comes down only to about the year 135, B. C.; | tions during this period, Prideaux's "Old and so that the student is compelled to have recourse New Testament connected" is the best work exto other sources to supply the deficiency. Jose- tant. Dr. A. Clarke has given a succinct sumphus we have already mentioned; but for a con- mary of this at the close of his Commentary on nected history of the Jews and neighbouring na- the Old Testament.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE GOSPELS.*

not long after the apostles, shows that these books | do it with this remark, that the gospels received were then well known by the name of Gospels, and were read by Christians in their assemblies every Lord's-day. We also learn from him that they were read by Jews, and might be read by heathens; and that we may not doubt that, by the "memoirs of the Apostles, which" says he, "we call gospels," he meant these four, received then in the church, he cites passages out of each, declaring that they contained the words of Christ. (3) Irenæus, in the same century, not only cites them all by name, but declares that there were neither more nor fewer received by the church, and that they were of such authority, that though the heretics of his time complained of their obscurity, depraved them, and endeavoured to lessen their authority, yet they durst not wholly disown them, nor deny them to be the writings of those apostles whose names they bore. He further cites passages from every chapter of Matthew and Luke, from fourteen chapters of Mark, and from twenty chapters of John. (4) Clemens of Alexandria, having cited a passage from "the gospel according to the Egyptians," informs his readers "that it was not to be found in the four gospels delivered by the church." (5) Tatian, who flourished in the same century, and before Irenæus, wrote "a chain," or "harmony of the Gospels," which he named, "The Gospel gathered out of the Four Gospels." (6) Inasmuch as these gospels were written," says Irenæus, "by the will of God, to be the pillars and foundation of the Christian faith," the immediate successors of the apostles, who, says Eusebius, did great miracles by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and performed the work of evangelists in preaching Christ to those who had not yet heard the word, made it their business, when they had laid the foundation of that faith among them, to "deliver to them the writings of the holy gospels."

66

3. It has been objected, however, that other gospels, bearing the names of apostles, are mentioned as having existed in the early ages of Christianity. But this materially tends to confirm the tradition of the church, concerning those four we now receive. This will be evident from the following considerations. (1) We find no mention of any of these supposititious gospels till the close of the second century, and of but few of them till the third or the fourth; that is, not until long after the general reception of the four gospels by the whole church of Christ. For Justin Martyr and Irenæus, who cite large passages from these four gospels, take not the least notice of any others, mentioned either by the heretics or by the orthodox. (2) Those writers who speak of them, in the close of the second, or in the following centuries,

by the tradition of the church were only four, and that the others belonged not to them, nor to the evangelical canon. Dr. Whitby, to whom we are indebted for these remarks, and in whose general preface the reader may find the authorities for the passages here cited, sums up the argument as follows: Seeing, then, (1) that these four gospels were received without any doubt or contradiction by all Christians from the beginning, as the writings of those apostles and evangelists whose names they bear, and that the first Christians both acknowledged and testified that these writings were delivered to them by the apostles, as the pillars or fundamental articles of their faith: Seeing (2) that the same gospels were delivered by the immediate successors of the apostles to all the churches which they converted or established, as the rule of their faith: Seeing (3) they were read from the beginning, as Justin Martyr testifies, in all assemblies of Christians, on the Lord's day; and so must have been early translated into those languages in which alone they could be understood by some churches, viz., the Syriac and Latin: Seeing (4) they were generally cited in the second century for the confirmation of the faith, and the conviction of heretics; and that the presidents of the assemblies exhorted those who heard them to practise and imitate what they heard: Seeing (5) we never hear of any other gospels till the close of the second century, and then only hear of them with a mark of reprobation, or a declaration that they were Tygapa, falsely imposed upon the apostles, that they belonged not to the evangelical canon, or to the gospels delivered to the churches by a succession of ecclesiastical persons, or to those gospels which they approved, or by which they confirmed their doctrines, but were to be rejected as the inventions of manifest heretics;-all these considerations must afford us a sufficient demonstration that all Christians then had unquestionable evidence that these four gospels were the genuine works of those apostles and evangelists whose names they bore, and so were worthy to be received as the records of their faith. What reason, then, can any persons of succeeding ages have to question what was so universally acknowledged by those who lived so near to that very age in which these gospels were indited, and who received them under the character of the holy and divine Scriptures?

4. In closing these introductory remarks, it may be necessary to advert to a subject which has given rise to a multiplicity of works on the continent of Europe especially, viz., the origin of the three first gospels. Since the publication of Bishop

Marsh's translation of Michaelis, in which the our limits, and useless to the great bulk of our learned translator inserted an elaborate dissertation readers. There are many phenomena in the liteon the subject of this inquiry, it has been dis-rary history of the Scriptures which it is infinitely cussed to a considerable extent among the divines beyond the capacity of mortals to comprehend ;of Germany. The cause of the inquiry is to be it is foolish and absurd to attempt the explication, found in the verbal agreement of the three evan- in many instances, of their literal difficultiesgelists on some of the subjects on which they especially where we are unable to afford even the treat, while in others there is found, not only a appearance of accounting for them, except from difference in the words, but a discrepancy in the mere hypothesis and groundless conjecture, unfacts. To account for these phenomena, various assisted by any positive evidence; and it would be hypotheses have been assumed, each of which has profane to mutilate the Scriptures, or alter them been advocated with considerable learning and even in a single word or letter, without sufficient zeal. The following are the two principal ones: authority. We believe that none of the hypo(1) The later evangelists borrowed from the theses proposed, will be found sufficient to account writings of the former. This theory of course for the verbal phenomena of the Gospels; and we admits of a great variety of modifications. Any therefore think it the wisest measure to reject the one of the three might be supposed the original, whole of them. If the evangelists copied from and either of the other two might be supposed to each other, their testimony will be reduced to one have drawn from him, and the third from either only; and if they used a common document, the or both of the two former. The precedence is case will be so much the worse, since that one will accordingly assigned in a different order by dif- then be an unknown testimony. We must thereferent critics, and almost every possible shape of fore use extreme caution, lest, by admitting a the hypothesis has found an advocate.* common document, we should lower the character of the sacred writers, and diminish the independent proofs of their credibility and authenticity. Their remarkable agreement is a convincing proof of their strict fidelity; while their occasional difference affords incontrovertible evidence that they neither copied each other, nor drew from a common source.‡

(2) All the three evangelists, or at leo of them, drew from some common source orces. This hypothesis, also, is susceptible of many forms. For not only might there be several sources or one; but if only one, this one might be either oral tradition, or a written document; and if the latter, that might either be imagined so copious as to occasion different selections, or so scanty as to occasion different enlargements. All these views -that of several documents prior to our gospels; that of a common oral tradition; that of a single, large, and multifarious original, from which our evangelists made extracts; and that of a concise outline, which in its passage through various hands grew to the size of a little book-were suc cessively adopted. It was in the last form, that of a short Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic original document, supposed to have constituted the basis of our three first gospels, that the above hypothesis was introduced into this country by Bishop Marsh, with the modifications which appeared to him necessary to explain all the phenomena of the gospels.+

(3) It is not our design to enter into an investigation of this subject: it would be incompatible with

* In support of the general hypothesis, the reader may con- period, we know not. sult Townson's "Discourses on the four Gospels."

+ Those persons who are desirous of obtaining a general view of the state of the controversy, may consult the Introduction to Schleiermacher's "Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke," which is drawn up with considerable ability. A less extended view of the subject may be seen in the "Critica Biblica, Vol. II., pp. 345-359.

His gospel, which is placed first in all the col

The reader may consult Bishop Gleig's edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, Vol. III., p. 105, &c.; and Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, p. 33, &c.

lections of the sacred books, is almost universally used, while the converts remained in Judea, or at allowed to have been the earliest written. Its least during the continuance of the Pauline perprecise date is difficult of determination. The secution; and that it might have been given earliest period assigned to it is 37; the latest, 64. about six years after the ascension, when the perAfter a careful consideration of the arguments secution was beginning; in the year 34 or 35, the adduced on each side of this much litigated ques- date which is here assigned to it. The Greek tion, we prefer the earlier date as the most pro- gospel might have been given some years later, bable.* when the converts returned to Jerusalem, and quired inspired histories of our Lord to be sent to their brethren of those cities in which their safety had been secured. This hypothesis will reconcile some of the discrepancies which have embarrassed many inquirers in their research into the early history of the church. It accounts also for the early disuse and non-appearance of the Hebrew gospel, while it agrees with the early date assigned to Matthew's history

3. Another thing that has exercised the talents and ingenuity of biblical critics, is the language in which this evangelist wrote his gospel. There have been three hypotheses offered, each of which can boast as its advocates, men of profound learning and talents. The first opinion is, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, or the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, spoken by the Jews in our Saviour's time; the second is, that he wrote his gospel in Greek; and the third is, that there were two originals, one Greek, the other Hebrew. The arguments seem to preponderate in favour of the last mentioned opinion; for, as Mr. Townsend remarks, the authorities which Dr. Lardner and Mr. Horne have collected, to prove that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, or that there were some documents called the gospel of Matthew compiled in that language, are so numerous and so decisive, that we are hardly warranted in rejecting these testimonies; and there are again, on the other hand, such evident marks of originality in the present Greek gospel of Matthew, that we are not justified in esteeming it, with Michaëlis, a mere translation. It is possible that the real state of the case might be this. When the persecution began, or was beginning, Matthew, who, perhaps might have already committed to writing the memorable events of Christ's history, might have distributed among his own countrymen, the converts of Jerusalem, an account of the transactions and teaching of our Lord; but as the persecution was not confined to Judea, but extended to Gentile cities, the converts who had taken refuge in them would be naturally anxious to have the gospel in that language which was most generally understood, that the glorious works of redemption and salvation might be made known to them, as well as to others. It is probable, therefore, that the Hebrew gospel was first

*The reader who is desirous of weighing the arguments on either side of this question, may consult Tomline's Elements of Theology, Vol. 1., p. 301; Owen's Observations on the Four Gospels, p. 8, &c., and Townson's Works, Vol. I., p. 107, &c., in favour of the early date; and in favour of the late date, Lardner's Works, Vol. II., p. 163, &c. 4to.; Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. II., p. 97, &c.; and Percy's Key, p. 39, &c., 7th edition, Mr. Horne has given an abstract of these arguments, Introd., Vol. IV., p. 229, &c., 4th edit. which has been copied with some additions by Mr. Townsend; Arrangement of Old Test., Vol. II., p. 80, &c.

4. That Matthew wrote his Gospel for the use of the Jews, not only accords with the voice of antiquity, but with the contents of the book itself, in which every circumstance is carefully pointed out which might conciliate the faith of that nation; and every unnecessary expression avoided which might serve in any way to obstruct it. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, relative to the Messiah, and which were generally understood in that age to be so, are never passed over in silence. The fulfilment of prophecy was always to the Jews, convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, a principal topic of argument. Accordingly, none of the evangelists has been more careful than Matthew, that nothing of this kind should be overlooked. He has, further, been more particular than either of the other evangelists, in relating those discourses of our Lord which go to recommend internal religion and purity, and to unveil the deformities and denounce the wickedness of deceit and hypocrisy. That this was admirably adapted for the instruction of the Jewish converts, will appear from the following considerations.

5. The Jews were much disposed to consider the letter of the law as the complete rule and measure of moral duty; to place religion in the observance of rites and ceremonies, or in a strict adherence to some favourite precepts, written or traditionary ; to ascribe to themselves sufficient power of doing the

† Arrangement of the New Testament, Vol. II., p. 89. On this much disputed question, the student may consult Lardner's Works, Vol. II., p. 157, &c. 4to edit.; Townson's Works, Vol. I., p. 30; Marsh's Michaëlis, Vol. III., Part I., p. 112, &c.; Campbell on the Gospels, Vol. III., p. 2, &c., 3rd edit. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, Vol. II., p. 664, &c. Whitby's General Preface, and Horne's Introduction, Vol. IV. p. 234, &c.

Campbell on the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 36, &c.; and Town son's Works, vol. i. p. 121, &c..

divine will without the divine assistance; and, vain of a civil or legal righteousness, to contemn all others, and esteem themselves so just that they needed no repentance, nor any expiation but what the law provided. They rested in the covenant of circumcision and their descent from Abraham as a sure title to salvation, however their lives were led; and though they looked for a Messiah, yet with so little idea of an atonement for sin to be made by his death, that the cross proved the great stumbling-block to them. They expected him to appear with outward splendour, as the dispenser of temporal felicity; the chief blessings of which were to redound to their own nation in an earthly Canaan, and in conquest and dominion over the rest of mankind.*

6. A tincture of these delusive notions, which they had imbibed by education and the doctrine of their elders, would be apt to remain with too many, even after their admission into the church of Christ. How necessary, then, was it, that just principles concerning the way of life and happiness, and the nature and extent of the gospel, should be infused into the breasts of these sons of Sion, that they might be able to work out their own salvation, and promote that of others; since they were to be the salt of the earth, and the light of the world; the first preachers of righteousness to the nations, and the instruments of calling mankind to the knowledge of the truth.

before us in various discourses, beginning with the sermon on the mount, to which Matthew hastens, as with a rapid pace, to lead his readers. And that the holy light shining on the mind by the word and life of Christ, and quickening the heart by his Spirit, might be seconded in its operations by the powers of hope and fear, the twentyfifth chapter of this gospel, which finishes the legislation of Christ, exhibits him enforcing his precepts, and adding a sanction to his laws, by the most noble and awful description of his future appearance in glory, and the gathering of all nations before him to judgment. Matthew then passes to the history of the Passion, and shows them, that the new covenant, foretold by their prophets, was a covenant of spiritual, not of temporal blessings; established in the sufferings and death of Christ, whose blood was shed for many, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS (Matt. xxvi. 28); which it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away. To purge the conscience from the pollution of dead and sinful works required the blood of him, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.

8. With the instructions of Christ are intermixed many hints, that the kingdom of God would not be confined to the Jews, but that, while numbers of them were excluded through unbelief, it would be increased by subjects of other nations. And thus the devout Israelite was taught, in submission to the will and ordinance of heaven, to embrace the believing Samaritan as a brother, and to welcome the admission of the Gentiles into the church, which was soon after to commence with the calling of Cornelius. And as they suffered persecution from their own nation, and were to expect it elsewhere in following Christ, all that can fortify the mind with neglect of earthly good, and contempt of worldly danger, when they come in competition with our duty, is strongly inculcated.†

7. Matthew therefore has chosen, out of the materials before him, such parts of our blessed Saviour's history and discourses, as were best suited to the purpose of awakening them to a sense of their sins, of abating their self-conceit and overweening hopes, of rectifying their errors, correcting their prejudices, and exalting and purifying their minds. After a short account, more particularly requisite in the first writer of a gospel, of the genealogy and miraculous birth of Christ, and a few circumstances relating to his infancy, he pro- | ceeds to describe his forerunner, John the Baptist, who preached the necessity of repentance to the race of Abraham and children of the circumcision, is and by his testimony prepares us to expect one mightier than he; mightier as a prophet in deed are free from obscurity and intricacy-the narand word, and above the sphere of a prophet, rative is well conducted-the discourses, parables, mighty to sanctify by his Spirit, to pardon, reward, and actions of Jesus, are described in an artless, and punish by his sovereignty. Then the spiritual unaffected simplicity, and without a nature of his kingdom, the pure and perfect laws of the historian; the reader being left to draw the by which it is administered, and the necessity of

9. This gospel abounds more than any of the others with allusions to Jewish customs, and with terms and phrases of Jewish theology. The style every where plain and perspicuous--the words are arranged in their natural order-the periods

any

encomiums

vital and universal obedience to them, are set worthy an apostle-shows the familiar friend and his gospel is

companion of the Saviour-and its whole form and structure evinces its author to have had a perfect

Rom. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 438. P.

+Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 5, &c

N