own peace and happiness as deeply interested in the event; and speaks of Onesimus in such terms as were best adapted to soften his prejudices, and dispose him to receive one who was so dear to himself, not merely as a servant, but as a fellow Christian and a friend.

It is impossible to read over this admirable Epistle, without being touched with the delicacy of sentiment, and address and the masterly address that appear in every part of it, which we see here, in a most striking light, how perfectly consistent true politeness is, not only with all the warmth and sincerity of the friend, but even with the dignity of the Christian and the apostle. And if this letter were to be considered in no other view than as a mere human composition, it must be allowed a matter-piece in its kind. As an illustration of this remark, it may not be improper to compare it with an epistle of Pliny, that seems to have been written upon a similar occasion, (lib. ix. lit. 21); which, though penned by one that was reckoned to excel in the epistolary style, and though it has undoubtedly many beauties, yet must be acknowledged, by every impartial reader, vastly inferior to this animated composition of the apostle.

The Epistle to the Hebrews has been generally ascribed to Paul; but the truth of this opinion has been the subject of much discussion among the learned. The name of the writer is nowhere mentioned, neither in the beginning nor in any other part of the Epistle. The style is said to be more elegant than Paul's. 3. There are expressions in the Epistle which have been thought unsuitable to an apostle's character. 1. In answer to the first objection, Clemens Alexandrinus has assigned a very good reason: "Writing to the Hebrews (says he), who had conceived a prejudice against him, and were on the suspicious of him, he wisely declined setting his name at the beginning, lest he should offend them." 2. Origen and Jerome admired the elegance of the style, and reckoned it superior to that which Paul had exhibited in his Epistles: but as ancient testimony had assigned it to Paul, they endeavoured to answer the objection, by supposing that the sentiments were the apostle's, but the language and composition the work of some other person. If the Epistle, however, be a translation, which we believe it to be, the elegance of the language may belong to the translator. As to the composition and arrangement, it cannot be denied that there are many specimens in the writings of this apostle not inferior

to be led gradually to deny the thing signified. This appears to have been the cause of most disputes and the general beginning of scepticism and infidelity. Scripture. feror in these qualities to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 3. It is objected, that in Heb. ii. 3, the writer of this Epistle joins himself with those who had received the gospel from Christ's apostles. Now Paul had it from Christ himself. But Paul often appeals to the testimony of the apostles in support of those truths which he had received from Revelation. We may instance 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8; 2 Tim. ii. 2.

This Epistle is not quoted till the end of the second century, and even then does not seem to have been universally received. This silence might be owing to the Hebrews themselves, who supposing this letter had no relation to the Gentiles, might be at pains to diffuse copies of it. The authors, however, on whose testimony we receive it as authentic, are entitled to credit; for they lived so near the age of the apostles, that they were in no danger of being imposed on; and from the numerous list of books which they rejected as spurious, we are assured that they were very careful to guard against imposition. It is often quoted as Paul's by Clemens Alexandrinus, about the year 194. It is received and quoted as Paul's by Origen, about 230; by Dionysius bishop of Alexandria in 247; and by a numerous list of succeeding writers.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, or rather Syro-Chaldaic; a fact which we believe on the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Eusebius. To this it has been objected, that as these writers have not referred to any authority, we ought to consider what they say on this subject merely as an opinion. But as they state no reasons for adopting this opinion, but only mention as a fact that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in their native language, we must allow that it is their testimony which they produce, and not their opinion. Eusebius informs us, that some supposed Luke the Evangelist, and others Clemens Romanus, to have been the translator.

According to the opinion of ancient writers, particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Euthalius, this Epistle was addressed to the Jews in Palestine.—The scope of the Epistle confirms this opinion.

Having now given sufficient evidence that this Epistle was written by Paul, the time when it was written may be safely determined: For the salutation from the faints of Italy (chap. iv. 24.), together with the apostle's promise to see the Hebrews (ver. 23.), plainly intimate, that his confinement was then either ended or on the eve of being ended. It must therefore have been written soon after the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon, and not long before Paul left Italy, that is, in the year 61 or 62.

As the zealous defenders of the Mosaic law would naturally insist on the divine authority of Moses, on the majesty and glory attending its promulgation by the ministry of angels, and the great privileges it afforded those who adhered to it; the apostle shows,

I. That in all these several articles Christianity had an infinite superiority to the law.

This topic he pursues from chap. i. to xi. wherein he reminds the believing Hebrews of the extraordinary favour shewn them by God, in sending them a revelation by his own son, whose glory was far superior to that of angels (chap. i. throughout); very naturally inferring from hence the danger of despising Christ on account of his humiliation, which, in perfect consistence with his dominion over the world to come, was Scripture, voluntarily submitted to by him for wise and important reasons; particularly to deliver us from the fear of death, and to encourage the freedom of our access to God (chap. ii. throughout). With the same view he magnifies Christ as superior to Moses, their great legislator; and from the punishment inflicted on those who rebelled against the authority of Moses, infers the danger of contemning the promises of the gospel (chap. iii. 2—13.). And as it was an easy transition to call to mind on this occasion that rest in Canaan to which the authority invested in Moses was intended to lead them; the apostle hence cautions them against unbelief, as what would prevent their entering into a superior state of rest to what the Jews ever enjoyed (chap. iii. 14—iv. 11.). This caution is still farther enforced by awful views of God's omniscience, and a lively representation of the high-priesthood of Christ (chap. iv. to the end; and chap. v. throughout). In the next place, he intimates the very hopeless situation of those who apostatise from Christianity (chap. vi. 1—9.); and then, for the comfort and confirmation of sincere believers, displays to them the goodness of God, and his faithful adherence to his holy engagements; the performance of which is sealed by the entrance of Christ into heaven as our forerunner (chap. vi. 9. to the end). Still farther to illustrate the character of our Lord, he enters into a parallel between him and Melchizedec as to their title and descent; and, from instances wherein the priesthood of Melchizedec excelled the Levitical, infers, that the glory of the priesthood of Christ surpassed that under the law (chap. vii. 1—17.). From these premises the apostle argues, that the Aaronical priesthood was not only excelled, but consummated by that of Christ, to which it was only introductory and subversive; and of course, that the obligation of the law was henceforth dissolved (chap. viii. 18. to the end). Then recapitulating what he had already demonstrated concerning the superior dignity of Christ's priesthood, he thence illustrates the distinguished excellence of the new covenant, as not only foretold by Jeremiah, but evidently enriched with much better promises than the old (ch. viii. throughout): Explaining farther the doctrine of the priesthood and intercession of Christ, by comparing it with what the Jewish high-priest did on the great day of atonement (chap. ix. 1—14.). Afterwards he enlarges on the necessity of shedding Christ's blood, and the sufficiency of the atonement made by it (chap. ix. 15. to the end); and proves that the legal ceremonies could not by any means purify the conscience: whence he infers the insufficiency of the Mosaic law, and the necessity of looking beyond it (chap. x. 1—15.). He then urges the Hebrews to improve the privileges which such an high-priest and covenant conferred on them, to the purposes of approaching God with confidence, to a constant attendance on his worship, and most benevolent regards to each other (chap. x. 15—25.).

The apostle having thus obviated the infamations and objections of the Jews, for the satisfaction and establishment of the believing Hebrews, proceeds,

II. To prepare and fortify their minds against the and to animiform of persecution which in part had already befallen them, which was likely to continue and be often renewed, he reminds them of those extremities they had endured, and of the fatal effects which would attend their apostasy. apostasy (chap. x. 26. to the end); calling to their remembrance the eminent examples of faith and fortitude exhibited by holy men, and recorded in the Old Testament (chap. xi. 1—29.). He concludes his discourse with glancing at many other illustrious worthies; and, besides those recorded in Scripture, refers to the case of several who suffered under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Maccab. chap. viii. &c. chap. xi. 3c. xii. 21).

Having thus finished the argumentative part of the Epistle, the apostle proceeds to a general application; in which he exhorts the Hebrew Christians to patience, peace, and holiness (chap. xii. 3—14.); cautions them against secular views and sensual gratifications, by laying before them the incomparable excellence of the blessings introduced by the gospel, which even the Jewish economy, glorious and magnificent as it was, did by no means equal; exhorts them to brotherly affection, purity, compassion, dependence on the divine care, steadfastness in the profession of truth, a life of thankfulness to God, and benevolence to man: and concludes the whole with recommending their pious ministers to their particular regard, intreating their prayers, saluting and granting them his usual benediction.

The seven following Epistles, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude, have been distinguished by the appellation of catholic or general epistles, because most of them are inscribed, not to particular churches or persons, but to the body of Jewish or Gentile converts over the world. The authenticity of some of these has been frequently questioned, viz. The Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, and the second and third of John. The ancient Christians were very cautious in admitting any books into their canon whose authenticity they had any reason to suspect. They rejected all the writings forged by heretics in the name of the apostles, and certainly, therefore, would not receive any without first subjecting them to a severe scrutiny. Now, though these five epistles were not immediately acknowledged as the writings of the apostles, this only shows that the persons who doubted had not received complete and incontrovertible evidence of their authenticity. But as they were afterwards universally received, we have every reason to conclude, that upon a strict examination they were found to be the genuine productions of the apostles. The truth is, so good an opportunity had the ancient Christians of examining this matter, so careful were they to guard against imposition, and so well founded was their judgment concerning the books of the New Testament, that, as Dr Lardner observes, no writing which they pronounced genuine has yet been proved spurious, nor have we at this day the least reason to believe any book genuine which they rejected.

That the Epistle of James was written in the apolitical age is proved by the quotations of ancient authors. Clemens Romanus and Ignatius seem to have made references to it. Origen quotes it once or twice.—There are several reasons why it was not more generally quoted by the first Christian writers. Being written to correct the errors and vices which prevailed among the Jews, the Gentiles might think it of less importance to them, and therefore take no pains to procure copies of it. As the author was sometimes denominated James the Just, and often called bishop of Jerusalem, it might be doubted whether he was one of the apostles. But its authenticity does not seem to have been suspected on account of the doctrines which it contains. In modern times, indeed, Luther called it a strawy epistle (epifola straminea), and excluded it from the sacred writings, on account of its apparent opposition to the apostle Paul concerning justification by faith.

This Epistle could not be written by James the Elder, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, who was beheaded by Herod in the year 44, for it contains passages which refer to a later period. It must, therefore, have been the composition of James the Less, the son of Alpheus, who was called the Lord's brother, because he was the son of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mother. As to the date of this Epistle, Lardner fixes it in the The date year 61 or 62.

James the Less statedly resided at Jerusalem, whence he hath been styled by some ancient fathers bishop of that city, though without sufficient foundation. Now Doddridge, while he confined his personal labours to the inhabitants of Judea, it was very natural for him to endeavour by his writings to extend his services to the Jewish Christians who were dispersed abroad in more distant regions. For this purpose, there are two points which the apostle seems to have principally aimed at, though of it he hath not purified them in an orderly and logical method, but in the free epistolary manner, handling them jointly or distinctly as occasions naturally offered. And these were, "to correct those errors both in doctrine and practice into which the Jewish Christians had fallen, which might otherwise have produced fatal consequences; and then to establish the faith and animate the hope of sincere believers, both under their present and their approaching sufferings."

The opinions which he is most anxious to refute are these, that God is the author of sin, (eh. i. 13.); that the belief of the doctrines of the gospel was sufficient to procure the favour of God for them, however deficient they were in good works, (ch. ii.). He dissuades the Jews from aspiring to the office of teachers in the third chapter, because their prejudices in favour of the law of Moses might induce them to pervert the doctrines of the gospel. He therefore guards them against the sins of the tongue, by representing their pernicious effects; and as they thought themselves wise and intelligent, and were ambitious of becoming teachers, he advises them to make good their pretensions, by showing themselves possessed of that wisdom which is from above, (ch. iii.).

The destruction of Jerusalem was now approaching; the Jews were split into factions, and often slaughtered one another; the apostle, therefore, in the fourth chapter, admonishes them to purify themselves from those vices which produced tumults and bloodshed. To rouse them to repentance, he foretells the miseries that were coming upon them. Lastly, he checks an irreligious spirit that seems to have prevailed, and concludes the Epistle with several exhortations.

The authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter has never been denied. It is referred to by Clemens of Rome, by Polycarp, and is quoted by Papias, Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. It is addressed to the strangers scattered through Pontus, &c. who are evidently Christians in general, as appears from chap. chap. ii. 10. "In time past they were not a people, but are now the people of God." From Peter's sending the salutation of the church at Babylon to the Christians in Pontus, &c. it is generally believed that he wrote it in Babylon. There was a Babylon in Egypt and another in Assyria. It could not be the former, for it was an obscure place, which seems to have had no church for the first four centuries. We have no authority to affirm that Peter ever was in Assyria. The most probable opinion is that of Grotius, Whitby, Lardner, as well as of Eusebius, Jerome, and others, that by Babylon Peter figuratively means Rome. Lardner dates it in 63 or 64, or at the latest 65.

St Peter's chief design is to confirm the doctrine of St Paul, which the false teachers pretended he was opposing; and to assure the profelytes that they stood in the true grace of God, (ch. v. 12.). With this view he calls them elect; and mentions, that they had been declared such by the effusion of the Holy Ghost upon them, (ch. i. 1, 2.). He assures them that they were regenerate without circumcision, merely through the gospel and resurrection of Christ, (ver. 3, 4, 21—25.); and that their sufferings were no argument of their being under the displeasure of God, as the Jews imagined, (ver. 6—12.). He recommends it to them to hope for grace to the end, (ver. 13.). He testifies, that they were not redeemed by the Paschal lamb, but through Christ, whom God had preordained for this purpose before the foundation of the world, (ver. 18—20.).

The second Epistle of Peter is not mentioned by any ancient writer extant till the fourth century, from which time it has been received by all Christians except the Syrians. Jerome acquaints us, that its authenticity was disputed, on account of a remarkable difference between the style of it and the former Epistle. But this remarkable difference in style is confined to the 2d chapter of the 2d Epistle. No objection, however, can be drawn from this circumstance; for the subject of that chapter is different from the rest of Peter's writings, and nothing is so well known than that different subjects suggest different styles. Peter, in describing the character of some flagitious impostors, feels an indignation which he cannot suppress: it breaks out, therefore, in the bold and animated figures of an oriental writer. Such a diversity of style is not uncommon in the best writers, especially when warmed with their subject.

This objection being removed, we contend that this Epistle was written by Peter, from the inscription, Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. It appears from chap. i. 16, 17, 18. that the writer was one of the disciples who saw the transfiguration of our Saviour. Since it has never been ascribed to James or John, it must therefore have been Peter. It is evident, from chap. iii. 1. that the author had written an Epistle before to the same persons, which is another circumstance that proves Peter to be the author.

It is acknowledged, however, that all this evidence is merely internal; for we have not been able to find any external evidence upon the subject. If, therefore, the credit which we give to any fact is to be in proportion to the degree of evidence with which it is accompanied, we shall allow more authority due to the gospels than to the epistles; more to those epistles which have been generally acknowledged than to those which have been controverted; and therefore no doctrine of Christianity Scripture ought to be founded solely upon them. It may also be added, that perhaps the best way of determining what are the essential doctrines of Christianity would be to examine what are the doctrines which occur oftener in the gospels; for the gospels are the plainest parts of the New Testament; and their authenticity is most completely proved. They are therefore best fitted for common readers. Nor will it be denied, we presume, that our Saviour taught all the doctrines of the Christian religion himself; that he repeated them on different occasions, and inculcated them with an earnestness proportionable to their importance. The Epistles are to be considered as a commentary on the essential doctrines of the gospel, adapted to the situation and circumstances of particular churches, and perhaps sometimes explaining doctrines of inferior importance. 1. The essential doctrines are therefore first to be sought for in the gospels, and to be determined by the number of times they occur. 2. They are to be sought for, in the next place, in the uncontroverted Epistles, in the same manner. 3. No essential doctrine ought to be founded on a single passage, nor on the authority of a controverted Epistle.

That Peter was old, and near his end, when he wrote this Epistle, may be inferred from chap. i. 14. "Knowing that shortly I must put off this tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus has shewn me." Lardner thinks it was written soon after the former. Others, perhaps with more accuracy, date it in 67.

The general design of this Epistle is, to confirm the doctrines and instructions delivered in the former; "to it excite the Christian converts to adorn, and steadfastly adhere to their holy religion, as a religion proceeding from God, notwithstanding the artifices of false teachers, whose character is at large described; or the persecution of their bitter and inveterate enemies."

The first Epistle of John is ascribed by the unanimous suffrage of the ancients to the beloved disciple of our Lord. It is referred to by Polycarp, is quoted by Papias, by Ireneus, and was received as genuine by Clement and Alexmandrinus; by Dionysius of Alexandria, by Cyriacus, by Origen, and Eusebius. There is such a resemblance between the style and sentiments of this Epistle and those of the gospel according to John, as to afford the highest degree of internal evidence that they are the composition of the same author. In the style of this apistle there is a remarkable peculiarity, and especially in this Epistle. His sentences, considered separately, are exceeding clear and intelligible; but when we search for their connection, we frequently meet with greater difficulties than we do even in the Epistles of St Paul. The principal signature and characteristic of his manner is an artless and amiable simplicity, and a singular modesty and candour, in conjunction with a wonderful sublimity of sentiment. His conceptions are apparently delivered to us in the order in which they arose to his own mind, and are not the product of artificial reasoning or laboured investigation.

It is impossible to fix with any precision the date of this Epistle, nor can we determine to what persons it was addressed.

The leading design of the apostle is to show the insufficiency of faith, and the external profession of religion, separate from morality; to guard the Christians to whom he writes against the delusive arts of the cor- rupters of Christianity, whom he calls Antichrist; and to inculcate universal benevolence. His admonitions concerning the necessity of good morals, and the inefficacy of external professions, are scattered over the Epistle, but are most frequent in the 1st, 2d, and 3d chapters. The enemies or corrupters of Christianity, against whom he contends, seem to have denied that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God (chapter ii. 22. v. 1.), and had actually come into the world in a human form, (chap. iv. 2, 3.). The earnestness and frequency with which this apostle recommends the duty of benevolence is remarkable. He makes it the distinguishing characteristic of the disciples of Jesus, the only sure pledge of our love to God, and the only assurance of eternal life, (chap. iii. 34, 15.). Benevolence was his favourite theme, which he affectionately pressed upon others, and constantly practised himself. It was conspicuous in his conduct to his great Master, and in the reciprocal affection which it inspired in his sacred breast. He continued to recommend it in his last words. When his extreme age and infirmities had so wasted his strength that he was incapable to exercise the duties of his office, the venerable old man, anxious to exert in the service of his Master the little strength which still remained, caused himself to be carried to church, and, in the midst of the congregation, he repeated these words, "Little children love one another."

It has been observed by Dr Mill that the second and third Epistles of John are so short, and resemble the first so much in sentiment and style, that it is not worth while to contend about them. The second Epistle consists only of 13 verses; and of these eight may be found in the 1st Epistle, in which the sense or language is precisely the same.

The second Epistle is quoted by Irenaeus, and was received by Clemens Alexandrinus. Both were admitted by Athanasius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, and by Jerome. The second is addressed to a woman of distinction whose name is by some supposed to be Cyria (taking xouga for a proper name), by others Eclecta. The third is inscribed to Gaius, or Caius according to the Latin orthography, who, in the opinion of Lardner, was an eminent Christian, that lived in some city of Asia not far from Ephesus, where St John chiefly resided after his leaving Judea. The time of writing these two Epistles cannot be determined with any certainty. They are so short that an analysis of them is not necessary.

The Epistle of Jude is cited by no ancient Christian writer extant before Clemens Alexandrinus about the year 194; but this author has transcribed eight or ten verses in his Stromata and Pedagogue. It is quoted once by Tertullian about the year 200; by Origen frequently about 230. It was not however received by many of the ancient Christians, on account of a supposed quotation from a book of Enoch. But it is not certain that Jude quotes any book. He only says that Enoch prophesied, saying, The Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints. These might be words of a prophecy preserved by tradition, and inserted occasionally in different writings. Nor is there any evidence that there was such a book as Enoch's prophecies in the time of Jude, though a book of that name was extant in the second and third centuries. As to the date of this Epistle nothing beyond conjecture can be produced.

The design of it is, by describing the character of the and design. falce teachers, and the punishments to which they were liable, to caution Christians against listening to their suggestions, and being thereby perverted from the faith and purity of the gospel.

The Apocalyptic or Revelation has not always been The Apo- unanimously received as the genuine production of the calypse. Its apistle John. Its authenticity is proved, however, by the testimony of many respectable authors of the first centuries. It is referred to by the martyrs of Lyons: it was admitted by Justin Martyr as the work of the apostle John. It is often quoted by Irenaeus, by Theophilus bishop of Antioch, by Clement of Alexandria, by Tertullian, by Origen, and by Cyprian of Carthage. It was also received by heretics, by Novatus and his followers, by the Donatists, and by the Arians. For the first two centuries no part of the New Testament was more universally acknowledged, or mentioned with higher respect. But a dispute having arisen about the millennium, Caius with some others, about the year 212, to end the controversy as speedily and effectually as possible, ventured to deny the authority of the book which had given occasion to it.

The book of Revelation, as we learn from Rev. i. 9. The date was written in the isle of Patmos. According to the general testimony of ancient authors, John was banished into Patmos in the reign of Domitian, and restored by his successor Nerva. But the book could not be published till after John's release, when he returned to Ephesus. As Domitian died in 96, and his persecution did not commence till near the end of his reign, the Revelation might therefore be published in 96 or 97.

Here we should conclude; but as the curious reader Percy's may desire to be informed how the predictions revealed Key to the in this book of St John have usually been interpreted New Te- and applied, we shall consistently with our subject sub- join a key to the prophecies contained in the Revelation. This is extracted from the learned dissertations of Dr Newton, bishop of Bristol (1): to which the reader is referred for a more full illustration of the several parts, as the conciseness of our plan only admits a short analy- sis or abridgment of them.

Nothing of a prophetical nature occurs in the first three Dr New- ton's ex- chapters, except, 1. What is said concerning the church plication of of Ephesus, that her "candlestick shall be removed out of its place," which is now verified, not only in this, but prophec- in all the other Asiatic churches which existed at that which have time; the light of the gospel having been taken from them, not only by their heresies and divisions from within, but by the arms of the Saracens from without: And, 2. Concerning the church of Smyrna, that she shall "have tribulation ten days;" that is, in prophetic lan- guage,

(1) Dissertations on the prophecies which have remarkably been fulfilled, and at this time are fulfilling, in the world, vol. iii. Svo. guage, "ten years;" referring to the persecution of Diocletian, which alone of all the general persecutions lasted so long.

The next five chapters relate to the opening of the Seven Seals; and by these seals are intimated so many different periods of the prophecy. Six of these seals are opened in the sixth and seventh chapters.

The first seal or period is memorable for conquests. It commences with Vespasian, and terminates in Nerva; and during this time Judea was subjugated. The second seal is noted for war and slaughter. It commences with Trajan, and continues through his reign, and that of his successors. In this period, the Jews were entirely routed and dispersed; and great was the slaughter and devastation occasioned by the contending parties. The third seal is characterized by a rigorous execution of justice, and an abundant provision of corn, wine, and oil. It commences with Septimius Severus. He and Alexander Severus were just and severe emperors, and at the same time highly celebrated for the regard they paid to the felicity of their people, by procuring them plenty of every thing, and particularly corn, wine, and oil. This period lasted during the reigns of the Septimian family. The fourth seal is distinguished by a concurrence of evils, such as war, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts; by all which the Roman empire was remarkably infested from the reign of Maximin to that of Diocletian. The fifth seal begins at Diocletian, and is signalized by the great persecution, from whence arose that memorable era, the Era of Martyrs. With Constantine begins the sixth seal, a period of revolutions, pictured forth by great commotions in earth and in heaven, alluding to the subversion of Paganism and the establishment of Christianity. This period lasted from the reign of Constantine the Great to that of Theodosius the First. The seventh seal includes under it the remaining parts of the prophecy, and comprehends seven periods distinguished by the founding of seven trumpets.

As the seals foretold the fate of the Roman empire before and till it became Christian, so the trumpets foretell the fate of it afterwards; each trumpet being an alarm to one nation or other, rousing them up to overthrow that empire.

Four of these trumpets are founded in the eighth chapter.

At the founding of the first, Alaric and his Goths invade the Roman empire, besiege Rome twice, and set it on fire in several places. At the founding of the second, Attila and his Huns waste the Roman provinces, and compel the eastern emperor Theodosius the Second, and the western emperor Valentinian the Third, to submit to shameful terms. At the founding of the third, Genseric and his Vandals arrive from Africa; spoil and plunder Rome, and set sail again with immense wealth and innumerable captives. At the founding of the fourth, Odoacer and the Heruli put an end to the very name of the western empire; Theodoric founds the kingdom of the Ostrogoths in Italy; and at last Italy becomes a province of the eastern empire, Rome being governed by a duke under the exarch of Ravenna. As the foregoing trumpets relate chiefly to the downfall of the western empire, so do the following to that of the eastern. They are founded in the ninth, tenth, and part of the eleventh chapters. At the founding of the fifth trumpet, Mahomet, that blazing star, appears, opens Scripture, the bottomless pit, and with his locusts the Arabians darkens the sun and air. And at the founding of the sixth, a period not yet finished, the four angels, that is, the four sultans, or leaders of the Turks and Ottomans, are loosed from the river Euphrates. The Greek or Eastern empire was cruelly "hurt and tormented" under the fifth trumpet; but under the sixth, was "slain," and utterly destroyed.

The Latin or Western Church not being reclaimed by the ruin of the Greek or Eastern, but still persisting in their idolatry and wickedness; at the beginning of the tenth chapter, and under the sound of this fifth trumpet, is introduced a vision preparative to the prophecies respecting the Western Church, wherein an angel is represented, having in his hand a little book, or codicil, describing the calamities that should overtake that church. The measuring of the temple shows, that during all this period there will be some true Christians, who will conform themselves to the rule of God's word, even whilst the outer court, that is, the external and more extensive part of this temple or church, is trodden under foot by Gentiles, i.e. such Christians as, in their idolatrous worship and persecuting practice, resemble and outdo the Gentiles themselves. Yet against these corrupters of religion there will always be some true witnesses to protect, who, however they may be overborne at times, and in appearance reduced to death, yet will arise again from time to time, till at last they triumph and gloriously ascend. The eleventh chapter concludes with the sounding of the seventh trumpet.

In the twelfth chapter, by the woman bearing a man-child is to be understood the Christian church; by the great red dragon, the heathen Roman empire; by the man-child whom the woman bore, Constantine the Great; and by the war in heaven, the contests between the Christian and Heathen religions.

In the thirteenth chapter, by the beast with seven heads and ten horns, unto whom the dragon gave his power, seat, and great authority, is to be understood, not Pagan but Christian, not imperial but papal Rome; in submitting to whole religion, the world did in effect submit again to the religion of the dragon. The ten-horned beast therefore represents the Romish church and state in general: but the beast with two horns like a lamb is the Roman clergy; and that image of the ten-horned beast, which the two-horned beast caused to be made, and inspired with life, is the pope; whose number is 666, according to the numerical powers of the letters constituting the Roman name Aulus, Latinus, or its equivalent in Hebrew, רומא רומית.

<table> <tr> <th>A</th> <th>30</th> <th>200</th> </tr> <tr> <th>A</th> <th>1</th> <th>6</th> </tr> <tr> <th>T</th> <th>300</th> <th>40</th> </tr> <tr> <th>E</th> <th>5</th> <th>10</th> </tr> <tr> <th>I</th> <th>10</th> <th>10</th> </tr> <tr> <th>N</th> <th>50</th> <th>400</th> </tr> <tr> <th>O</th> <th>70</th> <th></th> </tr> <tr> <th>Σ</th> <th>200</th> <th></th> </tr> <tr> <th colspan="2">666</th> <th>666</th> </tr> </table>

Chapter xiv. By the lamb on Mount Sion is meant Jesus; by the hundred forty and four thousand, his church and followers; by the angel preaching the ever-lasting lasting gospel, the first principal effort made towards a reformation by that public opposition formed against the worship of saints and images by emperors and bishops in the eighth and ninth centuries; by the angel crying, "Babylon is fallen," the Waldenses and Albigenses, who pronounced the church of Rome to be the Apocalyptic Babylon, and denounced her destruction; and by the third angel Martin Luther and his fellow reformers, who protested against all the corruptions of the church of Rome as destructive to salvation. For an account of the doctrines and precepts contained in the Scriptures, see Theology. For proofs of their divine origin, see Religion, Prophecy, and Miracles.