St. Matthew was the first who wrote, probably not long after our Lord's afcenfion; with a special view to reclaim the loft sheep of the house of Ifrael. The evidence to this priority, and to this defign, is ftrong and unexceptionable. Of the former indeed no proof is required, becaufe from the earliest times it has, I believe, been univerfally admitted: but that he addreffes himself most particularly to the race of Abra

ham,

Here is a very visible and a very curious difference-in words only--the fenfe is in all refpects precifely the fame.. But if any alteration fhould intentionally be made, that affects the meaning and corrupts the doctrine of Chrift, who fhall eftimate the guilt of fo daring an impiety?—That fuch an alteration has actually been hazarded in the Doway teftament, I feel myself called upon to state. The memorable words fpoken by our Lord to his mother, at the marriage in Cana, are rendered in our English verfion, Woman, what have I to do with thee? In the Doway teftament, published by authority, and circulated in this country for the edification of the Romanifts, the words are thus perverted, Woman, rubat is that to me and to thee? We speak of the bleffed Virgin with great reverence: she was highly favoured: but the grofs error of the Romanifts, refpecting her, we, and all the reformed churches in Chriftendom, utterly renounce. This paffage is one, among many, which flatly contradicts the Romish doctrine; and becaufe it lies, as it were, on the furface, and meets the eye of every common reader, it is of great importance that it should not be falfified. Nobody in the leaft acquainted with the Greek language, could have given fuch an interpretation as the Doway tranflator has ventured to give. But I fear we cannot afcribe the error, of which he is guilty, to his ignorance of the Greek idiom; for the fame phrafe had twice occurred in the gospel of St. Mark, and is rendered co: rectly. The Doway translator therefore was not igno ant!!! See John ii. 4. Mark i. 24. and

V. 7.

I fall juft mention one other inftance of difagreement between the English and Doway verfions. The Greek word which in the former is fendered repent, is interpreted in the latter do penance.

I leave the fagacious reader to comment upon this artful diverfity of expreffion, and to calculate the profits that have arisen from it.

ham, may be inferred with almost equal certainty-from the familiar and unexplained ufe of terms peculiar to the Jews, which abound in his gospel (b); from the frequent appeals he makes; and even from his manner (c) of appealing to the prophecies in the old teftament, refpecting the Meffiah; from the great folicitude he manifefts to recite the words, rather than the aions of our Lord: and this is a characteriftic of his Gospel much to be regarded: for we find St. Matthew lefs diftin&t and circumftantial in relating the miracles of Christ, than their vast importance feems to require. They had been, in fact, performed in the presence of multitudes, who were living at the time he composed his Gospel, and by consequence so incontrovertibly attested, that the Evangelist of the Jews had no occafion to notice all the minute circumstances that accompanied them: he accordingly speaks of those wonderful tranfactions with fuch a brevity, as is generally used in the mention of things public and notorious. But on the topics of difcourfe immediately applicable to the Jewish nation, which had been urged by his divinę mafter

(b) Such as Holy City, Holy Place, the Children of the Kingdom, Sea of Galilee, Power as a name of God, &c. &c. &c.

(c) St. Matthew cites the Prophets as delivering orally, Mofes Spoke fpoken of by the prophet, &c. &c. Such was the Jewish manner. St. Luke

master with inimitable energy, and which to them who knew the law, were irrefiftibly convincing, he is copious to admiration, and the particular object of his evangelical labour becomes manifeftly displayed.

St. Mark followed St. Matthew, after an interval of fome time, and wrote under the guidance of St. Peter, at that period when the Christian church embraced a confiderable portion of Gentile as well as Hebrew converts. He confequently applies himself to both: but, for the fake of the former, is more attentive to the relation of facts than his predeceffor; frequently fupplying his deficiencies in that refpect; generally adding fome explanation of Jewish terms and customs (d); and appealing with more reserve to the scripture of the old testament.

As the church became ftill farther extended, a third Gospel, fubmitted at least to the revifion of St. Paul, was published by St. Luke, with a view yet more immediate to the converted Gentiles. He ftudiously declines alluding to the Mofaic law (e); and never in his own perfon, except once (f), refers to the writings

of

(d) Inftances of this are very numerous. Compare Matt. xv. 1—2. and Mark vii. I-5.

(e) Compare Matt. vii. 12. and Luke vi. 31. Alfo Matt. xxiii. 23. and Luke xi. 42.

(ƒ) Luke iii. 4—6. In this passage he cites at large as to perfons not acquainted with the writings. Matthew, in referring to the fame place, thinks it fufficient to point at it. See Matt. iii. 3. and compare.

of the prophets. But in relating the fame events, he frequently adds to the perfpicuity of the former narrations (g), and introduces many things, not noted by the other Evangelifts, which tend to encourage a more general converfion, by proving that the doctrine of Chrift was graciously designed for all the nations of the earth, though his personal miniftry had been limited to the people of Ifrael.

The Gofpel of St. John is evidently and confeffedly fupplemental to the other three; and written at a period confiderably later. It contains much fewer hiftorical facts, and certainly prefumes that the record of our Saviour's actions had been fully divulged. It must be confidered, therefore, as bearing teftimony to the truth of thofe accounts already publifhed; and as giving them the fan&tion of St. John's authority, by the very filence it preferves (b). But the difciple whom Jefus loved did not fhrink from the cause of his ever bleffed Mafter. He chofe his part: and fatisfied with the hiftories then exifting of the public miniftry, he enlarges with fuperior force, and more than human cloquence, on the higher points; of the divinity

of

(g) Compare Mark v. 36-38. with Luke viii 5-1. Compare alfo the three accounts of one action, Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 15. Luke v. 29. or Matt xxvi. 67-68. Mark xiv. 65. Luke xxii. 63-64.

(b) It is remarkable that even the inftitution of the Lord's fupper is

Chrift; of the Almighty Word; of the offices sustained by the Son of God, as the Author of Salvation, and the Giver of Eternal Life.

The reader who is thus apprized of the biafs, or prevailing drift of each Evangelift, will enter upon the study of the Gospels with great advantage. He will not wonder, for he can affigu a caufe, why the fermon on the mount, delivered at large by St. Matthew, fhould be fo confiderably abridged in the Gofpel of St. Luke. Nor again, why the parable of the prodigal fon, related by St. Luke, should pass unnoticed by St. Matthew. The difference in both cafes will evidently appear to be a natural confequence of their different defigns. In the former inftance, though much of that divine difcourfe is applicable to all persons, and at all times; yet much alfo is manifeftly levelled at the house of Ifrael, at the fingular errors, and fingular prejudices of that extraordinary people. In the latter, who can fail to recognise the favourite object of the Gentile Evangelift, in the animating call, and gracious promife of reception, which that eminent parable announces to the heathen world (i). It

(i) St Luke alone relates the parable of the good Samaritan, the Publican in the temple, and many others; all with the fame view. He alone tells of the pardon of the penitent thief on the crofs; and makes it a chief object to impress the grateful doctrine, that the Son of man came not to defroy mens' lives, but to fave them.

1