And with all this an uninterrupted series of elegance and correctness, he will really expect what was foreign to the prophet's design. In the character of a mourner, he celebrates in plaintive strains the obsequies of his ruined country; whatever presented itself to his mind in the midst of desolation and misery, whatever struck him as particularly wretched and calamitous, whatever the instant sentiment of sorrow dictated, he pours forth in a kind of spontaneous effusion. He frequently pauses, and, as it were, ruminates upon the same object; frequently varies and illustrates the same thought with different imagery, and a different choice of language; so that the whole bears rather the appearance of an accumulation of corresponding sentiments, than an accurate and connected series of different ideas, arranged in the form of a regular treatise. There is, however, no wild incoherence in the poem; the transitions are easy and elegant.

The work is divided into five parts: in the first, second, and fourth chapters, the prophet addresses the people in his own person, or introduces Jerusalem as speaking. In the third chapter a chorus of the Jews is represented. In the fifth the whole captive Jews pour forth their united complaints to Almighty God. Each of these five parts is distributed into 22 stanzas, according to the number of the letters of the alphabet. In the first three chapters these stanzas consist of three lines. In the first four chapters the initial letter of each period follows the order of the alphabet; and in the third chapter each verse of the same stanza begins with the same letter. In the fourth chapter all the stanzas are evidently distichs, as also in the fifth, which is not acrostic. The intention of the acrostic was to assist the memory to retain sentences not much connected. It deserves to be remarked, that the verses of the first four chapters are longer by almost one half than Hebrew verses generally are: The length of them seems to be on an average about 12 syllables. The prophet appears to have chosen this measure as being solemn and melancholy.

"That the subject of the Lamentations is the destruction of the holy city and temple, the overthrow of the state, the extermination of the people; and that these events are described as actually accomplished, and not in the style of prediction merely, must be evident to every reader; though some authors of considerable reputation have imagined this poem to have been composed on the death of King Josiah. The prophet, indeed, has so copiously, so tenderly, and poetically, bewailed the misfortunes of his country, that he seems completely to have fulfilled the office and duty of a mourner. In my opinion, there is not extant any poem which displays such a happy and splendid selection of imagery in so concentrated a state. What can be more elegant and poetical, than the description of that once flourishing city, lately chief among the nations, sitting in the character of a female, solitary, afflicted, in a state of widowhood, deserted by her friends, betrayed by her dearest connections, imploring relief, and seeking consolation in vain? What a beautiful personification is that of "the ways of Sion mourning because none are come to her solemn feasts?" How tender and pathetic are the following complaints?

Is this nothing to all you who pass along the way? behold and see,

If there be any sorrow, like unto my sorrow, which is inflicted on me;

Which Jehovah inflicted on me in the day of the violence of his wrath.

For these things I weep, my eyes stream with water;

Because the comforter is far away, that should tranquillize my soul:

My children are desolate, because the enemy was strong.

But to detail its beauties would be to transcribe the entire poem."

Ezekiel was carried to Babylon as a captive, and received the first revelations from heaven, in the fifth year of Jehoiakim's captivity, A.C. 595. The book of Ezekiel is sometimes distributed under different heads. In the three first chapters the commission of the prophet is described. From the fourth to the thirty-second chapter inclusive, the calamities that befell the enemies of the Jews are predicted, viz. the Ammonites, the Moabites, and Philistines. The ruin of Tyre and of Sidon, and the fall of Egypt, are particularly foretold; prophecies which have been fulfilled in the most literal and astonishing manner, as we have been often assured by the relation of historians and travellers. From the 32d chapter to the 40th he inveighs against the hypocrisy and murmuring spirit of his countrymen, admonishing them to resignation by promises of deliverance. In the 38th and 39th chapters he undoubtedly predicts the final return of the Jews from their dispersion in the latter days, but in a language so obscure that it cannot be understood till the event take place. The nine last chapters of this book furnish the description of a very remarkable vision of a new temple and city, of a new religion and polity.

"Ezekiel is much inferior to Jeremiah in elegance; in sublimity he is not even excelled by Isaiah; but his as a writer, sublimity is of a totally different kind. He is deep, vehement, tragic; the only sensation he affects to excite is the terrible; his sentiments are elevated, fervid, full of fire, indignant; his imagery is crowded, magnificent, terrific, sometimes almost to disgust: his language is pompous, solemn, austere, rough, and at times unpolished: he employs frequent repetitions, not for the sake of grace or elegance, but from the vehemence of passion and indignation. Whatever subject he treats of, that he sedulously pursues, from that he rarely departs, but cleaves as it were to it; whence the connection is in general evident and well preserved. In many respects he is perhaps excelled by the other prophets; but in that species of composition to which he seems by nature adapted, the forcible, the impetuous, the great and solemn, not one of the sacred writers is superior to him. His diction is sufficiently perspicuous; all his obscurity consists in the nature of the subject. Visions (as for instance, among others, those of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah) are necessarily dark and confused. The greater part of Ezekiel, towards the middle of the book especially, is poetical, whether we regard the matter or the diction. His periods, however, are frequently so rude and incompact, that I am often at a loss how to pronounce concerning his performance in this respect.

"Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as far as relates to style, may be said to hold the same rank among the Hebrews, as Homer, Simonides, and Æschylus among the Greeks." So full an account of Daniel and his writings has been already given under the article Daniel, that little remains to be said on that subject. Daniel flourished during the successive reigns of several Babylonian and Median kings to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. The events recorded in the 6th chapter were contemporary with Darius the Mede; but in the 7th and 8th chapters Daniel returns to an earlier period to relate the visions which he beheld in the three first years of Belshazzar's reign; and those which follow in the four last chapters were revealed to him in the reign of Darius. The last six chapters are composed of prophecies delivered at different times; all of which are in some degree connected as parts of one great scheme. They extend through many ages, and furnish the most striking description of the fall of successive kingdoms, which were to be introductory to the establishment of the Messiah's reign. They characterize in descriptive terms the four great monarchies of the world, to be succeeded by "that kingdom which should not be destroyed."

The whole book of Daniel being no more than a plain relation of facts, partly past and partly future, must be excluded the class of poetical prophecy. Much indeed of the parabolic imagery is introduced in that book; but the author introduces it as a prophet only; as visionary and allegorical symbols of objects and events, totally unattended with the true poetical colouring. The Jews, indeed, would refuse to Daniel even the character of a prophet; but the arguments under which they shelter this opinion are very futile; for those points which they maintain concerning the conditions on which the gift of prophecy is imparted, the different gradations, and the discriminations between the true prophecy and mere inspiration, are all trifling and absurd, without any foundation in the nature of things, and totally destitute of scriptural authority. They add, that Daniel was neither originally educated in the prophetic discipline and precepts, nor afterwards lived conformably to the manner of the prophets. It is not, however, easy to comprehend how this can diminish his claim to a divine mission and inspiration; it may possibly enable us, indeed, to assign a reason for the dissimilarity between the style of Daniel and that of the other prophets, and for its possessing so little of the diction and character of poetry, which the rest seem to have imbibed in common from the schools and discipline in which they were educated.

The prophecies of Daniel appear so plain and intelligible after their accomplishment, that Porphyry, who wrote in the 3rd century, affirms, that they were written after the events to which they refer took place. A little reflection will show the absurdity of this supposition. Some of the prophecies of Daniel clearly refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, with whose oppressions the Jews were too well acquainted. Had the book of Daniel not made its appearance till after the death of Epiphanes, every Jew who read it must have discovered the forgery. And what motive could induce them to receive it among their sacred books? It is impossible to conceive one. Their character was quite the reverse: their respect for the Scripture had degenerated into superstition. But we are not left to determine this important point from the character of the Jews; we have access to more decisive evidence; we are sure that the book of Daniel contains prophecies, for some of them have been accomplished since the time of Porphyry; particularly those respecting Antichrist: now, if it contains any prophecies, who will take upon him to affirm that the divine Spirit, which dictated these many centuries before they were fulfilled, could not also have delivered prophecies concerning Antiochus Epiphanes?

The language in which the book of Daniel is composed proves that it was written about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of it is pure Hebrew: a language in which none of the Jewish books were composed after the age of Epiphanes. These are arguments to a deist. To a Christian the internal marks of the book itself will show the time in which it was written, and the testimony of Ezekiel will prove Daniel to be at least his contemporary.

The twelve minor prophets were so called, not from any supposed inferiority in their writings, but on account of the small size of their works. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Jews joined them together, and considered them as one volume. These 12 prophets presented in scattered hints a lively sketch of many particulars relative to the history of Judah and of Israel, as Gray's Key as well as of other kingdoms; they prophecy with historical exactness the fate of Babylon, of Nineveh, of Tyre, Sidon, and of Damascus. The three last prophets especially illustrate many circumstances at a period when the historical pages of Scripture are closed, and when profane writers are entirely wanting. At first the Jewish prophets appeared only as single lights, and followed each other in individual succession; but they became more numerous about the time of the captivity. The light of inspiration was collected into one blaze, previous to its suspension; and it served to keep alive the expectations of the Jews during the awful interval which prevailed between the expiration of prophecy and its grand completion on the advent of Christ.

Hosea has been supposed the most ancient of the 12 Prophets minor prophets. He flourished in the reign of Jeroboam II, king of Israel, and during the successive reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. He was therefore nearly contemporary with Isaiah, Amos, and Jonah. The prophecies of Hosea being scattered through the book without date or connection, cannot with any certainty be chronologically arranged.

Hosea is the first in order of the minor prophets, and Character is perhaps, Jonah excepted, the most ancient of them all. His style exhibits the appearance of very remote antiquity; it is pointed, energetic, and concise. It bears a distinguished mark of poetical composition, in that pristine brevity and condensation which is observable in the sentences, and which later writers have in some measure neglected. This peculiarity has not escaped the observation of Jerome: "He is altogether (says he, speaking of this prophet) laconic and sententious." But this very circumstance, which anciently was supposed no doubt to impart uncommon force and elegance, in the present ruinous state of the Hebrew literature is productive of so much obscurity, that although the general subject of this writer be sufficiently obvious, he is the most difficult and perplexed of all the prophets. There is, however, another reason for the obscurity of his style: Hosea prophesied during the reigns of the four kings of Judah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The duration of his ministry, therefore, in what-

Scripture, ever manner we calculate, must include a very considerable space of time. We have now only a small volume of his remaining, which seems to contain his principal prophecies; and these are extant in a continued series, with no marks of distinction as to the times in which they were published, or the subjects of which they treat. There is, therefore, no cause to wonder if, in perusing the prophecies of Hosea, we sometimes find ourselves in a similar predicament with those who consulted the scattered leaves of the Sibyl.

As a specimen of Hosea's style, we select the following beautiful pathetic passage:

How shall I resign thee, O Ephraim! How shall I deliver thee up, O Israel! How shall I resign thee as Admah? How shall I make thee as Zeboim? My heart is changed within me; I am warned also with repentance towards thee. I will not do according to the fervour of my wrath; I will not return to destroy Ephraim: For I am God, and not man; Holy in the midst of thee, though I inhabit not thy cities.

Concerning the date of the prophecy of Joel there are various conjectures. The book itself affords nothing by which we can discover when the author lived, or upon what occasion it was written. Joel speaks of a great famine, and of mischief that happened in consequence of an inundation of locusts; but nothing can be gathered from such general observations to enable us to fix the period of his prophecy. St Jerome thinks (and it is the general opinion) that Joel was contemporary with Hosea. This is possibly true; but the foundation on which the opinion rests is very precarious, viz. That when there is no proof of the time in which a prophet lived, we are to be guided in our conjectures respecting it by that of the preceding prophet whose epoch is better known. As this rule is not infallible, it therefore ought not to hinder us from adopting any other opinion that comes recommended by good reasons. Father Calmet places him under the reign of Josiah, at the same time with Jeremiah, and thinks it probable that the famine to which Joel alludes, is the same with that which Jeremiah predicted, ch. viii. 13.

The style of Joel is essentially different from that of Hosea; but the general character of his diction, though of a different kind, is not less poetical. He is elegant, perspicuous, copious, and fluent; he is also sublime, animated, and energetic. In the first and second chapters he displays the full force of the prophetic poetry, and shows how naturally it inclines to the use of metaphors, allegories, and comparisons. Nor is the connection of the matter less clear and evident than the complexion of the style: this is exemplified in the display of the impending evils which gave rise to the prophecy; the exhortation to repentance; the promises of happiness and success both terrestrial and eternal to those who become truly penitent; the restoration of the Israelites; and the vengeance to be taken of their adversaries. But while we allow this just commendation to his perspicuity both in language and arrangement, we must not deny that there is sometimes great obscurity observable in his subject, and particularly in the latter part of the prophecy.

The following prophecy of a plague of locusts is described with great sublimity of expression:

For a nation hath gone up on my land, Who are strong, and without number: They have destroyed my vine, and have made my fig-tree a broken branch. They have made it quite bare, and cast it away: the branches thereof are made white. The field is laid waste; the ground mourneth*.

Amos was contemporary with Hosea. They both began to prophesy during the reigns of Uzziah over Amos, Judah, and of Jeroboam II. over Israel. Amos saw his first vision two years before the earthquake, which Zechariah informs us happened in the days of Uzziah. See AMOS.

Amos was a herdsman of Tekoa, a small town in the territory of Judah, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. In the simplicity of former times, and in the happy climates of the East, these were not considered as dishonourable occupations. He was no prophet (as he informed Amaziah†), neither was he a prophet's son,‡ Amos vii. that is, he had no regular education in the schools of the prophets.

The prophecies of Amos consist of several distinct discourses, which chiefly respect the kingdom of Israel; yet sometimes the prophet inveighs against Judah, and threatens the adjacent nations, the Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites.

Jerome calls Amos "rude in speech, but not in knowledge‡;" applying to him what St Paul modestly professes of himself§. "Many (says Dr Lowth) have commented followed the authority of Jerome in speaking of this prophet, as if he were indeed quite rude, ineloquent, &c., and destitute of all the embellishments of composition. The matter is, however, far otherwise. Let any person who has candour and perspicacity enough to judge, not from the man but from his writings, open the volume of his predictions, and he will, I think, agree with me, that our shepherd‡ is not a whit behind the very chief of the prophets‖. He will agree, that as in sublimity‡, and magnificence he is almost equal to the greatest, so in splendour of diction and elegance of expression he is scarcely inferior to any. The same celestial Spirit indeed actuated Isaiah and Daniel in the court and Amos in the sheep-folds; constantly selecting such interpreters of the divine will as were best adapted to the occasion, and sometimes‡ from the mouth of babes and sucklings perfecting praise‡; occasionally employing the natural eloquence of some, and occasionally making others eloquent."

Mr Locke has observed, that the comparisons of this prophet are chiefly drawn from lions and other animals with which he was most accustomed; but the finest images and allusions are drawn from scenes of nature. There are many beautiful passages in the writings of Amos, of which we shall present one specimen:

Wo to them that are at ease in Zion, And trust in the mountains of Samaria; Who are named chief of the nations, To whom the house of Israel came: Pass ye unto Calneh and see, And from thence go to Hamath the Great; Then go down to Gath of the Philistines; Are they better than these kingdoms? Or their borders greater than their borders? Ye that put far away the evil day, And cause the seat of violence to come near; That lie upon beds of ivory, And stretch yourselves upon couches; That eat the lambs out of the flock, And the calves out of the midst of the stall; That chant to the sound of the viol, And like David devise instruments of music; That drink wine in bowls, But are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.

The writings of Obadiah, which consist of one chapter are composed with much beauty, and unfold a very interesting scene of prophecy. Of this prophet little can be said, as the specimen of his genius is so short, and the greater part of it included in one of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Compare Ob. 1—9, with Jer. xlix. 14, 15, 16. See OBADIAH.

Though Jonah be placed the sixth in the order of the minor prophets both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, he is generally considered as the most ancient of all the prophets, not excepting Hosea. He lived in the kingdom of Israel, and prophesied to the ten tribes under the reign of Joash and Jeroboam. The book of Jonah is chiefly historical, and contains nothing of poetry but the prayer of the prophet. The sacred writers, and our Lord himself, speak of Jonah as a prophet of considerable eminence. See JONAH.

Micah began to prophesy soon after Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and Amos; and he prophesied between A.M. 3246, when Jotham began to reign, and A.M. 3325, when Hezekiah died. One of his predictions is said to have saved the life of Jeremiah, who under the reign of Jehoiakim would have been put to death for prophesying the destruction of the temple, had it not appeared that Micah had foretold the same thing under Hezekiah above 100 years before. Micah is mentioned as a prophet in the book of Jeremiah and in the New Testament. He is imitated by succeeding prophets, as he himself had borrowed expressions from his predecessors. Our Saviour himself spoke in the language of this prophet.

The style of Micah is for the most part close, forcible, pointed, and concise; sometimes approaching the obscurity of Hosea; in many parts animated and sublime; and in general truly poetical. In his prophecies there is an elegant poem, which Dr Louth thinks is a citation from the answer of Balaam to the king of the Moabites:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah? Wherewith shall I bow myself unto the High God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams? With ten thousands of rivers of oil?

Josephus asserts, that Nahum lived in the time of Jotham king of Judah; in which case he may be supposed to have prophesied against Nineveh when Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria carried captive the natives of Galilee and others parts about A.M. 3264. It is, however, probable, that his prophecies were delivered in the reign of Hezekiah; for he appears to speak of the taking of No-Ammon a city of Egypt, and of the insolent messengers of Sennacherib, as of things past; and he likewise describes the people of Judah as still in their own country, and desirous of celebrating their festivals.

While Jerusalem was threatened by Sennacherib, Nahum promised deliverance to Hezekiah, and predicted that Judah would soon celebrate her solemn feasts secure from invasion, as her enemy would no more disturb her peace. In the second and third chapters Nahum foretells the downfall of the Assyrian empire and the final destruction of Nineveh, which was probably accomplished by the Medes and Babylonians, whose combined forces overpowered the Assyrians by surprise "while they were fallen together as thorns, and while they were drunken as drunkards," when the gates of the river were opened, the palace demolished, and an "over-running flood" assisted the conquerors in their devastation; who took an endless store of spoil of gold and silver, making an utter end of the place of Nineveh, of that vast and populous city, whose walls were 100 feet high, and so broad that three chariots could pass abreast. Yet so completely was this celebrated city destroyed, that even in the 2d century the spot on which it stood could not be ascertained, every vestige of it being gone.

It is impossible to read of the exact accomplishment of the prophetic denunciations against the enemies of the Jews, without reflecting on the astonishing proofs which that nation enjoyed of the divine origin of their religion. From the Babylonish captivity to the time of Christ they had numberless instances of the fulfillment of their prophecies.

The character of Nahum as a writer is thus described by Dr Louth: "None of the minor prophets seem to equal Nahum in boldness, ardour, and sublimity. His prophecy, too, forms a regular and perfect poem; the exordium is not merely magnificent, it is truly majestic; the preparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of its downfall and desolation, are expressed in the most vivid colours, and are bold and luminous in the highest degree."

As the prophet Habakkuk makes no mention of the Assyrians, and speaks of the Chaldean invasions as near at hand, he probably lived after the destruction of the Assyrian Assyrian empire in the fall of Nineveh, A. M. 3392, and not long before the devastation of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar. Habakkuk was then nearly contemporary with Jeremiah, and predicted the same events. A general account of Habakkuk's prophecies has already been given under the word HABAKKUK, which may be consulted. We should, however, farther observe, that the prayer in the third chapter is a most beautiful and perfect ode, possessing all the fire of poetry and the profound reverence of religion.

God came from Teman, And the Holy One from Mount Paran: His glory covered the heavens, And the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was as the light; Beams of glory issued from his side; And there was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence; And burning coals went forth at his feet. He stood and measured the earth; He beheld and drove asunder the nations; The everlasting mountains were scattered; The perpetual hills did bow.

The prophet illustrates this subject throughout with equal sublimity; selecting from such an assemblage of miraculous incidents the most noble and important, displaying them in the most splendid colours, and embellishing them with the sublimest imagery, figures, and diction; the dignity of which is so heightened and recommended by the superior elegance of the conclusion, that were it not for a few shades which the hand of time has apparently cast over it in two or three passages, no composition of the kind would appear more elegant or more perfect than this poem.

Habakkuk is imitated by succeeding prophets, and his words are borrowed by the evangelical writers.

Zephaniah, who was contemporary with Jeremiah, prophesied in the reign of Josiah king of Judah; and from the idolatry which he describes as prevailing at that time, it is probable that his prophecies were delivered before the last reformation made by that pious prince A. M. 3381.

The account which Zephaniah and Jeremiah give of the idolatries of their age is so similar, that St Isidore asserts, that Zephaniah abridged the descriptions of Jeremiah. But it is more probable that the prophecies of Zephaniah were written some years before those of his contemporary; for Jeremiah seems to represent the abuses as partly removed which Zephaniah describes as flagrant and excessive (a).

In the first chapter Zephaniah denounces the wrath of God against the idolaters who worshipped Baal and the host of heaven, and against the violent and deceitful. In the second chapter the prophet threatens destruction to the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and Ethiopians; and describes the fate of Nineveh in emphatic terms: "Flocks shall lie down in the midst of her; all the beasts of the nations, both the cormorant and bittern, shall lodge in her; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresh-

(a) Compare Zephaniah i. 4, 5, 9, with Jeremiah ii. 5, 20, 32. Scripture, he cited by St Matthew (xxvii. 9, 10.) as spoken by Jeremiah; and as the 11th, 12th, and 13th chapters have been thought to contain some particulars more suitable to the age of Jeremiah than to that of Zechariah, some learned writers are of opinion that they were written by the former prophet, and have been from similarity of subject joined by mistake to those of Zechariah. But others are of opinion that St Matthew might allude to some traditional prophecy of Jeremiah, or, what is more probable, that the name of Jeremiah was substituted by mistake in place of Zechariah.

The 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters contain prophecies which refer entirely to the Christian dispensation; the circumstances attending which he describes with a clearness which indicated their near approach.

The style of Zechariah is so similar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to remark that the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. He is generally prosaic till towards the conclusion of his work, when he becomes more elevated and poetical. The whole is beautifully connected by easy transitions, and present and future scenes are blended with the greatest delicacy.

Malachi was the last prophet that flourished under the Jewish dispensation; but neither the time in which he lived, nor any particulars of his history, can now be ascertained. It is even uncertain whether the word Malachi be a proper name, or denote, as the Septuagint have rendered it, his angel (r.), that is, "the angel of the Lord." Origen supposed, that Malachi was an angel incarnate, and not a man. The ancient Hebrews, the Chaldee paraphrastr, and St Jerome, are of opinion he was the same person with Ezra: but if this was the case, they ought to have assigned some reason for giving two different names to the same person.

As it appears from the concurring testimony of all the ancient Jewish and Christian writers, that the light of prophecy expired in Malachi, we may suppose that the termination of his ministry coincided with the accomplishment of the first seven weeks of Daniel's prophecy, which was the period appointed for sealing the vision and prophecy. This, according to Prideaux's account, took place in A.M. 3595; but, according to the calculations of Bishop Lloyd, in A.M. 3627, twelve years later. Whatever reckoning we prefer, it must be allowed that Malachi completed the canon of the Old Testament about 400 years before the birth of Christ.

It appears certain that Malachi prophesied under Nehemiah, and after Haggai and Zechariah, at a time when great disorders reigned among the priests and people of Judah, which are reproved by Malachi. He inveighs against the priests (i. 6, &c.; ii. 1, 2, &c.); he reproaches the people with having taken strange wives (ii. 11.); he reproves them for their inhumanity towards their brethren (ii. 10. iii. 5.); their too frequently divorcing their wives; their neglect of paying their tithes and first-fruits (Mal. iii. 13.). He seems to allude to the covenant that Nehemiah renewed with the Lord (iii. 10. and ii. 4., 5., &c.), assisted by the priests and the chief of the nation. He speaks of the sacrifice of the new law, and of the abolition of those of the old, in these words (i. 10., ii. 12., 13.): "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." He declares that the Lord was weary with the impiety of Israel; and assures them, that the Lord whom they sought should suddenly come to his temple preceded by the messenger of the covenant, who was to prepare his way; that the Lord, when he appeared should purify the sons of Levi from their unrighteousness, and refine them as metal from the dross; and that then the offering of Judah, the spiritual sacrifice of the heart, should be pleasant to the Lord. The prophet, like one who was delivering a last message, denounces destruction against the impenitent in emphatic and alarming words. He encourages those who feared the name of the Lord with the animating promise, that the "Sun of righteousness should arise with salvation in his rays," and render them triumphant over the wicked. And now that prophecy was to cease, and miracles were no more to be performed till the coming of the Messiah; now that the Jews were to be left to the guidance of their own reason, and the written instructions of their prophets—Malachi exhorts them to remember the law of Moses, which the Lord had revealed from Horeb for the sake of all Israel. At length he seals up the prophecies of the Old Testament, by predicting the commencement of the new dispensation, which should be ushered in by John the Baptist with the power and spirit of Elijah; who should turn the hearts of fathers and children to repentance; but if his admonitions should be rejected, that the Lord would smite the land with a curse.

The collection of writings composed after the ascension of Christ, and acknowledged by his followers to be divine, is known in general by the name of New Testament. This title, though neither given by divine command, Title nor applied to these writings by the apostles, was adopted in a very early age, though the precise time of its introduction is uncertain, it being justified by several passages in Scripture *, and warranted by the authority of St Paul in particular, who calls the sacred books before the time of Christ παλαιὰς διάθεσιν †. Even long Heb. vii. before that period, either the whole of the Old Testament, or the five books of Moses, were entitled βιβλία διάθεσις, or book of the covenant ‡.

As the word διάθεσις admits of a two-fold interpretation, we may translate this title either the New Covenant or New Testament. The former translation must be adopted, if respect be had to the texts of Scripture, from which the name is borrowed, since those passages evidently convey the idea of a covenant; and, besides a being incapable of death can neither have made an old nor make a new testament. It is likewise probable, that the earliest Greek disciples, who made use of this expression, had no other notion in view than that of co-

(r.) מַלְאָכִי Malachi signifies properly my angel. We, on the contrary, are accustomed to give this sacred collection the name of Testaments; and since it would be not only improper, but even absurd, to speak of the Testament of God, we commonly understand the Testament of Christ; an explanation which removes but half the difficulty, since the new only, and not the old, had Christ for its testator.

In stating the evidence for the truth of Christianity, there is nothing more worthy of consideration than the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. This is the foundation on which all other arguments rest; and if it is solid, the Christian religion is fully established. The proofs for the authenticity of the New Testament have this peculiar advantage, that they are plain and simple, and involve no metaphysical subtleties.—Every man who can distinguish truth from falsehood must see their force; and if there are any so blinded by prejudice, or corrupted by licentiousness, as to attempt by sophistry to elude them, their sophistry will be easily detected by every man of common understanding, who has read the historical evidence with candour and attention. Instead, therefore, of declaiming against the infidel, we solicit his attention to this subject, convinced, that where truth resides, it will shine with so constant and clear a light, that the combined ingenuity of all the deists since the beginning of the world will never be able to extinguish or to obscure it. If the books of the New Testament are really genuine, opposition will incite the Christian to bring forward the evidence; and thus by the united efforts of the deist and the Christian, the arguments will be stated, with all the clearness and accuracy of which they are susceptible in so remarkable a degree.

It is surprising that the adversaries of Christianity have not always made their first attacks in this quarter; for if they admit that the writings of the New Testament are as ancient as we affirm, and composed by the persons to whom they are ascribed, they must allow, if they reason fairly, that the Christian religion is true.

The apostles frequently allude in their epistles to the gift of miracles, which they had communicated to the Christian converts by the imposition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their speeches and writings, and sometimes to miracles which they themselves had performed. Now if these epistles are really genuine, it is hardly possible to deny those miracles to be true. The case is here entirely different from that of an historian, who relates extraordinary events in the course of his narrative, since either credulity or an actual intention to deceive may induce him to describe as true a series of falsehoods respecting a foreign land or distant period. Even the Evangelists might an adversary of the Christian religion make this objection: but to write to persons with whom we stand in the nearest connection, "I have not only performed miracles in your presence, but have likewise communicated to you the same extraordinary endowments," to write in this manner, if nothing of the kind had ever happened, would require such an incredible degree of effrontery, that he who possessed it would not only expose himself to the utmost ridicule, but by giving his adversaries the fairest opportunity to detect his imposture, would ruin the cause which he attempted to support.

St Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians is addressed to a community to which he had preached the gospel only three Sabbath days, when he was forced to quit it by the persecution of the populace. In this epistle he appeals to the miracles which he had performed, and to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which he had communicated. Now, is it possible, without forfeiting all pretensions to common sense, that, in writing to a community which he had lately established, he could speak of miracles performed, and gifts of the Holy Ghost communicated, if no member of the society had seen the one, or received the other?

To suppose that an impostor could write to the converts or adversaries of the new religion such epistles as these, with a degree of triumph over his opponents, and yet maintain his authority, implies ignorance and stupidity hardly to be believed. Credulous as the Christians have been in later ages, and even so early as the third century, no less severe were they in their inquiries, and guarded against deception, at the introduction of Christianity. This character is given them even by Lucian, a writer of the second century, who vented his satire not only against certain Christians*, who De morte had supplied Peregrinus with the means of subsistence—Peregrini, but also against heathen oracles and pretended wonders. He relates of his impostor (Pseudomantis), Ed. that he attempted nothing supernatural in the presence of the Christians and Epicureans. This Pseudomantis exclaims before the whole assembly, "Away with the Christians, away with the Epicureans, and let those only remain who believe in the Deity!" (προστρέψατε τοὺς ἐπικουρεῖς) on which the populace took up stones to drive away the suspicious; while the other philosophers, Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics, as credulous friends and protectors of the cause, were permitted to remain.

It is readily acknowledged, that the arguments drawn from the authenticity of the New Testament only established the truth of the miracles performed by our Saviour; yet, if we admit the first three gospels to be genuine, the truth of the Christian religion will be proved from the prophecies of Jesus. For if these gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the time in which all the primitive Christians affirm, that is, previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, they must be inspired; for they contain a circumstantial prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and determine the period at which it was accomplished. Now it was impossible that human sagacity could foresee that event; for when it was predicted nothing was more improbable. The Jews were resolved to avoid an open rebellion, well knowing the greatness of their danger, and submitted to the oppressions of their governors in the hope of obtaining redress from the court of Rome.—The circumstance which gave birth to these misfortunes is so trifling in itself, that independent of its consequences, it would not deserve to be recorded. In the narrow entrance to a synagogue in Cassarea, some person had made an offering of birds merely with a view to irritate the Jews. The insult excited their indignation, and occasioned the shedding of blood. Without this trifling accident, which no human wisdom could foresee even the day before it happened, it is possible that the prophecy of Jesus would never have been fulfilled. But Florus, who was then procurator of Judea, converted this private quarrel into public hostilities, and compelled the Jewish nation to rebel contrary to its wish and resolution, in order to avoid what the Jews had threatened, an impeachment before the Roman emperor for his excessive cruelties. But even after this rebellion had broken out, the destruction of the temple was a very improbable event. It was not the practice of the Romans to destroy the magnificent edifices of the nations which they subdued; and all the Roman generals, none was more unlikely to demolish so ancient and august a building as Titus Vespasian.

So important then is the question, Whether the books of the New Testament be genuine? that the arguments which prove their authenticity, prove also the truth of the Christian religion. Let us now consider the evidence which proves the authenticity of the New Testament.

We receive the books of the New Testament as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Plutarch, of Caesar, and of Livy. We have the uninterrupted testimony of all ages, and we have no reason to suspect imposition. This argument is much stronger when applied to the books of the New Testament than when applied to any other writings; for they were addressed to large societies, were often read in their presence, and acknowledged by them to be the writings of the apostles.—Whereas, the most eminent profane writings which still remain were addressed only to individuals, or to no persons at all; and we have no authority to affirm that they were read in public; on the contrary, we know that a liberal education was uncommon; books were scarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation.

The New Testament was read over three quarters of the world, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. An uninterrupted succession of writers from the apostolic ages to the present time quote the sacred writings, or make allusions to them; and these quotations and allusions are made not only by friends but by enemies. This cannot be asserted of even the best classic authors. And it is highly probable, that the translations of the New Testament were made so early as the second century; and in a century or two after, they became very numerous. After this period, it was impossible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the sacred text, unless we can suppose that men of different nations, of different sentiments and different languages, and often exceedingly hostile to one another, should all agree in one forgery. This argument is so strong, that if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament, we may with a thousand times more propriety reject all the other writings in the world: we may even throw aside human testimony itself. But as this subject is of great importance, we shall consider it at more length; and to enable our readers to judge with the greater accuracy, we shall state, from the valuable work of Michaelis, as translated by the judicious and learned Mr Marsh, the reasons which may induce a critic to suspect a work to be spurious.

1. When doubts have been made from its first appearance in the world, whether it proceeded from the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. When the immediate friends of the pretended author, who were able to decide upon the subject, have denied it to be his production. 3. When a long series of years has elapsed after his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and took to be quoted, had it really existed. 4. When the style is different from that of his other writings, or, in case no other remain, different from that which might reasonably be expected. 5. When events are recorded which happened later than the time of the pretended author. 6. When opinions are advanced which contradict those he is known to maintain in his other writings. Though this latter argument alone leads to no positive conclusion, since every man is liable to change his opinion, or through forgetfulness to vary in the circumstances of the same relation, of which Josephus, in his Antiquities and War of the Jews, affords a striking example.

1. But it cannot be shown that any one doubted of its authenticity in the period in which it first appeared. 2. No ancient accounts are on record whence we may conclude it to be spurious. 3. No considerable period elapsed after the death of the apostles, in which the New Testament was unknown; but, on the contrary, it is mentioned by their very contemporaries, and the accounts of it in the second century are still more numerous. 4. No argument can be brought in its disfavour from the nature of the style, it being exactly such as might be expected from the apostles, not Attic but Jewish Greek. 5. No facts are recorded which happened after their death. 6. No doctrines are maintained which contradict the known tenets of the authors, since, beside the New Testament, no writings of the apostles exist. But to the honour of the New Testament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradictions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers in the second and third century, whose morality was different from that of the gospel, which recommends fortitude and submission to unavoidable evils, but not that enthusiastic ardour for martyrdom for which those centuries are distinguished; it alludes to ceremonies which in the following ages were either in disuse or totally unknown: all which circumstances infallibly demonstrate that the New Testament is not a production of either of those centuries.

We shall now consider the positive evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament. These may be arranged under the three following heads:

1. The impossibility of a forgery, arising from the nature of the thing itself. 2. The ancient Christian, Jewish, and Heathen testimony in its favour. 3. Its own internal evidence.

1. The impossibility of a forgery arising from the nature of the thing itself is evident. It is impossible to establish forged writings as authentic in any place where there are persons strongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the most violent enemies of Christianity. They put the founder of it to death; they persecuted his disciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to stifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Testament had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the imposture? Is there a single instance on record where a few individuals have imposed a history upon the world against against the testimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Palestine have received the gospels, if they had not had sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ really appeared among them, and performed the miracles ascribed to him? Or would the churches of Rome or of Corinth have acknowledged the epistles addressed to them as the genuine works of Paul, if Paul had never preached among them? We might as well think to prove, that the history of the Reformation is the invention of historians; and that no revolution happened in Great Britain during the last century.

2. The second kind of evidence which we produce to prove the authenticity of the New Testament, is the testimony of ancient writers, Christians, Jews, and Heathens.

In reviewing the evidence of testimony, it will not be expected that we should begin at the present age, and trace backwards the authors who have written on this subject to the first ages of Christianity. This indeed, though a laborious task, could be performed in the most complete manner; the whole series of authors, numerous in every age, who have quoted from the books of the New Testament, written commentaries upon them, translated them into different languages, or who have drawn up a list of them, could be exhibited so as to form such a perfect body of evidence, that we imagine even a jury of deists would find it impossible, upon a deliberate and candid examination, to reject or disbelieve it. We do not, however, suppose that scepticism has yet arrived at so great a height as to render such a tedious and circumstantial evidence necessary. Passing over the intermediate space, therefore, we shall ascend at once to the fourth century, when the evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament was fully established, and trace it back from that period to the age of the apostles. We hope that this method of stating the evidence will appear more natural, and will afford more satisfaction, than that which has been usually adopted.

It is surely more natural, when we investigate the truth of any fact which depends on a series of testimony, to begin with those witnesses who lived nearest the present age, and whose characters are best established. In this way we shall learn from themselves the foundation of their belief, and the characters of those from whom they derived it; and thus we ascend till we arrive at its origin. This mode of investigation will give more satisfaction to the deist than the usual way; and we believe no Christian, who is confident of the goodness of his cause, will be unwilling to grant any proper concessions. The deist will thus have an opportunity of examining, separately, what he will consider as the weakest parts of the evidence, those which are exhibited by the earliest Christian writers, consisting of expressions, and not quotations, taken from the New Testament. The Christian, on the other hand, ought to wish, that these apparently weak parts of the evidence were distinctly examined, for they will afford an irrefragable proof that the New Testament was not forged; and should the deist reject the evidence of those early writers, it will be incumbent on him to account for the origin of the Christian religion, which he will find more difficult than to admit the common hypothesis.

In the fourth century we could produce the testimonies of numerous witnesses to prove that the books of the New Testament existed at that time; but it will be sufficient to mention their names, the time in which they wrote, and the substance of their evidence. This we shall present in a concise form in the following table, which is taken from Jones's New and Full Method of establishing the canon of the New Testament.

| The names of the Writers | Times in which they lived | The variation or agreement of their catalogues with ours now received | The books in which these catalogues are | |--------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | I. Athanasius bishop of Alexandria. | A.C. 315. | The same perfectly with ours now received. | Fragment. Epist. Testal, tom. ii. in Synops. tom. i. | | II. Cyril bishop of Jerusalem. | 340. | The same with ours, only the Revelation is omitted. | Catech. IV. § ult. p. 101. | | III. The bishops assembled in the council of Laodicea. | 364. | The Revelation is omitted. | Canon LIX. | | N.B. The Canons of this council were not long afterwards received into the body of the canons of the universal church. | | IV. Epiphanius bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. | 370. | The same with ours now received. | Haeres. 76. cont. Anom. p. 399. | | V. Gregory Nazianzen bishop of Constantinople. | 375. | Omits the Revelation. | Carm. de veris et genuin. Scriptur. | | The Names of the Writers | Times in which they lived | The variation or agreement of their catalogues with ours now received | The books in which these catalogues are | |--------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | VI. Philastrius bishop of Brixia in Venice. | 380. | The same with ours now received; except that he mentions only 13 of St Paul's epistles (omitting very probably the Epistle to the Hebrews), and leaves out the Revelation. | Lib. de Haeres. Numb. 87. | | VII. Jerome. | 382. | The same with ours; except that he speaks dubiously of the Epistle to the Hebrews; though in other parts of his writings he receives it as canonical. | Ep. ad Paulin. Tract. 6. p. 2. Also commonly prefixed to the Latin vulgar. | | VIII. Rustic presbyter of Aquilegia. | 390. | It perfectly agrees with ours. | Expos. in Symb. Apostol. § 36. int. Ep. Hieron. Par. 1. Tract. 3. p. 110. et inter Op. Cypr. p. 575. | | IX. Austin bishop of Hippo in Africa. | 394. | It perfectly agrees with ours. | De Doctrin. Christ. lib. ii. c. 8. Tom. Op. 3. p. 25. | | X. The XLIV bishops assembled in the third council of Carthage. | St. Austin was present at it. | It perfectly agrees with ours. | Vid. Canon XLVII. et cap. ult. |

We now go back to Eusebius, who wrote about the year 315, and whose catalogue of the books of the New Testament we shall mention at more length. "Let us observe (says he) the writings of the apostle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gospel, according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the gospels, and the reasons for placing St John's the last, manifestly speaking of all the four as equal in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such." Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner: "In the first place, are to be ranked the sacred four Gospels, then the book of the Acts of the Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the epistles of Paul: in the next place, that called the first Epistle of John and the Epistle of Peter are to be esteemed authentic: after this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John; about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are that called the Epistle of James and that of Jude, the second of Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they were written by the evangelist or by another of the same name." He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted; evidently meaning the same thing by these two words (s).

A. D. 290, Victorin bishop of Pettaw in Germany, Of Victorin a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, says, "The first was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle," makes out, that by the four creatures are intended the four gospels; and to show the propriety of the symbols, he recites the subject with which each evangelist opens his history. The explication is fanciful, but the testimony positive. He also expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles.

A. D. 230, Cyprian bishop of Carthage gives the following testimony: "The church (says this father) is watered like Paradise by four rivers, that is, by four gospels." The Acts of the Apostles are also frequently quoted by Cyprian under that name, and under the name of the Divine Scriptures. In his various writings are such frequent and copious citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing.

A. D. 210, Origen is a most important evidence. Of Origen. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject now under

(s) That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered spurious, what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter, where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, and Matthias and some others, he says, "They are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious." Lard. Cred. vol. viii. p. 98.

Scripture under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning and information, nothing more satisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preserved in an extract of his works by Eusebius: "That the four gospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven;" to which declaration is immediately subjoined a brief history of the respective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, ascribed. The sentiments expressed concerning the gospels in all the works of Origen which remain, entirely correspond with the testimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is no less positive: "And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet, relating the Acts of the Apostles." That the scriptures were then universally read, is plainly affirmed by this writer in a passage in which he is repelling the objections of Celsus, "That it is not in private books, or such as are read by few only, and those studious persons, but in books read by every body, that it is written. The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made." It is to no purpose to single out quotations of Scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make a selection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr Clarke's sermons. They are so thickly sown in the works of Origen, that Dr Mill says, "if we had all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible."

A.D. 194, Tertullian exhibits the number of the gospels then received, the names of the evangelists, and their proper designations, in one short sentence.—"Among the apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it." The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affords as complete an attestation to the authenticity of the gospels as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by Paul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, the church of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: "I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, is that gospel of Luke received from its first publication, which we so zealously maintain;" and presently afterwards adds, "The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the other gospels, which we have from them, and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's, although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was." In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other gospels, as well as St Luke's, were in the hands of the churches from the beginning. This noble testimony proves incontestably the antiquity of the gospels, and that they were universally received; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from the first. And this evidence appears not more than 150 years after the publication of the books. Dr Lardner observes, "that there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero, in writers of all characters, for several ages."

A.D. 178, Irenæus was bishop of Lyons, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. In his youth he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He asserts of himself and Scripture, his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up in all the principal churches the succession of bishops to their first institution. His testimony to the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles is express and positive. "We have not received," says Irenæus, "the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the gospel has been brought to us. Which gospel they first preached, and afterwards by the will of God committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the apostles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the gospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their own language; while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, likewise published a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." Irenæus then relates how Matthew begins his gospel, how Mark begins and ends his, and gives the supposed reasons for doing so. He enumerates at length all the passages of Christ's history in Luke, which are not found in any of the other evangelists. He states the particular design with which St John composed his gospel, and accounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. If any modern divine should write a book upon the genuineness of the gospels, he could not assert it more expressly, or state their original more distinctly, than Irenæus hath done within little more than 100 years after they were published.

Respecting the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and its author, the testimony of Irenæus is no less explicit. Referring to the account of St Paul's conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book, "Nor can they (says he, meaning the parties with whom he argues) show that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness." In another place, he has actually collected the several texts, in which the writer of the history is represented as accompanying St Paul, which led him to exhibit a summary of almost the whole of the last twelve chapters of the book.

According to Lardner, Irenæus quotes twelve of Paul's epistles, naming their author; also the first epistle of Peter, the two first epistles of John, and the Revelation. The epistles of Paul which he omits are those addressed to Philemon and the Hebrews. Eusebius says, that he quotes the epistle to the Hebrews, though he does not ascribe it to Paul. The work, however, is lost.

A.D. 172, Tatian, who is spoken of by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, composed a harmony of the four gospels, which he called Diatessaron of the four. This title, as well as the work, is remarkable. Scripture, marked, because it shows that then as well as now there were four, and only four, gospels in general use among Christians.

A.D. 175, the churches of Lyons and Vienne in France sent an account of the sufferings of their martyrs to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which has been preserved entire by Eusebius. And what carries in some measure the testimony of these churches to a higher age is, that they had now for their bishop Poltinos, who was 92 years old, and whose early life consequently must have immediately followed the times of the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the gospels of Luke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles. The form of reference is the same as in all the preceding articles. That from St John is in these words: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that whosoever killeth thee, will think that he doth God service."

Distinct references are also made to other books, viz. Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation.

A.D. 140, Justin Martyr composed several books, which are mentioned by his disciple Tatian, by Tertullian, Methodius, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Photios. In his writings between 20 and 30 quotations from the gospels and Acts of the Apostles are reckoned up, which are clear, distinct, and copious; if each verse be counted separately, a much greater number; if each expression, still more. Jones, in his book on the Canon of the New Testament, ventures to affirm that he cites the books of which it consists, particularly the four gospels, above 200 times.

We meet with quotations of three of the gospels within the compass of half a page; "and in other words, he says, Depart from me into outer darkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his Angels," (which is from Matthew xxv. 41). "And again he said in other words, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomous beasts, and upon all the power of the enemy." (This from Luke x. 19.) "And, before he was crucified, he said, The son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again the third day." (This from Mark viii. 31.)

All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; which proves that these books were perfectly well known, and that there were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others so received and credited as to make it necessary to add any marks of distinction. But although Justin mentions not the authors names, he calls the books Memoirs composed by the Apostles; Memoirs composed by the Apostles and their Companions; which descriptions the latter especially, exactly suit the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles now bear.

He informs us, in his first apology, that the Memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read according as the time allows; and, when the reader has ended, the president makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of such excellent things.

A few short observations will show the value of this testimony. 1. The Memoirs of the Apostles, Justin in another place expressly tells us are what are called gospels. And that they were the gospels which we now use is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations of them, and his silence about any others. 2. He describes the general usage of the Christian church. 3. He does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in the terms in which men speak of established customs.

Justin also makes such allusions to the following books as shows that he had read them: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 2 Peter; and he ascribes the Revelation to John the Apostle of Christ.

A.D. 116, Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Irenaeus attests, and of the apostolical age as all agree, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes the two first gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner which proves that these gospels must have publicly borne the names of these authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does not say, that one gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark; but, assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what materials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter's preaching, and in what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias was well informed in this statement or not, to the point for which this testimony is produced, namely, that these books bore these names at this time, his authority is complete.

Papias himself declares that he received his accounts of Christianity from those who were acquainted with the apostles, and that those accounts which he thus received from the older Christians, and had committed to memory, he inserted in his books. He farther adds, that he was very solicitous to obtain every possible information, especially to learn what the apostles said and preached, va. sch. Hist. Eccl.lib.liv. c. 39.

A.D. 108, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, and disciple of John the Apostle. This testimony concerning Polycarp is given by Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen him. "I can tell the place," saith Irenaeus, "in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the people, and how he related his conversation with John and others who had seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he had heard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had received them from the eye-witnesses of the word of life, all which Polycarp related agreeable to the scriptures."

Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons of the apostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining; which, though a short performance, contains nearly 40 clear allusions to the books of the New Testament. This is strong evidence of the respect which was paid to them by Christians of that age. Amongst these, although the writings of St Paul are more frequently used by Polycarp than other parts of scripture, there are copious allusions to the gospel of St Matthew, some to passages found in the gospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemble the words in Luke.

He thus fixes the authority of the Lord's Prayer, and the use of it among Christians. If, therefore, we pray the Lord to forgive us, we ought also to forgive. And again, With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation.

In another place, he quotes the words of our Lord: "But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be not judged. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Supposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in which we now find them, it is manifest that these books were considered by him, and by his readers, as he thought, as authentic accounts of Christ's discourses; and that this point was incontestable.

He quotes also the following books, the first of which he ascribes to St Paul: 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and makes evident references to others, particularly to Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John.

Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became bishop of Antioch about 37 years after Christ's ascension; and therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epistles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, found in the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenaeus, A.D. 187, by Origen, A.D. 230; and the occasion of writing them is fully explained by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smaller epistles of Ignatius are generally reckoned the same which were read by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius.

They are admitted as genuine by Vossius, and have been proved to be so by Bishop Pearson with a force of argument which seems to admit of no reply. In these epistles are undoubted allusions to Matt. iii. 15, xi. 16, to John iii. 8; and their venerable author, who often speaks of St Paul in terms of the highest respect, once quotes his epistle to the Ephesians by name.

Near the conclusion of the epistle to the Romans, St Paul, amongst others, sends the following salutation: — Salute Asyncretus, Phlegon, Hermas, Petrus, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them." Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians as contemporary with St Paul, there is a book still remaining, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed. It is called the Shepherd, or Pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity is incontestable, from the quotations of it in Irenaeus, A.D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, Tertullian, A.D. 200, Origen, A.D. 230. The notes of time extant in the epistle itself agree with its title, and with the testimonies concerning it, which intimate that it was written during the lifetime of Clement. In this piece are tacit allusions to St Matthew's, St Luke's, and St John's gospels; that is to say, there are applications of thoughts and expressions found in these gospels, without citing the place or Scripture writers from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas the confessing and denying of Christ; Matt. xii. 35, or the parable of the seed sown; Luke xii. 35, 36; the comparison of Christ's disciples to little children; the saying, "he that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery"; the singular expression, "having received all power from his Father," is probably an allusion to Matt. xxviii. 18, and Christ being the "gate;" Luke xvi. or only way of coming "to God," is a plain allusion to John xiv. 6, x. 7, 9. There is also a probable allusion to Acts v. 32.

The Shepherd of Hermas has been considered as a fanciful performance. This, however, is of no importance in the present case. We only adduce it as evidence that the books to which it frequently alludes existed in the first century; and for this purpose it is satisfactory, as its authenticity has never been questioned. However absurd opinions a man may entertain, while he retains his understanding his testimony to a matter of fact will still be received in any court of justice.

A.D. 96, we are in possession of an epistle written by Clement bishop of Rome, whom ancient writers, without scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom St Paul mentions Philippians iv. 3. "With Clement also, and other my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life." This epistle is spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, as Irenaeus well represents its value, "written by Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes." It is addressed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may seem a decisive proof of its authenticity, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, about the year 170, i.e. about 80 or 90 years after the epistle was written, bears witness, "that it had been usually read in that church from ancient times." This epistle affords amongst others, the following valuable passages: "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake, teaching gentleness and long-suffering; for thus he said (τ), Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye shew kindness, so shall kindness be shewn unto you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you. By this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words."

Again, "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, Wo to that man by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones (υ)." He ascribes the first epistle to the Corinthians to Paul, and make such allusions to the following books as are sufficient to show that he had seen and read them: Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.

It may be said, as Clement has not mentioned the books by name from which we assert these allusions or references are made, it is uncertain whether he refers to any books, or whether he received these expressions from the discourses and conversation of the apostles. Mr Paley has given a very satisfactory answer to this objection: 1st, That Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistle to the Romans*; which passage, from the peculiarity of the words that compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the epistle. The same remark may be applied to some very singular sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, That there are many sentences of St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, to be found in Clement's epistle, without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had St Paul's epistle before him; for in one place he mentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt. "Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul." Thirdly, That this method of adopting words of scripture, without reference or acknowledgement, was a method in general use amongst the most ancient Christian writers. These analogies no only repel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side; and afford a considerable degree of positive proof, that the words in question have been borrowed from the places of scripture in which we now find them. But take it, if you will, the other way, that Clement had heard these words from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with respect to the precise point of our argument, viz. that the scriptures contain what the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost as well.

We have now traced the evidence to the times of the apostles; but we have not been anxious to draw it out to a great length, by introducing every thing. On the contrary, we have been careful to render it as concise as possible, that its force might be discerned at a glance. The evidence which has been stated is of two kinds. Till the time of Justin Martyr and Irenæus it consists chiefly of allusions, references and expressions, borrowed from the books of the New Testament, without mentioning them by name. After the time of Irenæus it became usual to cite the sacred books, and mention the authors from whom the citations were taken.

The first species of evidence will perhaps appear to some exceptionable; but it must be remembered that it was usual among the ancient Christians as well as Jews to adopt the expressions of scripture without naming the authors. Why they did so it is not necessary to inquire. The only point of importance to be determined is, whether those references are a sufficient proof of the existence of the books to which they allude? Scripture. This, we presume, will not be denied; especially in the present age, when it is so common to charge an author with plagiarism if he happen to fall upon the same train of ideas, or express himself in a similar manner with authors who have written before him. We may farther affirm, that these tacit references afford a complete proof that those ancient writers had no intention of imposing a forgery upon the world. They prove the existence of the Christian religion and of the apostolical writings, without showing any suspicious earnestness that men should believe them. Had these books been forged, those who wished to pass them upon the world would have been at more pains than the first Christians were to prove their authenticity. They acted the part of honest men; they believed them themselves, and they never imagined that others would suspect their truth.

It is a consideration of great importance, in reviewing the evidence, which has been now stated, that the witnesses lived in different countries; Clemens flourished at Rome, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, Irenæus in France, Tertullian at Carthage, Origen at Alexandria, and Eusebius at Cesarea. This proves that the books of the New Testament were equally well known in distant countries by men who had no intercourse with one another.

The same thing is proved by testimonies if possible Testimonies less exceptionable. The ancient heretics, whose opinions of Hellenists were sometimes grosser and more impious than those which any modern sectary has ventured to branch, and whose zeal in the propagation of them equalled that of the most flaming enthusiast of the last century, never called in question the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. When they met with any passage in the gospels or epistles which they could not reconcile to their own heretical notions, they either erased it, or denied that the author was inspired; but they nowhere contend that the book in which it stood was not written by the apostle or evangelist whose name it bore. Eusebius relates, that the Ebionites rejected all the epistles of Paul, and called him an apostate, because he departed from the Levitical law; and they adopted as their rule of faith the gospel of St Matthew, though indeed they greatly corrupted it. This proves therefore that the gospel according to Matthew was then published, and that St Paul's epistles were then known.

Of the heretics who erased, or altered passages to make the Scriptures agree with their doctrines, we may produce Marcion as an instance, who lived in the beginning of the second century. He lived in an age when he could have easily discovered if the writings of the New Testament had been forged; and as he was much incensed against the orthodox party, if such a forgery had been committed, unquestionably he would not have failed to make the discovery, as it would have afforded the most ample means of revenge and triumph, and enabled him to establish his own opinions with less difficulty. But his whole conduct shows clearly, that he believed the writings of the New Testament to be authentic.

in Clement agrees more exactly with Luke xvii. 2. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." He said that the gospel according to St Matthew, the epistle to the Hebrews, with those of St Peter and St James, as well as the Old Testament in general, were writings not for Christians but for Jews. He published a new edition of the gospel according to Luke, and the first ten epistles of Paul; in which it has been affirmed by Epiphanius, that he altered every passage that contradicted his own opinions: but as many of these alterations are what modern critics call various readings, though we receive the testimony of Epiphanius, we must not rely upon his opinion (x). Hence it is evident that the books of the New Testament above mentioned did then exist, and were acknowledged to be the works of the authors whose names they bear.

Dr Lardner in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the following words: "Noetus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans (y), Priscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all the same books of the New Testament which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them as writ by apostles or their disciples and companions."

Celsus and Porphyry, both enemies of the Christian religion, are powerful witnesses for the antiquity of the New Testament. Celsus, who lived towards the end of the second century, not only mentions by name, but quotes passages from the books of the New Testament: and that the books to which he refers were no other than our present gospels, is evident from the allusions to various passages still found in them. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gospels; of the precepts, Resist not him that injures you; and, If a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also; of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, that it is impossible to serve two masters; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was put into the hand of Jesus; of the blood that flowed from his body upon the cross, a circumstance which is recorded only by John; and (what is instar omnium for the purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only one.

It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four gospels, but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his objections to Christianity on any thing delivered in spurious gospels.

The testimony of Porphyry is still more important than that of Celsus. He was born in the year 213, of Tyrian origin. Unfortunately for the present age, says Michaelis, the mistaken zeal of the Christian emperors has banished his writings from the world; and every real friend of our religion would gladly give the works of one of the pious fathers to rescue those of Porphyry from the flames. But Mr Marsh, the learned and judicious translator of Michaelis, relates, that, according to the accounts of Isaac Vossius, a manuscript of the works of Porphyry is preserved in the Medicean library at Florence, but kept so secret that no one is permitted to see it. It is universally allowed, that Porphyry is the most sensible, as well as the most severe, adversary of the Christian religion that antiquity can produce. He was versed not only in history, but also in philosophy and politics. His acquaintance with the Christians was not confined to a single country; for he had conversed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome. Enabled by his birth to study the Syriac as well as the Greek authors, he was of all the adversaries to the Christian religion the best qualified to inquire into the authenticity of the sacred writings. He possessed therefore every advantage which natural abilities or a scientific education could afford to discover whether the New Testament was a genuine work of the apostles and evangelists, or whether it was imposed upon the world after the decease of its pretended authors. But no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found in his writings. In the fragments which still remain, mention is made of the gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle to the Galatians; and it clearly appears from the very objections of Porphyry, that the books to which he alludes were the same which we possess at present. Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in St Matthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea; to the expression in St Matthew, "the abomination of desolation;" to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," Matthew quoting it from Isaiah, Mark from the prophets; to John's application of the term Word; to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by St Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death.

The instances here alleged serve in some measure to show the nature of Porphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the gospels with that sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as the despotaries of the religion which he attacked. Beside these specifications, there exists in the writings of ancient Christians general evidence, that the places of Scripture, upon which Porphyry had made remarks, were very numerous.

The internal evidence to prove the authenticity of the New Testament consists of two parts: The nature city of the style, and the coincidence of the New Testament with the history of the times.

The style of the New Testament is singular, and proved differs very widely from the style of classical authors. It is full of Hebraisms and Syrianisms; a circumstance which, even so late as the present century, it has attempted to remove; not knowing that these very deviations from Grecian purity afford the strongest presumption in its favour: for they prove that the New Testament was written by men of Hebrew origin, and is therefore a production.

(x) Dr Loeffer has written a learned dissertation to prove that Marcion did not corrupt the sacred writings. (y) This must be with an exception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late as the year 384. After the death of the first Jewish converts, few of the Jews turned preachers of the gospel; the Christians were generally ignorant of Hebrew, and consequently could not write in the style of the New Testament. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, their language must have been blended with that of other nations, and their vernacular phraseology almost entirely lost. The language of the early fathers, though not always the purest classic Greek, has no resemblance to that of the New Testament, not even excepting the works of the few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew; as Origen, Epiphanius, and Justin Martyr, the last of whom being a native of Palestine, might have written in a style similar to that of the New Testament, had such a style then prevailed. He that suspects the New Testament to be the forgery of a more recent period, ought to produce some person who has employed a similar diction; but those who are conversant with eastern writings know well that a foreigner, who has not been accustomed to eastern manners and modes of thinking from his infancy, can never imitate with success the oriental style, much less forge a history or an epistle which contains a thousand incidental allusions, which nothing but truth could suggest. To imitate closely the style of the New Testament is even more difficult than to imitate that of any other oriental book; for there is not a single author, even among the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, that has composed in a style in the least degree like it (z).

But though the books in the New Testament bear so close a resemblance in idiom, there is a diversity of style which shows them to be the work of different persons. Whoever reads with attention the epistles of Paul, must be convinced that they were all written by the same author. An equal degree of similarity is to be found between the gospel and 1st epistle of John. The writings of St John and St Paul exhibit marks of an original genius which no imitation can ever attain. The character of Paul as a writer is drawn with great judgment by Michaelis: "His mind overflows with sentiment, yet he never loses sight of his principal object, but hurried on by the rapidity of thought, discloses frequently in the middle a conclusion to be made only at the end. To a profound knowledge of the Old Testament he joins the acuteness of philosophical wisdom, which he displays in applying and expounding the sacred writings; and his explanations are therefore sometimes so new and unexpected, that superficial observers might be tempted to suppose them erroneous. The fire of his genius, and his inattention to style, occasion frequently a twofold obscurity, being often too concise to be understood except by those to whom he immediately wrote, and not seldom on the other hand so full of his subject, as to produce long and difficult parentheses, and a repetition of the same word even in different senses. With a talent for irony and satire, he unites the most refined sensibility, and tempers the severity of his censures by expressions of tenderness and affection; nor does he ever forget in the vehemence of his zeal the rules of modesty and decorum. He is a writer, in short, of so singular and wonderful a composition, that it would be difficult to find a rival. That truly sensible and sagacious philosopher Locke was of the same opinion, and contended that St Paul was without an equal."

Poems have been forged and ascribed to former ages with some success. Philosophical treatises might be invented which it would be difficult to detect; but there is not a single instance on record where an attempt has been made to forge a history or a long epistle, where the fraud has not been either fully proved, or rendered so suspicious that few are weak enough to believe it. Whoever attempts to forge a history or an epistle in the name of an ancient author, will be in great danger of contradicting the history or the manners of that age, especially if he relate events which are not mentioned in general history, but such as refer to a single city, sect, religion, or school.

The difficulty of forging such histories as the gospels, and such epistles as those of Paul, cannot be overcome by all the genius, learning, and industry, of any individual or society of men that ever lived. They contain a purer system of ethics than all the ancient philosophers could invent: They discover a candour and modesty unexampled: They exhibit an originality in the character of Jesus, and yet such a consistency as the imagination of our best poets has never reached. Now it is a very remarkable circumstance, that histories written by four different men should preserve such dignity and consistency, though frequently relating different actions of Jesus, and descending to the most minute circumstances in his life. The scene of action is too extensive, and the agreement of facts with the state of the times as represented by other historians is too close, to admit the possibility of forgery.

The scene of action is not confined to one country, it is successively laid in the greatest cities of the Roman empire; in Rome, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Athens, as well as in Jerusalem and the land of Palestine. Innumerable allusions are made to the manners and opinions of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews; and respecting the Jews, they extend even to the trifles and follies of their schools. Yet after the strictest examination, the New Testament will be found to have a wonderful coincidence and harmony with Josephus, the principal historian of these times, and an enemy of Christianity.

It has been a question who the soldiers were who are said in the gospel of Luke to have addressed John the remarkable Baptist in these words, What shall we do? An answer instances of this question may be found in Josephus*. Herod between the tetrarch of Galilee was engaged in a war with his Josephus father-in-law Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, at and the very time that John was preaching in the wilderness; and the road from Galilee to Arabia running through that wilderness, the soldiers on their march had this interview with the Baptist. A coincidence like this, cap. 5, which sect. 1, 2.

(z) The style of Clemens Romanus may perhaps be an exception. By many eminent critics it has been thought so like to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, as to give room for the opinion that Clemens either was the author of that epistle, or was the person who translated it from the Syro-Chaldaic language, in which it was originally composed.

Vol. XIX. Part I. which has been overlooked by all the commentators, would not probably be attended to in a forgery.

Another instance of an agreement no less remarkable we shall quote from the valuable work of Michaelis. It has been a question of some difficulty among the learned, who was the Ananias who commanded St Paul to be smitten on the mouth when he was making his defence before the council in Jerusalem*. Krebs, in his remarks taken from Josephus, has shown him to have been the son of Nebedemi. But if so, how can it be reconciled with chronology, that Ananias was, at that time, called high priest, when it is certain from Josephus that the time of his holding that office was much earlier? And how comes it to pass that St Paul says, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest?" The sacerdotal garb must have discovered who he was; a jest would have ill-suited the gravity of a tribunal; and a falsehood is inconsistent with the character of St Paul.

All these difficulties vanish as soon as we examine the special history of that period: "Ananias the son of Nebedemi was high priest at the time that Helena queen of Adiabene supplied the Jews with corn from Egypt during the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St Paul therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome; but being afterwards released, he returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he could not be called high priest in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus has sometimes given him the title of segerus, taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had been raised in the mean time to the supreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the high-priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with that dignity by Agrippa, elapsed an interval during which the sacerdotal office was vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval that St Paul was apprehended in Jerusalem: and, the Sanhedrim being destitute of a president, he undertook of his own authority the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. It is possible therefore that St Paul, who had been only a few days in Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust to which he was not entitled; he might therefore very naturally exclaim, 'I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest!' Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority."

Could such a correspondence as this subsist between truth and falsehood, between a forgery and an authentic history? or is it credible that these events could be related by any person but a contemporary?

Impressed with the love of truth, and feeling contempt as well as detestation at pious frauds, we hesitate not to acknowledge, that in some particular facts there is a difference either real or apparent between Josephus and the writers of the New Testament. The objections arising from these differences are of two kinds: 1. Such as would prove a book not to have been written by the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. Such as consistencies would prove that the author was mistaken, and therefore not divinely inspired. To the first class belongs the following objection: St Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 32) overheard that the governor of Damascus was under Aretas the king; but if we are to judge from the 18th book of the Jewish Antiquities, which corresponds with the period of St Paul's Journey to Damascus, that city must have belonged at that time to the Romans; and what authority could Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, have in such a city? In answer to this question, J. G. Hyne, in a dissertation published in 1755, has shown it to be highly probable that Aretas, against whom the Romans, not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war, which they neglected to put in execution, took the opportunity of seizing Damascus which had once belonged to his ancestors; an event omitted by Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province. Secondly, That Aretas was by religion a Jew; a circumstance the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism had been widely propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix had recognized the law of Moses. The difficulty then is so far removed, that it ceases to create suspicion against an epistle which has so many evident marks of authenticity; and it is only to be regretted that, in order to place the subject in the clearest point of view, we are not sufficiently acquainted with the particular history of Damascus.

Examples of the second kind are such as if allowed their full force, might indeed prove a writer not divinely inspired, but could afford no reason to conclude that he was not the author of the writings which bear his name, since mistakes may be committed by the most accurate historian. The chief difficulties of this nature or to his are found in the gospel according to St Luke; and do want of not apply to the writings of Matthew, John, Paul, and Peter. Laying aside the idea of inspiration altogether, concerning let us inquire whether Luke or Josephus be most in the events entitled to credit in those passages where they differ; that best opportunities of exploring the truth of the facts which they relate. Now Josephus relates the same story differently in different parts of his works, and is sometimes equally mistaken in them all. We do not recollect to have seen such inconsistencies in the writings of St Luke. Luke knew the characters, and witnessed many of the facts, of which he speaks; and he could receive the best information respecting those facts which were transacted in his absence. Josephus was born A.D. 37, some years after our Saviour's ascension. Now it is a very important observation of Michaelis, that the period of history with which mankind are least acquainted is that which includes the time of their childhood and youth, together with the twenty or thirty years immediately preceding their birth. Concerning the affairs transacted during that period, we are much more liable to fall into mistakes than concerning those Scripture, those of a remoter age. The reason is, that authentic history never comes down to the period of our birth; our knowledge of the period immediately preceding depends on hearsay; and the events, which pass within the first eighteen or twenty years of our lives, we are too young and heedless to observe with attention. This must have been more remarkably the case in the time of Josephus than at present, when there were neither daily papers, nor periodical journals, to supply the want of regular annals. There was no historian from whom Josephus could derive any knowledge of the times that immediately preceded his birth. There is a period then of forty or fifty years, in which, even with the most diligent inquiry, he was exposed to error.

When we find therefore the relations of Luke and Josephus so different as not to be reconciled, it would be very unfair to determine without any further inquiry in favour of Josephus. Let their character, and works, and situation be strictly examined; let their testimony be duly weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the strictest rules of equity and justice, seems intitled to the highest degree of credit. The decision of a jury, we shall venture to say, would in every instance turn out in favour of Luke.

Having thus ascertained the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, the next thing to be considered is their inspiration. It is certainly of some importance to know how far the apostles and evangelists were guided in their writings by the immediate influence of the spirit of God; though this knowledge, if attainable, is not equally important with that of the authenticity of these writings. Michaelis indeed asserts, that the divinity of the New Testament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or not. "The question (says he), whether the books of the New Testament are inspired? is not so important as the question, whether they are genuine? The truth of our religion depends upon the latter, not absolutely on the former. Had the Deity inspired not a single book of the New Testament, but left the apostles and evangelists without any other aid than that of natural abilities to commit what they knew to writing, admitting their works to be authentic, and possessed of a sufficient degree of credibility, the Christian religion would still be well founded. The miracles by which it is confirmed would equally demonstrate its truth, even if the persons who attested them were not inspired, but simply human witnesses; and their divine authority is never presupposed, when we discuss the question of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. If the miracles are true which the evangelists relate, the doctrines of Christ recorded in the gospels are proved to be the infallible oracles of God; and, even if we admit the apostles to be mistaken in certain not essential circumstances, yet as the main points of the religion which Christ commissioned them to preach are so frequently repeated, their epistles would instruct us as well in the tenets of the Christian system, as the works of Machaerin in the philosophy of Newton. It is possible therefore to doubt, and even deny, the inspiration of the New Testament, and yet be fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion: and many really entertain these sentiments either publicly or in private, to whom we should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the class of unbelievers.

Yet the Christian religion would be attended with difficulty, if our principium cognoscendi rested not on firmer ground; and it might be objected, that sufficient care had not been taken for those whose consciences were tender, and who were anxiously fearful of mistaking the smallest of the divine commands. The chief articles indeed of Christianity are so frequently repeated, both by Christ and his apostles, that even were the New Testament not inspired, we could entertain no doubt of the following doctrines: 'Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, and an infallible messenger of God: he died for our iniquity; and, by the satisfaction made by his death we obtain remission of sins, if on our part be faith and amendment of life: the Levitical law is abolished, and moral precepts, with the ceremonies of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are appointed in its stead; after the present follows an everlasting life, in which the virtuous shall be rewarded and the wicked punished, and where Christ himself shall be the Judge.'

To the epistles indeed (says Michaelis), inspiration is of real consequence; but with respect to the historical books, viz. the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we should really be no losers if we abandoned the system of inspiration, and in some respects have a real advantage. We should be no losers, if we considered the apostles in historical facts as merely human witnesses, as Christ himself has done in saying, 'Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.' And no one that attempts to convince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity, would begin his demonstration by presupposing a doctrine which his adversary denies, but would ground his arguments on the credibility of the evangelists as human historians, for the truth of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Even those who examine the grounds of their faith for their own private conviction, must treat the evangelists as human evidence; since it would be arguing in a circle to conclude that the facts recorded in the gospels are true, because they are inspired, when we conclude the Scriptures to be inspired in consequence of their contents. In these cases, then, we are obliged to consider the evangelists as human evidence; and it would be no detriment to the Christian cause to consider them at all times as such in matters of historical fact. We find it nowhere expressly recorded that the public transactions which the apostles knew by their own experience, and of which St Luke informed himself by diligent inquiry, should be particular objects of divine inspiration. We should even be considerable gainers, in adjusting the harmony of the gospels, if we were permitted to suppose that some one of the evangelists had committed an immaterial error, and that St John has rectified some trifling mistakes in the preceding gospels. The most dangerous objections which can be made to the truth of our religion, and such as are most difficult to answer, are those drawn from the different relations of the four evangelists."

Before any inquiry is made respecting the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, it is necessary to determine the meaning of the term for theologians have given to it a variety of significations. Most of the German divines make it to consist in an infusion of words. words as well as ideas. Luther, Beza, and Salmasius restrict it to ideas alone. Doddridge understands by it an intervention of the Deity, by which the natural faculties of the mind were directed to the discovery of truth. Warburton and Law think it was a negative intervention to preserve the sacred writers from essential errors. Some believe every circumstance was dictated by the Holy Ghost; others suppose that no supernatural assistance was granted except in the epistolary writing.

See Inspiration.

As there is an evident distinction between inspiration and revelation, and as the origin of the Christian religion may be still proved divine, even though it were denied that those who record its facts and doctrines were inspired in the act of writing, it will be most judicious and safe to employ the word inspiration in that sense which can be most easily defended and supported. By doing this, much may be gained and nothing lost. It is difficult to prove to a deist that the words of Scripture are divine, because he sees that every writer has words and phrases peculiar to himself. It is difficult also to prove that the ideas were infused into the mind of the authors while they were engaged in the act of writing; because concerning facts they appeal not to divine inspiration, but declare what they have seen and heard. In reasoning they add their own sentiments to what they had received from the Lord, and subjoin, especially in their epistles, things not connected with religion. The definition which Doddridge gives, seems applicable to ordinary gifts or the usual endowments of rational creatures, rather than to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were bestowed on the apostles. Those who maintain that every fact or circumstance was suggested by divine inspiration, will find it no easy matter to prove their position. The opinion of Warburton and Law, with proper explanations, seems most probable. The opinion of Grotius, that only the epistles were inspired, may be easily refuted.

The proof of the authenticity of the New Testament depends on human testimony: The proof of its inspiration is derived from the declaration of inspired persons.

In proving that the New Testament is inspired, we presupposed its authenticity, that the sacred books were written by the apostles whose names they bear, and that they have been conveyed to us pure and uncorrupted. This we have already attempted to prove, and we hope with success. The evidence of inspiration is the testimony of Christ and his apostles, which we receive as credible, because they confirmed their doctrines by miracles. From the important mission of Christ and his apostles, we infer that every power was bestowed which divine wisdom thought expedient; and from their conduct we conclude, that it is morally impossible that they could lay claim to any powers which they did not possess. It is proper therefore to inquire into the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the nature, degree, and extent, of the inspiration bestowed on the writers of the sacred books.

If we consider Christ's more immediate promises of inspiration to the apostles, we shall find that he has given them, in the most proper sense of the word, at three several periods, 1st, When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel; 2dly, In holding a public discourse relating to the gospel, at which were present a considerable multitude; 3dly, In his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel, he thus addressed them: "When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." The same promise was made almost in the same words in the presence of an immense multitude (Luke xii. 11, 12). From these passages it has been urged, that if the apostles were to be inspired in the presence of magistrates in delivering speeches, which were soon to be forgotten, it is surely reasonable to conclude that they would be inspired when they were to compose a standard of faith for the use of all future generations of Christians. If this conclusion be fairly deduced, it would follow that the writings of the New Testament are the dictates of inspiration, not only in the doctrines and precepts, but in the very words. But it is a conclusion to which sincere Christians have made objections; for, say they, though Christ promises to assist his apostles in cases of great emergency, where their own prudence and fortitude could not be sufficient, it does not follow that he would dictate to them those facts which they know already, or those reasonings which their own calm reflection might supply. Besides, say they, if the New Testament was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and only penned by the apostles, what reason can be given for the care with which Christ instructed them, both during his ministry and after his crucifixion, in those things pertaining to the kingdom of God?

In answer to this we may observe, that though it be proper difficult to prove that the identical words of the New Testament were dictated by the Holy Spirit, or the train of ideas infused into the minds of the sacred writers, there is one species of inspiration to which the New Testament has an undoubted claim. It is this, that the memories of the apostles were strengthened and their understandings preserved from falling into essential errors. This we prove from these words of our Saviour, "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv. 26. This promise was surely not restrained to the day of Pentecost: it must have been a permanent gift, enabling the apostles at all times to remember with accuracy the discourses of our Saviour. When the apostles therefore (Matthew and John) relate those precepts of Christ which they themselves had heard, they write indeed from memory, but under the protection of the spirit who secures them from the danger of mistake; and we must of course conclude that their gospels are inspired.

Were we called upon more particularly to declare what parts of the New Testament we believe to be inspired, we would answer, The doctrines, the precepts, and the prophecies, every thing essential to the Christian religion. From these the idea of inspiration is inseparable. As to the events, the memory of the apostles was sufficient to retain them. If this opinion be just, it would enable us to account for the discrepancies between the sacred writers, which are chiefly confined to the relation of facts and events.

All the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, except the Gospel according to Mat- the epistle to the Romans, which there is reason to believe were composed in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which in the New Testament is called Hebrew.

Various reasons have been assigned why the greatest part of the New Testament was written in Greek; but the true reason is this. It was the language best understood both by writers and readers. Had St Paul written to a community in the Roman province of Africa, he might have written perhaps in Latin; but epistles to the inhabitants of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, from a native of Tarsus, could hardly be expected in any other language than Greek. The same may be said of the epistles of St Peter, which are addressed to the Christians of different countries, who had no other language in common than the Greek; and likewise of the epistles of St James, who wrote to Jews, that lived at a distance from Palestine, and were ignorant of Hebrew. The native language of St Luke, as well as of Theophilus, to whom he addressed his gospel, and Acts of the apostles, appears to have been Greek; and that St John wrote his gospel in that language, and not in Hebrew, is by no means a matter of surprise, since he wrote at Ephesus.

With respect to the epistle to the Romans, it may be asked indeed why St Paul did not write in Latin? Now, whoever proposes this question, must presuppose that St Paul was master of the Latin language in such a degree as to find no difficulty in writing it; a matter which remains to be proved. It is very probable that St Paul was acquainted with the Latin; but between understanding a language, and being able to write it, there is a very material difference. As St Paul was a native of Tarsus, his native language was Greek; he had travelled during several years through countries in which no other language was spoken, and when he addressed the Roman centurion at Jerusalem, he spoke not Latin, but Greek. Is it extraordinary, then, that in writing to the inhabitants of Rome he should have used a language which was there so generally understood? It has been long remarked, that Greek was at that time as well known in Rome as French in any court of modern Europe; that according to Juvenal even the female sex made use of Greek as the language of familiarity and passion; and that in letters of friendship Greek words and phrases were introduced with greater freedom than French expressions in German letters, as appears from Cicero's epistles to Atticus, and from those of Augustus preserved in the works of Suetonius. To this must be added a material circumstance, that a great part of the Roman Christians consisted of native Jews, who were better acquainted with Greek than with Latin, as either they themselves or their ancestors had come from Greece, Asia Minor, or Egypt, in which Greek was the language of the country. At least they read the Bible in that language, as no Latin translation of the Old Testament at that time existed; and the Christian church at that period consisting chiefly of Jews, the heathen converts in Rome were of course under the necessity of accustoming themselves to the Greek language. In short, St Paul in his epistle to the Romans made use of a language in which alone those who were ignorant of Hebrew could read the Bible. What has been here advanced respecting the epistle to the Romans is equally applicable to the Greek Scripture of St Mark, on the supposition that it was written at Rome.

To the above arguments may be added the example of Josephus, who, as well as the apostles, was by birth a Jew. He even lived in Rome, which is more than can be said of St Paul and St Mark, who resided there only a certain time: he was likewise younger than either; he came to Italy at an age which is highly suitable to the learning of a language, and previous to that period had spent several years in the Roman camp. The Jewish antiquities, the history of the Jewish war, and the account of his own life, he wrote undoubtedly with a view of their being read by the Romans; and yet he composed all these writings in Greek. He expresses his motive for writing his Greek account of the Jewish war in the following terms: "That having written in his native language (i.e. the Hebrew dialect at that time spoken) a history of the war, in order that Parthians, Babylonians, Arabians, Adiabenians, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates, might be informed of those events, he was now resolved to write for the Greeks and Romans, who had not been engaged in the campaigns, a more certain account than had hitherto been given." The motives which induced Josephus to write in Greek are fully as applicable to St Paul and St Mark.

Michaelis has thus characterized the style of the New Testament. "The New Testament (says he) was written in a language at that time common among the Jews, which may be named Hebraic Greek; the first traces of which we find in the translation of the LXX."

"Every man acquainted with the Greek language, is full of who had never heard of the New Testament, must immediately perceive, on reading only a few lines, that the style is widely different from that of the classic authors. We find this character in all the books of the New Testament in a greater or less degree, but we must not therefore conclude that they possess an uniformity of style. The harshest Hebraisms, which extended even to grammatical errors in the government of cases, are the distinguishing marks of the book of Revelation; but they are accompanied with tokens of genius and poetical enthusiasm of which every reader must be sensible who has taste and feeling. There is no translation of it which is not read with pleasure even in the days of childhood; and the very faults of grammar are so happily placed as to produce an agreeable effect. The gospels of St Matthew and St Mark have strong marks of this Hebraic style; the former has harsher Hebraisms than the latter, the fault of which may be ascribed to the Greek translator, who has made too literal a version, and yet the gospel of St Mark is written in worse language, and in a manner that is less agreeable. The epistles of St James and St Jude are somewhat better; but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St Luke has in several passages written pure and classic Greek, of which the first four verses of his gospel may be given as an instance; in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St Matthew or St Mark. In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty..." beauty devoid of art. St John has numerous, though not uncoth, Hebraisms both in his gospel and epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St Paul again is entirely different from them all; his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has upon the whole a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew, and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved."

Michaelis has shown that the New Testament not only contains Hebraisms but Rabbinisms, Syriasm, Chaldaism, Arabisms, Latinisms, and Persian words, of which he has exhibited many specimens. To theologians, whose duty it certainly is to study the language of the New Testament with attention, we would strenuously recommend the perusal of this work, which in the English translations is one of the most valuable accessions of scriptural criticism that has yet appeared. We speak of the English translation, which the large and judicious notes of Mr Marsh has rendered infinitely superior to the original.

To the observations which have been made respecting the language of the New Testament, a few remarks may be added concerning the peculiarities of the style and manner of the sacred writers, particularly the historians. These remarks extend to the Old Testament as well as to the New.—The first quality for which the sacred history is remarkable is simplicity in the structure of the sentences. The first five verses of Genesis furnish an example, which consist of eleven sentences. The substantives are not attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by adverbs, no synonymas, no superlatives, no effort at expressing things in a bold, emphatical, or uncommon manner.

2. The second quality is simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and uncultivated state of society about which that book is conversant.

3. Simplicity of design. The subject of the narrative so engrosses the attention of the writer, that he himself is as nobody. He introduces nothing as from himself, no remarks, doubts, conjectures, or reasonings. Our Lord's biographers particularly excel in this quality. This quality of style we meet with in Xenophon and Caesar.

The Evangelists may be ranked next to Genesis for simplicity of composition in the sentences. John and Matthew are distinguished for it more than Mark and Luke. But the sentiment is not so remarkable for simplicity in the Evangelist as the Pentateuch. The reasons of this difference are, 1. The state of the Jews was totally changed; their manners, customs, &c., split into factions both in religion and politics. 2. The object of our Lord's ministry, which is the great subject of the gospels, was to inculcate a doctrine and morality with which none of their systems perfectly coincided: besides, being constantly opposed by all the great men, the greater part of his history consists of instructions and disputes. 3. As it is occupied with what our Saviour said and what he did, this makes two distinctions of style and manner; that of our Saviour, and the sacred penman's. In their own character, they neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, praise nor blame. They generally omit the names of our Lord's enemies; thus directing our hatred at the vices they committed, not at the persons. They never mention such persons without necessity; which is the case with the high-priest, Pilate, Herod, and Judas: the three first for the chronology, the fourth to do justice to the eleven.

Herodias is, indeed, mentioned with dishonour; but her crime was a public one. On the other hand, all persons distinguished for any thing virtuous are carefully mentioned, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, Bartimeus, Jairus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. They record their own faults (Peter's, Thomas's), nor do they make any merit of their confession. In one uniform strain they relate the most signal miracles and most ordinary facts.

From the narrative is excluded that quality of style which is called animation. Nothing that discovers passion in the writer, or is calculated to excite the passions of the reader. Every thing is directed to mend the heart.

But in the discourses and dialogues of our Saviour, the expression, without losing any thing of its simplicity, is often remarkable for spirit and energy. Respecting harmony and smoothness, qualities which only add an external polish to language, they had not the least solicitude.

As to elegance, there is an elegance which results from the use of such words as are most in use with those who are accounted fine writers, and from such arrangements in the words and clauses as have generally obtained their approbation. This is disclaimed by the sacred authors.

But there is an elegance of a superior order more nearly connected with the sentiment; and in this sort of elegance they are not deficient. In all the oriental languages great use is made of tropes, especially metaphors. When the metaphors employed bear a strong resemblance, they confer vivacity: if they be borrowed from objects which are naturally agreeable, beautiful, or attractive, they add also elegance. The Evangelists furnish us with many examples of this kind of vivacity and elegance. Our Lord borrows tropes from cornfields, vineyards, gardens, &c.

As a valuable appendage to this part of our subject, proper might we shall subjoin Dr Campbell's method of studying the third of books of the New Testament. This we offer to our studious readers as a beautiful instance of the judicious application of philosophy to sacred studies. It is the same by analysis method of discovering truth by analysis and induction, and which was pursued by Sir Isaac Newton with such astonishing success, which since his time has been uniformly practised in natural philosophy, and has been also applied to chemistry, to medicine, to natural history, and to the philosophy of mind, by the ingenious Dr Reid. This is the path of sound philosophy, which can alone lead to the discovery of truth. In following it, our progress may be slow, but it will be sure. If all theologians would steadily adhere to it, we might then entertain the pleasing hope of discarding for ever those absurd systems of religion which are founded on single passages and detached fragments of scripture, and of establishing opinions and doctrines on a solid foundation. "To get acquainted with each writer's style; to observe his manner of composition, both in sentences and paragraphs; to remark the words and phrases peculiar to him, and the peculiar application that he may sometimes make of ordinary words; for there are few of those writers who have not their peculiarities in all the respects now mentioned. This acquaintance with each can be attained only by the frequent and attentive reading of his works in his own language.

"To inquire into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer, the time, the place, and the occasion of his writing, and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work. Every one of these particulars will sometimes serve to elucidate expressions otherwise obscure or doubtful. This knowledge may in part be learned from a diligent and reiterated perusal of the book itself, and in part be gathered from what authentic, or at least probable, accounts have been transmitted to us concerning the complements of the canon.

"The last general direction is, to consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method, by which the writer has purposed to execute his design. This direction is particularly applicable to the epistolary writings, especially those of Paul.

"If a particular word or phrase occur, which appears obscure, perhaps unintelligible, the first thing we ought to do, if satisfied that the reading is genuine, is to consult the context, to attend to the manner wherein the term is introduced, whether in a chain of reasoning or in a historical narration, in a description, or included in an exhortation or command. As the conclusion is inferred from the premises, or as from two or more known truths a third unknown or unobserved before may fairly be deduced; so from such attention to the sentence in connection, the import of an expression, in itself obscure or ambiguous, will sometimes with moral certainty be discovered. This, however, will not always answer.

"If it do not, let the second consideration be, whether the term or phrase be one of the writer's peculiarities. If so, it comes naturally to be inquired, what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places? If the sense cannot be precisely the same in the passage under review, perhaps, by an easy and natural metaphor or other trope, the common acceptation may give rise to one which perfectly suits the passage in question.—Recourse to the other places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the same author is of considerable use, though the term should not be peculiar to him.

"But thirdly, if there should be nothing in the same writer that can enlighten the place, let recourse be had to the parallel passages, if there be any such, in the other sacred writers. By parallel passages, I mean those places, if the difficulty occur in history, wherein the same or a similar story, miracle, or event, is related; if in teaching or reasoning, those parts wherein the same argument or doctrine is treated, or the same parable propounded; and in moral lessons, those wherein the same class of duties is recommended: or, if the difficulty be found in a quotation from the Old Testament, let the parallel passage in the book referred to, both in the original Hebrew, and in the Greek version, be consulted.

"But if in these there be found nothing that can throw light on the expression of which we are in doubt, the fourth recourse is to all the places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint version of the Old, adding to these the consideration of the import of the Hebrew or Chaldaic word, whose place it occupies, and the extent of signification, of which in different occurrences such Hebrew or Chaldaic term is susceptible.

"Perhaps the term in question is one of those which very rarely occur in the New Testament, or those called ἀπαρχαί, only once read in Scripture, and not found at all in the translation of the Seventy. Several such words there are. There is then a necessity, in the fifth place, for recurring to the ordinary acceptation of the term in classical authors. This is one of those cases wherein the interpretation given by the earliest Greek fathers deserves particular notice. In this, however, I limit myself to those comments wherein they give a literal exposition of the sacred text, and do not run into vision and allegory."

The manuscripts of the New Testament are the natural source from which the genuine readings of the Greek Testament are to be drawn. The printed editions are either copies of more ancient editions, or of manuscripts; and they have no further authority than as they correspond to the manuscripts from which they were originally taken. By manuscripts of the New Testament, we mean those only which were written before the invention of printing. The most ancient of these are lost, and there is no manuscript now extant older than the sixth century. Few contain the whole New Testament; some contain the four gospels; some the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles; and others the book of Revelation. The greatest number are those which contain the first part; those which have the second, or the first and second together, are likewise numerous; but those of the third are extremely few. It must be added also, that in many manuscripts those epistles are omitted whose divine authority was formerly doubted.

There are many manuscripts which have been examined only for a single text, such as 1 John v. 7, or at least for a very small number. Others have been examined from the beginning to the end, but not completely and in respect of all the readings. A third class consists of such as either have been, or are said to have been, completely and accurately collated. But this requires such phlegmatic patience, that we can hardly expect to find in critical catalogues all the various readings which have been only once collated. Wetstein, in collating many manuscripts anew, made discoveries which had entirely escaped the notice of his predecessors. The fourth class consists of such as have been completely and accurately collated more than once; but here also we are in danger of being led into error.—When various readings are transferred from one critical edition to another, as from that of Gregory to Mill's edition, and from the latter to those of Bengel and Wetstein, the manuscripts must sometimes be falsely named, and various readings must frequently be omitted. And as Wetstein has marked by ciphers manuscripts that in former editions had been denoted by their initial letters, he could scarcely avoid substituting, in some cases, one figure instead of another. The fifth class, which is by far the most valuable, consists of such as have... Scriptures have been printed word for word, and therefore form an original edition of the Greek Testament. We can boast but of a very few manuscripts of this kind. Hearne printed at Oxford, in 1715, the Acts of the Apostles in Greek and Latin from the Codex Laudianus 3; Kittel has annexed to his edition of Ulphilas, p. 53—118, a copy of two very ancient fragments preserved in the library of Wolfenbuttel; the one of the four Gospels in general, the other of St Luke and St John. Wode printed in 1786 the Codex Alexandrinus, a manuscript of great antiquity, which shall afterwards be more fully described; and the university of Cambridge has resolved to publish, in a similar manner, the Cod. Cant. I. or, as it is sometimes called, the Codex Beze, the care of which is intrusted to Dr Kipling, a publication which will be thankfully received by every friend to sacred criticism. It was the intention of the Abbé Spoletti, a few years ago, to publish the whole of the celebrated Codex Vaticanus; which would likewise have been a most valuable accession, since a more important manuscript is hardly to be found in all Europe. He delivered for this purpose a memorial to the pope; but the design was not put into execution, either because the pope refused his assent or the abbe abandoned it himself. See the Oriental Bible, vol. xxii. No. 333, and vol. xxiii. No. 348.

"A very valuable library," says Michaelis, "might be composed of the impressions of ancient manuscripts, which, though too expensive for a private person, should be admitted into every university collection, especially the Alexandrian and Cambridge manuscripts, to which I would add, if it were now possible to procure it, Hearne's edition of the Codex Laudianus 3. A plan of this sort could be executed only in England, by a private subscription, where a zeal is frequently displayed in literary undertakings that is unknown in other countries; and it were to be wished that the project were begun before length of time has rendered the manuscripts illegible, and the attempt therefore fruitless. Ten thousand pounds would go a great way towards the fulfilling of this request, if the learned themselves did not augment the difficulty of the undertaking, by adding their own critical remarks, and endeavouring thereby to recommend their publications, rather than by presenting to the public a faithful copy of the original. Should posterity be put in possession of faithful impressions of important manuscripts, an acquisition which would render the highest service to sacred criticism, all these editions of the New Testament should be regulated on the same plan as Hearne's edition of the Acts of the Apostles. It must be highly flattering to the patriotic spirit of an Englishman, to hear the encomiums which learned foreigners have so profusely bestowed on our liberality in supporting works of genius and learning and public utility. The plan which Michaelis proposes to us, in preference to all the other nations in Europe, Scripture is noble and magnificent, and would certainly confer immortality on those men who would give it their patronage and assistance.

There are many ancient manuscripts, especially in Italy, which have never been collated, but lie still unexplored. Here is a field where much remains to be done. See Marsh's Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 643.

Michaelis has given a catalogue of ancient manuscripts, amounting in number to 292, to which he has added a short account of each. In this place we shall confine our observations to the most celebrated, the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, which we have chiefly extracted from Michaelis.

The Alexandrian manuscript consists of four volumes; Account of the three first of which contain the Old Testament, the fourth the New Testament, together with the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and a fragment of the second. In the New Testament, which alone is the object of our present inquiry, is wanting the beginning as far as Matthew xxvi. 2, ἐγένετο ἡ ἡμέρα; likewise from John vi. 30. to viii. 52, and from 2 Cor. iv. 15. to xii. 7.

It must likewise be observed, that the Psalms are preceded by the epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, and followed by a catalogue, containing those which are to be used in prayer for each hour, both of the day and of the night; also by 14 hymns, partly apocryphal, partly biblical, the 11th of which is an hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary, entitled ἀπόστολος παρὰ τῆς Στυλίας: further, the Hypotheses Eusebi are annexed to the Psalms, and his Commentaries to the Gospels. It is true, that this has no immediate reference to the New Testament, but may have influence in determining the antiquity of the manuscript itself.

It has neither accents nor marks of aspiration; it is written with capital, or, as they are called, uncial letters, and has very few abbreviations. There are no intervals between the words; but the sense of a passage is sometimes terminated by a point, and sometimes by a vacant space. Here arises a suspicion that the copist did not understand Greek, because these marks are sometimes found even in the middle of a word, for instance Levit. v. 4, ἀπὸ ἑαυτοῦ, for ἀπὸ ἑαυτοῦ, and Numb. xiii. 29, ἀπὸ ἑαυτοῦ.

This manuscript was presented to Charles I. in 1628, by Cyrilus Lucaris patriarch of Constantinople. Cyrilus himself has given the following account: "We know so much of this manuscript of the holy writings of the Old and New Testament, that Thecla an Egyptian lady of distinction (mobilis femina Ægyptia) wrote it with her own hand 1300 years ago (A.D.)." She lived soon after the council of Nice. Her name was formerly at the end of the book; but when Christianity was subverted in Egypt by the errors of Mahomet, the books of the Christians suffered the same fate, and the name of Thecla

(a) He wrote this in the year 1628. According to this account, then, the manuscript must have been written in 328; a date to which so many weighty objections may be made, that its most strenuous advocates will hardly undertake to defend it. But this error has furnished Oudin with an opportunity of producing many arguments against the antiquity of the Codex Alexandrinus, which seem to imply, that Grabe and others, who have referred it to the fourth century, suppose it to have been written in the above-mentioned year. Now it is probable, that the inference which has been deduced from the account of Cyrilus is more than he himself intended to express, as he relates that Thecla lived after the council of Nice. Scripture. Titus was expunged. But oral tradition of no very ancient date (memoria et traditio recens) has preserved the remembrance of it.

But the reader will see that this account is merely traditional. Dr Semler very properly observes, that there is no more reason to rely on a tradition respecting the transcriber of an ancient manuscript, than on a tradition which relates to an ancient relic. The arguments which have been urged by Wetstein, Semler, Oudin, and Weide, to fix the date of this manuscript, are so many, that it would be tedious to repeat them. But, after all, its antiquity cannot be determined with certainty, though it appears from the formation of the letters, which resemble those of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the want of accents, that it was not written so late as the tenth century. In this century it was placed by Oudin, while Grabe and Schulze have referred it to the fourth, which is the very utmost period that can be allowed, because it contains the epistles of Athanasius. Wetstein, with more probability, has chosen a mean between these two extremes, and referred it to the fifth century; but we are not justified in drawing this inference from the information of the letters alone, for it is well known that the same mode of forming the letters was retained longer in some countries and in some monasteries than in others.

We are now in possession of a perfect impression of this manuscript, which is accompanied with so complete and so critical a collection of various readings, as is hardly to be expected from the edition of any other manuscript. Dr Weide published it in 1786, with types cast for that purpose, line for line, without intervals between the words, as in the manuscript itself; the copy is so perfect a resemblance of the original, that it may supply its place. Its title is Novum Testamentum Graecum e codice MS. Alexandrinus qui Londini in Bibliotheca Musaei Britannici asservatur descriptum. It is a very splendid folio; and the preface of the learned editor contains an accurate description of the manuscript, with an exact list of all its various readings, that takes up no less than 89 pages; and each reading is accompanied with a remark, in which is given an account of what his predecessors Junius, Walton, Fell, Mill, Grabe, and Wetstein, had performed or neglected.

The Vatican manuscript contained originally the whole Greek Bible, including both the Old and New Testament; and in this respect, as well as in regard to its antiquity, it resembles none so much as the Codex Alexandrinus, but no two manuscripts are more dissimilar in their readings, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. After the Gospels, which are placed in the usual order, come the Acts of the Apostles, which are immediately followed by the seven catholic epistles. This must be particularly noted, because some have contended that the second Epistle of St Peter, with the second and third of St John, were wanting. Professor Hiwiid, in a letter dated Rome, April 12, 1781, assured Michaelis that he had seen them with his own eyes, that the second Epistle of St Peter is placed folio 1434, the second of St John fol. 1442, the third fol. 1443:

(B) Probably because the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the Epistle to the Galatians, relates to the abolition of the Mosaic law.

Vol. XIX. Part I. authorities, have been hitherto produced: But this manuscript has not throughout the whole New Testament the same uniform text.

As we have now a beautiful printed edition of the Alexandrian manuscript by Dr Woide, it is much to be wished that we had also an exact impression of the Vatican manuscript. From the superstitious fears and intolerant spirit of the inquisition at Rome, all access to this manuscript was refused to the Abbé Spoletti, who presented a memorial for that purpose. Unless the pope interpose his authority, we must therefore despair of having our wishes gratified; but from the liberality of sentiment which the head of the Catholic church has shown on several occasions, we hope that the period is not far distant when the Vatican library will be open to the learned, and when the pope will think it his greatest honour to encourage their researches.

The most valuable editions of the Greek New Testament are those of Mill, Bengel, and Wetstein.

The edition of Mill, which was only finished 14 days before his death, occupied the attention of the author for 30 years.

The collections of various readings which had been made before the time of Mill, the Velsian, the Barberini, those of Stephens, the London Polyglot, and Fell's edition, with those which the bishop had left in manuscript, and whatever he was able to procure elsewhere, he brought together into one large collection. He made likewise very considerable additions to it. He collated several original editions more accurately than had been done before; he procured extracts from Greek manuscripts which had never been collated; and of such as had been before collated, but not with sufficient attention, he obtained more complete extracts. It is said that he has collected from manuscripts, fathers, and versions, not fewer than 30,000 various readings. This collection, notwithstanding its many imperfections, and the superiority of that of Wetstein, is still absolutely necessary to every critic: for Wetstein has omitted a great number of readings which are to be found in Mill, especially those which are either taken from the Vulgate, or confirm its readings. Mill was indeed too much attached to this version; yet he cannot be accused of partiality in producing its evidence, because it is the duty of a critic to examine the witnesses on both sides of the question: and Wetstein, by too frequently neglecting the evidence in favour of the Vulgate, has rendered his collection less perfect than it would otherwise have been. He likewise added, as far as he was able, readings from the ancient versions; and is much to be commended for the great attention which he paid to the quotations of the fathers; the importance of which he had sagacity enough to discern.

It cannot, however, be denied, that Mill's Greek Testament has many imperfections, and some of real importance. His extracts from manuscripts often are not only incomplete, but erroneous; and it is frequently necessary to correct his mistakes from the edition of Wetstein. His extracts from the oriental versions are also imperfect, because he was unacquainted with these languages; and in selecting readings from the Syriac, the Arabic, and Ethiopic, he was obliged to have recourse to the Latin translations, which are annexed to those versions in the London Polyglot.

The great diligence which Mill had shown in collecting so many various readings, alarmed the clergy as if the Christian religion had been in danger of subversion. It gave occasion for a time to the triumphs of the deist, and exposed the author to many attacks. But it is now universally known, that not a single article of the Christian religion would be altered though a deist were allowed to select out of Mill's 30,000 readings whatever he should think most injurious to the Christian cause.

In 1734, Bengel abbot of Alpirsbach, in the duchy of Württemberg, published a new edition of the Greek Testament. The fears which Mill had excited began to subside on this new publication; for Bengel was universally esteemed a man of piety. Bengel was not only diligent in the examination of various readings, but in the strictest sense of the word conscientious; for he considered it as an offence against the Deity, if, through his own fault, that is, through levity or carelessness, he introduced a false reading into the sacred text. His object was not merely to make a collection of readings, and leave the choice of them to the judgment of the reader, but to examine the evidence on both sides, and draw the inference; yet he has not given his own opinion so frequently as Mill, whom he resembled in his reverence for the Latin version, and in the preference which he gave to harsh and difficult readings, before those which were smooth and flowing. It may be observed in general, that he was a man of profound learning, and had a cool and sound judgment, though it did not prevent him from thinking too highly of the Latin readings, and of the Codex Alexandrinus, with other Latinizing manuscripts.

The imperfections of Bengel's edition arise chiefly from his diffidence and caution. He did not venture to insert into the text any reading which had not already appeared in some printed edition, even though he believed it to be the genuine reading. In the book of Revelation indeed he took the liberty to insert readings which had never been printed; because few manuscripts had been used in the printing of that book.

The celebrated edition of John James Wetstein, which is the most important of all, and the most necessary to those engaged in sacred criticism, was published at Amsterdam in 1751 and 1752, in two volumes folio. No man will deny that Wetstein's Prolegomena discover profound erudition, critical penetration, and an intimate acquaintance with the Greek manuscripts. It is a work which in many respects has given a new turn to sacred criticism, and no man engaged in that study can dispense with it. Wherever Wetstein has delivered his sentiments respecting a Greek manuscript, which he has done less frequently than Mill, and indeed less frequently than we could have wished, he shows himself an experienced and sagacious critic. He is likewise more concise than Mill in delivering his opinion, and does not support it by producing so great a number of readings from the manuscript in question. This conciseness is the consequence of that warmth and haste which were peculiar to Wetstein's character, and which have sometimes given birth to mistakes. The fire of his disposition was likewise the cause of his advancing conjectures, in regard to the history of his manuscripts, which exceed the bounds of probability. But the cri- Scripture. tical rules which he has delivered are perfectly just; and in this respect there is a remarkable agreement between him and his eminent predecessors Mill and Bengel. In regard to the Latin version alone they appear to differ: in Mill and Bengel it has powerful, and perhaps partial, advocates; but in Wetstein a severe and sagacious judge, who sometimes condemns it without a cause. The Greek manuscripts which confirm the readings of the Vulgate, and which he supposed had been corrupted from it, he of course condemned with equal severity: and some collections of various readings which had been made by Catholics, he made no scruple to pronounce a forgery, saying, "Timeo Damos et dema ferentem." But in consequence of his antipathy to the Vulgate, his collection of various readings is less perfect than it might have been.

It has been asked, 1. Whether he has quoted his manuscripts either falsely or imperfectly, in order to establish his own religious opinions? or, 2. Whether his diligence and accuracy have been such that we may at all times depend upon them? To the first of these questions there can be no other answer, than that Wetstein, in his character of a critic, is perfectly honest. With respect to the second, his diligence and accuracy, Michaelis thinks there is less reason to pronounce him faultless. But Mr Marsh has examined the examples on which Michaelis founds his assertion, and declares that Michaelis is mistaken in every one of them.

The diligence of Wetstein can scarcely be questioned by any who are acquainted with his history. He travelled into different countries, and examined with his own eyes a much greater number of manuscripts than any of his predecessors. His collection of various readings amounts to above a million; and he has not only produced a much greater quantity of matter than his predecessors, but has likewise corrected their mistakes. The extracts from manuscripts, versions, and printed editions of the Greek Testament, which had been quoted by Mill, are generally quoted by Wetstein. Whenever Wetstein had no new extracts from the manuscripts quoted by Mill, or had no opportunity of examining them himself, he copied literally from Mill; but wherever Mill has quoted from printed editions, as from the margin of Robert Stephen's for instance, or from the London Polyglot, Wetstein did not copy from Mill, but went to the original source, as appears from his having corrected many mistakes in Mill's quotations.

In the opinion of Michaelis, there are many defects in the edition of Wetstein, which require to be supplied, and many errors to be corrected. Yet still it must be allowed to be a work of immense labour, and most valuable to those engaged in sacred criticism; and it is surprising, when we consider the difficulties and labour which Wetstein had to encounter, that his errors and imperfections are so few.

The proposal of Michaelis, however, of a new collation of manuscripts, in order to form a complete collection of various readings, is worthy the attention of the learned. In mentioning this proposal, Michaelis turns a wishful eye towards Britain, the only country, he says, which possesses the will and the means to execute the task. Should a resolution, he adds, be formed in this island, so happily situated for promoting the purposes of general knowledge, to make the undertaking a public concern, to enter into a subscription, and to employ men of abilities in collating manuscripts both at home and abroad, they would be able to do more in ten years than could otherwise be done in a century. And could this nation direct its attention to any object more glorious or more useful than in ascertaining the text of the sacred Scriptures, and giving to posterity an accurate edition?

As the sense of Scripture, as well as all other books, is affected by the punctuation, it is of importance to determine whether the stops or points which we find in the sacred books were used by the sacred writers, or have been inserted by modern transcribers.

We are told by Montfaucon, in his Palaeographia Graeca, p. 31, that the person who first distinguished the several parts of a period in Greek writing, by the introduction of a point, was Aristophanes of Byzantium, who lived under Ptolemaeus Epiphanes, in the 14th Olympiad. But though points were not used in books before this period, they were employed in inscriptions above 400 years before the birth of Christ. See Mont. Pal. Grac. p. 135.

Under the article Punctuation we mentioned, on authority which we reckoned unquestionable, that the ancient manuscripts were written without any points. We have now, however, discovered, from Weide's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, that points are used in that manuscript, though omitted in the facsimile given by Montfaucon. That they are found too in the Codex Vaticanus, though not frequently, is related by Birch in his Prolegomena, p. 14.

As the fact has not been generally known, that the ancients pointed their manuscripts, and as it is an important and interesting fact, we shall present our readers with the first six lines of St John's Gospel, as they are pointed in the Alexandrian manuscript:

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΝΗΝΟΛΟΓΟΣΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΤΟΝΩΝ ΚΑΙΘΕΝΗΝΟΛΟΓΟΣ· ΟΥΤΟΥΝΕΝΑΡΧΗΝΠΡΟΣΤΟΝΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΑΔΙΑΙΤΤΟΕΤΕΝΕΤΟ ΚΑΙΧΩ ΡΕΙΣΑΤΤΟΤΕΤΕΝΕΤΟΤΟΔΕΕΝ· ΟΣΕΤΟΝΕΝΕΝΑΤΤΩΖΩΗΝ·

Whether any points for marking the sense were used by the apostles, cannot be determined; but the points now in use have been invented since.

In the fourth century, Jerome began to add the comma and colon to the Latin version; and they were then inserted in many more ancient manuscripts. In the fifth century, Euthalius a deacon of Alexandria divided the New Testament into lines. This division was regulated by the sense, so that each line ended where some pause was to be made in speaking. And when a copyist was disposed to contract his space, and therefore crowded the lines into each other, he then placed a point where Euthalius had terminated the line. In the eighth century, the stroke was invented which we call a comma. In the Latin manuscripts, Jerome's points were introduced by Paul Warnfried and Alcuin, at the command of Charlemagne. In the ninth century, the Greek note of interrogation (;) was first used. At the invention of printing the editors placed the

The meaning of many passages in the Scripture has been altered by false pointing. We shall produce one instance of this: Mat. v. 34, is commonly pointed in this manner, ἐὰν δὲ λαλῇς πρὸς τὸν συντρόπον ὑμῶν ἐκεῖ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, and consequently translated, "But I say unto you, swear not at all." But if, instead of the colon placed after ὑμῶν, we substitute a comma, the translation will be, "But I say to you that you ought by no means to swear, either by heaven, for it is his throne, or by earth, for it is his footstool." The command of Christ therefore applies particularly to the abuse of oaths among the Pharisees, who on every trivial occasion swore by the heaven, the earth, the temple, the head, &c. but it implies no prohibition to take an oath in the name of the Deity on solemn and important occasions.

The ancients divided the New Testament into two kinds of chapters, some longer and some shorter. This method appears to be more ancient than St Jerome, for he expunged a passage from the New Testament, which makes an entire chapter. The longer kind of chapters were called breves, the shorter capitula. St Matthew contained, according to Jerome, 68 breves; Mark contained 48; Luke 83; and John 18. All the evangelists together consisted of 217 breves and 1126 capitula. The inventor of our modern division into chapters was Hugo de S. Caro, a French Dominican friar, who lived in the 13th century.

The ancients had two kinds of verses, one of which they called vigae, and the other capitulae. The remota were lines which contained a certain number of letters, like our printed books, and therefore often broke off in the middle of a word. Josephus's 20 books of Antiquities contained 60,000 of them, though in Itigius's edition there are only 40,000 broken lines.

Stichi were lines measured by the sense; according to an ancient written list mentioned by Father Simin, there were in the New Testament 18,612 of these.

The verses into which the New Testament is now divided are more modern, and an imitation of the division of the Old Testament. Robert Stephens, the first inventor, introduced them in his edition in the year 1551. He made this division on a journey from Lyons to Paris; and, as his son Henry tells us in the preface to the Concordance of the New Testament, he made it inter equitandum. This phrase probably means, that when he was weary of riding, he amused himself with this work at his inn.

This invention of the learned printer was soon introduced into all the editions of the New Testament; and it must be confessed, that in consulting and quoting the Scriptures, and in framing concordances for them, a subdivision into minute parts is of the greatest utility. But all the purposes of utility could surely have been gained, without adopting the hasty and indigested division of Stephens, which often breaks the sense in pieces, renders plain passages obscure, and difficult passages unintelligible. To the injudicious division of Stephens we may ascribe a great part of the difficulties which attend the interpretation of the New Testament, and a great many of those absurd opinions which have disgraced the ages of the Reformation. For as separate verses appear to the eyes of the learned, and to the minds of the unlearned, as so many detached sentences, they have been supposed to contain complete sense, and they have accordingly been explained without any regard to the context, and often in direct opposition to it. Were any modern history or continued discourse divided into fragments with as little regard to the sense, we should soon find, that as many opposite meanings could be forced upon them as have been forced upon the books of the New Testament. The division into verses has been still more injurious to the Epistles than to the Gospels, for there is a close connection between the different parts of the Epistles, which the verses entirely dissolve. It is therefore to be wished that this division into verses were laid aside. The Scriptures ought to be divided into paragraphs, according to the sense; and the figures ought to be thrown into the margin. In this way, the figures will retain their utility without their disadvantages. Dr Campbell, in his beautiful translation of the Gospels, has adopted this method with great judgment and success; and he who will read that translation, will perceive that this single alteration renders the Gospels much more intelligible, and, we may add, more entertaining (E).

The word ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ signifies any joyful tidings, Meaning of and the word Gospel.

(D) The reader will perceive that the account of the origin of points is different from that given under PUNCTUATION. But the best authors differ upon this subject. We shall perhaps reconcile the difference, by supposing that points were invented at the time here mentioned, but were not in general use till the time mentioned under the article PUNCTUATION.

(E) We shall here subjoin, as a curiosity, what the anonymous author terms the Old and New Testament dissected. It contains an enumeration of all the books, chapters, verses, words, and letters, which occur in the English Bible and Apocrypha. It is said to have occupied three years of the author's life, and is a singular instance of the trifling employments to which superstition has led mankind.

| Books in the Old | 39 | in the New | 27 | Total | 66 | Apocryph. | |------------------|----|------------|----|-------|----|----------| | Chapters | | | | | | | | Verses | 929| | | | | | | Words | 23,214| | | | | | | Letters | 592,439| | | | | |

The OLD and NEW TESTAMENT dissected.

The In the New Testament this term is confined to "The glad tidings of the coming of the Messiah." Thus, in Mat. xi. 5, our Lord says, "The poor have the Gospel preached;" that is, The coming of the Messiah is preached to the poor. Hence the name of Gospel was given to the histories of Christ, in which the good news of the coming of the Messiah, with all its joyful circumstances, are recorded.

That the Gospel according to Matthew was composed, says Dr Campbell, by one born a Jew, familiarly acquainted with the opinions, ceremonies, and customs of his countrymen; that it was composed by one conversant in the sacred writings, and habituated to their idiom; a man of plain sense, but of little or no learning, except what he derived from the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and finally, that it was the production of a man who wrote from conviction, and had attended closely to the facts and speeches which he related, but who in writing entertained not the most distant view of setting off himself—we have as strong internal evidence as the nature of the thing will admit, and much stronger than that wherein the mind ninety-nine cases out of a hundred acquiesces.

That the author of this history of our blessed Saviour was Matthew, appears from the testimony of the early Christians. It is attested by Jerome, Augustin, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom, and in such a manner as shews that they knew the fact to be uncontroverted, and judged it to be uncontrovertible. Origen, who flourished in the former part of the 3rd century, is also respectable authority. He is quoted by Eusebius in a chapter wherein he specially treats of Origen's account of the sacred canon. "As I have learned (says Origen) by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven; the first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language." In another place he says, "Matthew writing for the Hebrews who expected him who was to descend from Abraham and David, says

The middle Chapter and the least in the Bible is Psalm 117. The middle Verse is the 8th of the 118th Psalm. The middle time is the 2d of Chronicles, 4th Chap. 16th Verse. The word And occurs in the Old Testament 35,543 times. The same in the New Testament occurs 10,684 times. The word Jehovah occurs 6855 times.

OLD TESTAMENT. The middle Book is Proverbs. The middle Chapter is Job 29th. The middle Verse is 2d Chron. 20th Chap. between 17th and 18th Verses. The least Verse is 1 Chron. 1st Chap. and 1st Verse.

NEW TESTAMENT. The middle Book is Thessalonians 2d. The middle Chapter is between the 13th and 14th Romans. The middle verse is 17th Chap. Acts, 17th Verse. The least verse is 11th Chap. John, Verse 35. The 21st Verse of the 7th Chapter of Ezra has all the letters of the alphabet. The 19th Chapter of 2d Kings and 37th of Isaiah are alike. which it was written. This we are assured by Papias, by Irenæus, and Origen, was the Hebrew; but the truth of this fact has been disputed by Erasmus, Whitby, and others. Whitby urges the improbability that Providence would have suffered the original of this gospel to be lost, and nothing to remain but a translation. This is an argument of no force against written testimony; indeed we are always in danger of drawing false conclusions when we argue from our own opinions of the conduct of Providence: For His ways are not as our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts. But though we are forced to acknowledge that the gospel according to Matthew which we possess is a translation, it is evidently a close one; and the very circumstance that it has superseded the original, is a clear proof that it was thought equally valuable by the ancient Christians. It is necessary to remark, that the language in which the gospel according to Matthew was originally composed, and which is called Hebrew by Papias, Irenæus, and Origen, is not the same with the Hebrew of the Old Testament: it was what Jerome very properly terms Syro-Chaldaic, having an affinity to both languages, but much more to the Chaldean than to the Syrian.

The time when this gospel was composed has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Irenæus says that "Matthew published his gospel when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." Now Paul arrived at Rome A.D. 60 or 61, and it is very probable suffered martyrdom in A.D. 65. This may be justly concluded from comparing the relation of Tacitus with that of Orosius, a writer of the fifth century. Orosius having given an account of Nero's persecution of the Christians, and of the death of the two apostles in it, adds, that it was followed by a pestilence in the city, and other disasters. And Tacitus relates that a pestilence prevailed in the city, and violent storms took place in Italy, in the year of Christ 65. Matthew's gospel was therefore written between the year 60 and 65.

That this history was primarily intended for the use of the Jews, we have, besides historical evidence, very strong presumptions from the book itself. Every circumstance is carefully pointed out which might conciliate the faith of that nation; every unnecessary expression is avoided, which might in any way serve to obstruct it. To come to particulars, there was no sentiment relating to the Messiah with which the Jews were more strongly possessed, than that he must be of the race of Abraham, and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jesus. That he should be born at Bethlehem in Judea, is another circumstance in which the learned among the Jews were universally agreed. His birth in that city, with some very memorable circumstances that attended it, this historian has also taken the first opportunity to mention. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, which either foretel anything that should happen to him, or admit an allusive appellation, or were in that age generally understood to be applicable to events which respect the Messiah, are never passed over in silence by this Evangelist. The fulfilment of prophecy was always to the Jews, who were convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, strong evidence. Accordingly none of the Evangelists has been more careful than Matthew, that no thing of this kind should be overlooked.

That which chiefly distinguishes Matthew's writings from those of the other Evangelists, is the minute and distinct manner in which he has related many of our Lord's discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the apostleship, he was an eye and ear witness of most of the things which he relates. And these are circumstances which incline Dr Campbell to think that Matthew has approached as near the precise order of time in which the events happened as any of the Evangelists.

Concerning the life of the apostle Matthew we have nothing to add, as the principal circumstances in his life have already been mentioned. See MATTHEW.

The Gospel according to Matthew is cited seven times in the epistle of Barnabas, twice in the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, eight times in the Shepherd of Hermas, six times in Polycarp's small epistle to the Philippians, and seven times in the smaller epistles of Ignatius. These citations may be seen at full length in Jones's New and Full Method of settling the Canon, with the parallel passages in the gospel according to Matthew.

That Mark was the author of the gospel which bears his name, and that it was the second in the order of time, is proved by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Christians. Many authorities are therefore unnecessary; we shall only mention those of Papias and Irenæus. Eusebius has preserved the following passage of Papias: "This is what was related by the elder (that is, John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus); Mark being Peter's interpreter wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer or follower of our Lord; but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord's teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occurred to his memory: for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood into his narrative." Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded as he assigns his authority. He spake not from hearsay, but from the information which he had received from a most credible witness, John the elder, or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles.

Irenæus, after telling us that Matthew published his gospel whilst Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, adds: "After their departure (1709), Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter."

The Greek ἀπολογία, like the English word departure, may either denote death, which is a departure out of the world, or mean a departure out of the city. It is probably in the former of these senses it is here used. Yet by the accounts given by some others, Mark's gospel was published in Peter's lifetime, and had his 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 salutes 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 ἐκροτής, "centurion," and σταυροῦστος, "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, ἐκροτής, "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 Hinnom, 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, ἐκροτής τὸ ἐκροτής, "the unquenchable fire." Instead of the word Μεσσίας, he uses the common term ἐκροτής, "riches." When he employs the oriental word ἐκροτής, he subjoins the interpretation ἐκροτής ἐκροτής, 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 considered as a mere abridger, for he omits altogether several things related by Matthew, viz. our Lord's pedigree, his birth, the visit of the Magi, 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 Scripture, 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 derived, Mark derived his information from the apostle Peter. It would be improper, therefore, not to remark 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 Irenæus, and nine times by Tertullian.

That the author of the gospel which is the third in order was Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, is evident from the testimonies of Irenæus, Clement of St Luke, 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 seventy 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 supersede some 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 anything 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 both by 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 an

an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zacchaeus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for 18 years; the cure of the dropsical 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 Irenæus as particularly belonging to this gospel, and has thereby shown to us, without intending it, that the gospel of Luke was the same 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," (κατέδειξεν ἀπόδοτον). 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. Irenæus has made above a hundred citations from it. In his lib. iii. adv. Haeres. 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, surnamed 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 Bonnergæs, or Sons of Thunder. He was anxious to restrain 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 tenderness for his mother. See JOHN.

The ancients inform us, that there were two motives which induced John to write his gospel; the one, that 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 Irenæus 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 impassible, and afterwards fled back into his own pleasure or fulness." As Irenæus is the most ancient author who has written upon this subject, many appeals have been made to his authority. The authority of Not to confine Irenæus 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 assures 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; FORBIDDING 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 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 conspicuous 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 care 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 Origen, Barnabas three times, by Ignatius five times, by Justin Martyr six times, by Irenaeus, and above forty times by Clemens Alexandrinus.

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 the

---

(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 Bethesda was dried up? 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 Clement Romans, by Polycarp, by Justin Martyr, thirty times by Irenæus, 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.

| Epistle | Places | A.D. | |---------------|-----------------|------| | 1 Thessalonians | Corinth | 52 | | 2 Thessalonians | Corinth | 52 | | Galatians | Corinth or Ephesus | near the end of 52 or beginning of 53 |

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; obscurity but there are some peculiar to St Paul. 1. As he had an acute and fertile mind, he seems to have written epistles 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 I 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 apostles; There is a third cause of obscurity; he frequently proposes 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 on 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 abstruse 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 premises 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 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, intitled 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 children 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 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—19.): 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 syllogisms (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 inadvertency, (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 Isaiah, 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 fulfill 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 consecrate 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 Morea 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 seemed 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 General for those vices to which they were most propense; design of it. 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 dissuades 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 and 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 posèd to church? And, 2d, Whether they should withdraw him 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 praises 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 shown 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 asserts 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 25.), since he found he must have treated them with severity. Hence his adversaries partly argued, 1. That St Paul was irreligious and unsteady, 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 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 sicknessness, (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 apostolical 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 commission, (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 Scripture thrown on him for the mildness of his conduct, as if it had proceeded from fear. He asserts 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 Thessalonica. 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; asserts 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 the promises which God made to Abraham were not restricted to his circumcised descendants, but extended proves that to all who are his children by faith, (chap. iii. 6—18.). The law of Moses was not obligatory; 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 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 from false which he gave of his life; but he now directly and openly contradicts it in the following manner:

1. By assuring 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 insinuating 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 slander 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 staid 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 asserting 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 intitled 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 Scripture 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 Philemon, 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 and design of 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 seasonable 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, therewith 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 Colosseans 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 demons 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 times of denied the Jews. 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 xviii. 1, that Scripture, 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 persecution 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 blessings 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 to promote their edification, which lay so near his heart, (chap. iii. throughout). Having now shown 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 chastity, 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 farther 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 and 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, 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 degression, 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 works.

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 Timothy 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; insomuch that not only Hymeneus, but Philetus, another Egyptian 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 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

(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 to Scripture, 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 show 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 dissension 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 insinuating 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. 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 master-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 annotated composition of the apostle.

The Epistle to the Hebrews has been generally ascribed to Paul; but the truth of this opinion has been suspected by others, for three reasons: 1. The name of brevis was the writer is nowhere mentioned, neither in the beginning nor in any other part of the Epistle. 2. 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. 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 in these qualities to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 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 easily determined: For the salutation from the saints 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 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 shown 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 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 subservient; and of course, that the obligation of the law was henceforth dissolved (chap. vii. 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 insinuations 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 assist storm of persecution which in part had already befallen them, which was likely to continue and be often renewed; to bear persecution, he reminds them of those extremities they had endured, and of the fatal effects which would attend their 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, Scripture, 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. 30. xii. 2.).

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 incontestable 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 apostolical 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 (epistola 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 year 61 or 62.

James the Less stately resided at Jerusalem, whence he hath been styled by some ancient fathers bishop of that city, though without sufficient foundation. Now ge's Family James being one of the apostles of the circumcision, 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 of it, the apostle seems to have principally aimed at, though he hath not pursued 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, (ch. 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 Romanus, by Polycarp, and is quoted by Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. It is addressed to the strangers scattered through Pontus, &c., who are evidently Christians in general, as appears from 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. Scripture. 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 proselytes 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 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 oftenest 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 proportional 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 excite the Christian converts to adorn, and stedfastly 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 Irenæus, and was received as genuine by Clement and men Alexandrinus, by Dionysius of Alexandria, by Cyprian, 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 apostle 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 corrupters 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 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 ἔγκυος for a proper name), by others Eclecta. The third is inscribed to Gaius, or Cains 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 Pedagogium. 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 false 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 Apocalypse or Revelation has not always been unanimously received as the genuine production of the apostle John. Its authenticity is proved, however, by the testimony of many respectable authors of the first two 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, Cainus 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 may desire to be informed how the predictions revealed in this book of St John have usually been interpreted and applied, we shall consistently with our subject 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 analysis or abridgment of them.

Nothing of a prophetical nature occurs in the first three chapters, except, 1. What is said concerning the church ton's exaltation of Ephesus, that her "candlestick shall be removed out of its place," which is now verified, not only in this, but all the other Asiatic churches which existed at that 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 language, "ten years;" referring to the persecution of Dioclesian, 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 Dioclesian. The fifth seal begins at Dioclesian, 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 sounding of seven trumpets.

As the seals foretold the state of the Roman empire before and till it became Christian, so the trumpets fore-show 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 sounded in the eighth chapter. At the sounding of the first, Alaric and his Goths invade the Roman empire, besiege Rome twice, and set it on fire in several places. At the sounding 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 sounding 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 sounding 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 sounded in the ninth, tenth, and part of the eleventh chapters. At the sounding of the fifth trumpet, Mahomet, that blazing star, appears, opens the bottomless pit, and with his locusts the Arabians darken the sun and air. And at the sounding 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 sixth 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 protest, 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 whose 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 Ashes, Latins, or its equivalent in Hebrew, Romith.

| A | 30 | |---|----| | A | 1 | | T | 300 | | E | 5 | | I | 10 | | N | 50 | | O | 70 | | Σ | 200 |

666

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 everlasting 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