CHAPTER VII.

REFLECTIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT,

FURTHER PROOF OF ITS DIVINE ORIGIN.

IN

THE disciples of Jesus having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, according to the promise of our Lord, obeyed his command of "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost *;" having first formed a church at Jerusalem, of which the sacred historian in a single expression gives us a more exalted idea, than volumes from the pen of an uninspired writer, " And the multitude of them that believed, were of one heart and of one soul," &c. Thus we see the preaching of the everlasting Gospel had its commencement in Jerusalem, and from thence it was rapidly spread among the Gentile nations.

It is clear that the history of our Lord was not reduced to writing till some time after the establishment of the church at Jerusalem; for neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the Epistles, do

we find any quotations from the Gospels; which would naturally have been the case, had they been in being at the time the events related in the one, and alluded to in the others, occurred. Being full of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles spake without plan or premeditation, as circumstances called forth their energies; fearlessly carrying the name of Jesus from city to city, from province to province, offering to all to partake of the waters of life freely, according to the commands of their heavenly Master, that they were to "preach the Gospel to every creature *."

When the word of Christ had extended over

many countries when believers were every where "added to the church daily," it cannot be doubted but that many became anxious to be possessed of a statement of the remarkable facts of the birth of the Messiah, together with that of his holy life and triumphant death. It is probable that at that time some incorrect accounts had found their way into circulation, which explains St. Luke's introduction to his Gospel beginning in these words, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things," &c.

From this preface of St. Luke's, one gathers three things: first, that some histories of Christ

Mark xvi. 15.

which had already made their appearance, were incorrect and imperfect: but, secondly, we do not discover that he means to imply that the design of these authors was blameable; he only appears to give us to understand that their attempt had not been happily executed indeed, it is quite plain, that when St. Luke wrote this, it was not directed against those spurious Gospels which afterwards inundated the Christian church; for his expressions are not pointed and strong, as we can easily imagine they would have been, had he been attacking deceit and falsehood. Thirdly, our observation is led to this conclusion, namely, that when he thus addressed himself to "Theophilus," the friend of God he could not have seen either of the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or John; either from their not having been composed, 'as was the case decidedly with regard to St. John's Gospel, or from his ignorance of the existence of the other two; for it is not at all probable that he would have included such indisputably Divine composition in his remarks about imperfect and incorrect histories, without making any exceptions in their favour.

To St. Lukestells us himself, that he wrote his Gospel before he recorded the Acts, of which he was also the author... With regard to the writings of the three other Apostles, tradition varies as to

the exact time at which they were published; this is a subject on which it is useless to disturb the mind by conjecture. We have clearly established them to be the inspired word of truth; which, in fact, is the only part of the argument which is really important to the pious Christian: but still the inquiry is not wrong, when carried on in a spirit of humility to satisfy a laudable curiosity. But, alas! there are some, we know, who make their inquiries in a very different spirit from this; some who in fact only make them to cavil and raise objections. The most received opinion on this subject is to be found in Ireneus, who tells us, that St. Matthew published his Gospel in Hebrew, and preached to the people at the same time in that language; and that St. Mark, the disciple of Peter, left us in writing those things which that Apostle preached. While St. Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote that Gospel, concerning the particulars of which he was instructed by him; and some time after St. Luke, John, the beloved disciple, published his Gospel, while he dwelt at Ephesus.

Theophylactes says, in his preface to his commentaries on St. Matthew, that the Gospel of that Apostle was written eight years after the ascension of Jesus; that St. Mark published his two years after St. Matthew's had made its ap

pearance. St. Luke, he continues to tell us, wrote five years after St. Mark, and St. John not till thirtytwo years after our Lord's ascension. Some people indeed, have believed that St. John wrote his Gospel at a very advanced age, as much as ninetyeight years after the nativity of our Lord. I confess, I cannot at all enter into this supposition. I can much more readily follow that of Theophylactes, for it does not appear to me at all probable that St. John should have written his Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem; for if this had been the case, surely he would not have passed over such an awful circumstance in silence; particularly as it was an event which our Lord had so distinctly foretold. If he wrote thirty-two years after the ascension, as Theophylactes relates, his Gospel would, in that case, have preceded the fall of Jerusalem some years.

However, this is a matter which does not affect our eternal salvation; and as Almighty Wisdom has thought fit not to set it forth in revelation, we may, without the slightest impropriety, form our own conjectures on it; and draw such conclusions from the various accounts which we have, as appear to us to be the most reasonable, remembering that true believers in the revealed word of God, are not required to be slaves to the traditions of

men.

According to the Fathers, the most probable