Dr. Lardner has entered very fully into this question he thinks, that St. Matthew wrote in Greek; and that the original Greek was translated into Hebrew: and that this translation was the Hebrew Gospel, which, it is acknowledged, existed in the primitive age of Christianity. I must own that his reasoning appears to me very inconclusive; and I cannot but remark, that he has not attempted to support his opinion by the authority of a single antient writer. This is so contrary to his usual practice, that I am inclined to think with Dr. Campbell (p), his judgment was biassed by his system of Credibility.

V. ST. MATTHEW, being from the time of his call, a constant attendant upon our Saviour, was well qualified to write the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard in a natural and unaffected style; and he is more circumstantial in his account than any other of the Evangelists. That he published his Gospel in Palestine, for the immediate use of the Jews, was the opinion of all antient ecclesiastical writers; and it is confirmed by the contents of the

originally written in Hebrew, for they could not otherwise have had a pretence for receiving this, and rejecting the other Gospels.

(p) Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel.

the book itself. There are more references in this, than in any other Gospel, to Jewish customs; and cities and places in Palestine are always mentioned in it as being well known by those to whom it is addressed. St. Matthew seems studiously to have selected such circumstances, as were calculated to conciliate or strengthen the faith of the Jews; for example, no sentiment relative to the Messiah was more prevalent among them, than that he should be of the race of Abraham, and family of David, and accordingly St. Matthew begins his narrative by shewing the descent of Jesus from those two illustrious persons; he then relates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the city in which the Messiah was expected to be born; and throughout his Gospel he omits no opportunity of explaining the Scriptures and of pointing out the fulfilment of phophecy, which was known to have greater weight with the Jew's than any other species of evidence: moreover, he records 'many of our Saviour's reproofs to the Jews for their errors and superstitions, and thus endeavours to eradicate from their minds those prejudices, which impeded the progress, or sullied the purity, of the Christian faith. Though this Gospel was particularly adapted to the Jews, it must also have been very useful in confirming

* 2

[PART II. firming and in converting other persons, espe cially those who were acquainted with the types and predictions of the Old Testament.

"As the sacred writers, especially the Evangelists, have many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of them, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the rest. That which principally distinguishes Matthew, is the distinctness and particularity with 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-witness and ear-witness of most of the things which he relates: and though I do not think it was the scope of any of these historians, to adjust their narratives to the precise order of time, wherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline me to think, that Matthew has approached at least as near that order as any of them (q)." And this, we may observe, would naturally be

the

(q) Dr. Campbell's Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel.

the distinguishing characteristic of a narrative, written very soon after the events had taken place.

The most remarkable things recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the visit of the Eastern magi; our Saviour's flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins; the dream of Pilate's wife; the resurrection of many saints at our Saviour's crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard, appointed to watch at the holy sepulchre, by the chief priests and elders.

PART II.

CHAPTER THE THIRD.

OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.

1. History of St. Mark.-II. Genuineness of his Gospel.III. Its Date.—IV. Observations.

I. DOUBTS have been entertained, both in antient and modern times, whether Mark the Evangelist be the same as John, whose surname was Mark, mentioned in the Acts and in some of St. Paul's Epistles. This appears a very uncertain point; but as even Dr. Campbell, who thinks that they were different persons, admits that there is no inconsistency in the contrary supposition, I shall, with Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, and Michaelis (a), consider them as the same. It is known to have been a common thing among the Jews for the same person to have different names.

We shall therefore consider Mark, the author

of

(a) Cave, Grotius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, were of a contrary opinion.