gelists are not accountable. And even granting that some real ambiguities are to be found in their gospels, arising from the various senses of the same word, or the various constructions of the same sentence, this is no more than what takes place in all languages, ancient and modern; all equally tolerating and licensing, primary and secondary, literal and figurative significations of words*. And who can question, that many seeming ambiguities and difficulties, which perplex the profoundest scholars of the present day, were perfectly plain and intelligible to their countrymen and contemporaries, who were familiarized to the idiom, and well acquainted with all the oriental and foreign customs and manners to which the gospels either openly refer, or tacitly allude.

Another source of ambiguities and dissonances, in the sacred text, may and must have arisen from literal errors, that have glided occasionally into the multiplied copies of the original autographs of the evangelists, in the course of so many ages, during their wide dissemination throughout all lands. Our enemies, who deny the inspiration of the evangelists themselves, will not surely contend for the inspiration of all the successive copiers, even from one single manuscript. This, however, we may venture to assert, that the multiplicity of manuscripts from widely different quarters, and of ancient versions, furnish, by careful collation of their various readings, more abundant critical helps for forming a correct text of the sacred writers, both of the Old and New Testament, than of any other ancient writers whatsoever throughout the world. And we may assert with confidence, that the verbal inaccuracies, which, after all our pains, will and must remain in the original text, without a second inspiration of the editors, (which is not to be expected by the warmest high churchman) are trivial in themselves, not affecting any material point of faith, doctrine, or practice. They resemble motes mingling in the sun-beams.

And further, if we candidly and impartially compare the evangelists with any other writers of memoirs, or histories of a given person, or period of time, the superiority of the former, in point of consistency, will be found immense. Take, for instance, the parallel accounts of the trial of Socrates, furnished by his

Let the reader look into Johnson's Dictionary, and he will find, to the full, as many meanings attached to English words, as in any Lexicon to Greek.

two favourite pupils, Plato and Xenophon. The former states, "when Socrates was commanded by the Judges to estimate his fine, [to prevent sentence of death from being passed on him] he did so, and rated it at a mina of silver; adding, that if it were thirty minæ, his friends there present, Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus, had engaged to be his sureties." And Eubulides agrees with Plato as to the amount, while Diogenes Laertius reckons it only five and twenty drachmæ, or a quarter of a mina. But what says Xenophon?"-" Socrates neither rated it himself, nor would he suffer his friends to rate it; on the contrary, he said, that to rate it would imply a confession of guilt." Again, according to Plato, "Socrates declared, that he was always attended, from his youth, by a demon (or god) whose divine voice, when it came, always dissuaded him from what he was going to do, [if wrong] but never persuaded [or advised him to do what was right." Whereas Xenophon asserts, that "it signified to him beforehand, both what he ought, and what he ought not, to do. And he even urged this inspiration, as an answer to the charge of introducing strange gods." See the original passages, Newcome's Harmony, Pref. p. 4. Here are serious and irreconcileable contradictions, affecting both the character and doctrine of Socrates, equally well attested.

Take, in like manner, the four Roman historians, Polybius, Liry, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Dion Cassius, or four English historians, Rapin, Hume, Macauly, and Henry; and they will be found to exhibit contradictions, glaring and irreconcileable, respecting the most important facts, institutions, and dates, within the very same periods of history.

CREDIBILITY.

The foregoing observations have, in great measure, anticipated this last head; for what can be wanting to the credibility of historians so well informed of all the facts and doctrines which they relate, from the purest sources of human and divine testimony? What other historians could ever presume to say, "We are Christ's witnesses of these things, and so is also the HOLY SPIRIT, whom GOD hath given to them that obey him ;” which equally applies to their preaching, and to their writings, Acts v. 32.

And the gospels themselves furnish internal evidence of their credibility throughout, the most convincing and satisfactory, in

the fairness and impartiality of their relations, respecting friends and enemies; they "nothing extenuate" respecting the former, but disclose the frailties, the imperfections, and the faults, even of the first and greatest of the apostles, Peter, James, and John, Thomas, &c.; "nor do they set down aught in malice" respecting the latter. Of all those who were concerned in the prosecution and death of CHRIST, they name only the high-priest Caiaphas, and his coadjutor Annas, the Roman procurator Pilate, and the treacherous disciple Judas, because the suppression of their names would have impaired the evidence of their history to posterity. And even these are barely mentioned without censure, and without resentment. The epithet attached to Judas, ὁ παραδους αυτον, by all the evangelists, is expressive of the simple fact, "who delivered him up," rather than of its criminality; which would more aptly be signified by о πродоνç aνтоν, "who betrayed him," or by προδους αυτον, apоcorns, "traitor," as he is styled on one solitary occasion by Luke, vi. 16. Compare John xviii. 36, 37, where the verb Tapadiow signifies merely to "deliver up," and is so rendered. in the English Testament.

Our Lord's biographers, while they were ready to do justice to distinguished merit, to signalize the exemplary faith of a Roman centurion, or of a Syrophenician woman, carefully avoided naming any one without necessity, of whom they had nothing to say that was not to his discredit. They direct our admiration, and our hatred, to virtues and vices, not to persons. They do nothing, they assume nothing, in their own character. In the OLD TESTAMENT, indeed, the sacred penmen were the voice of GOD to the people, and they not only exhorted and rebuked with all authority, but even delivered their own opinions without restraint or reserve. But the evangelists, like the Baptist, acted merely as deputed heralds * of CHRIST; and deeply impressed with a sense of his pre-eminence as the ORACLE and SON OF GOD, and of their own insignificance, they sink themselves in the shade, to place him in the foreground, in the most

"AS THE FATHER delegated (aπEOTαλKɛ) me [to be his representative,] (the visible IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, Col. i. 15.) so send I (πɛμπш) you [to be my heralds,”] John xx. 21. "Go ye into all the world, publish (кnovžare) THE GOSPEL to all the creation," Mark xvi. 15. Such sameness of sentiment in the different Gospels, which evaporates in our translation, is truly admirable.

conspicuous light; they even, as it were, annihilate themselves, that JESUS may be all in all. Never could it be more truly said of any historians, that "they published not themselves, but CHRIST THE LORD;" reporting, in singleness of heart, what was said and done by Him, and to Him, throughout the whole course of his ministry, and nothing else, without partiality or prejudice, and without disguise," SACRIFICING TO THE TRUTH ALONE," according to Lucian's precept for writing history, MΟΝΗ ΘΥΤΕΟΝ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ.

It now remains to trace the connection, and shew the consistency, of their memoirs in detail, by a careful comparison, and critical harmony, of the four gospels in the originals, not depending upon loose translations.

JOHN THE BAPTIST.

"THE LAW and THE PROPHETS subsisted till John," with whom commenced THE GOSPEL dispensation, Matt. xi. 13, Luke xvi. 16, Acts i. 21, 22. With his history, therefore, Luke properly begins his gospel, as introductory to the history of CHRIST, with which Matthew had begun, supplying the chasm of his predecessor.

After a long intermission for upwards of four centuries, from Malachi, the last of the Jewish prophets, the age of miracles and prophecy revived, as was foretold by the prophets, especially Joel, ii. 28. And the annunciation of the Baptist's birth was made from heaven to "Zechariah, a venerable priest, who, with his wife Elizabeth, were both righteous before GOD, and walked in all the ordinances of THE LORD blameless; and they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years,” Luke i. 5—7.

It is remarkable that this annunciation was made by the same archangel, Gabriel, who had formerly appeared to the prophet Daniel, viii. 16, ix. 21, and probably to the prophet Zechariah, ii. 1-4, and described to both so circumstantially the coming of CHRIST, his rejection by the Jews, and the final establishment of his kingdom.

While Zechariah was officiating as a priest in the temple, and offering incense upon the altar in the sanctuary, during the

time of the [evening] oblation*, and the people were praying without in the temple court, the angel appeared to him, and said, "Fear not, Zechariah, thy supplication [for thy people] is heard, and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John," [the grace of THE LORD] expressive of the gracious purposes of his mission, namely, 1. "to go before THE LORD in the power and spirit of Elijah," foretold by Malachi, iv. 5, resembling that illustrious prophet in his power of conversion and spirit of reproof +; 2. "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," by promoting peace and harmony among his countrymen; and 3. "to make ready a people prepared for THE LORD," or prepared for the reception of THE GOSPEL, ver. 8-17.

Zechariah, however, for distrusting the performance of this gracious promise, on account of his own and his wife's advanced age, whereas the case of Abraham and Sarah, to whom a son Isaac was promised in similar circumstances, ought to have assured him, was punished in the sign that he required, and struck dumb by the angel, until the accomplishment of the promise, and the circumcision of his son, when his speech was restored to him at the naming of the child, as appointed by the angel, and he was moreover inspired to utter that admirable hymn, “praising God for the promised redemption of Israel by that Horn of Salvation, CHRIST, of the house of David, foretold by the mouth of God's holy prophets from the beginning of the world," in the blessed seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 15, and styling John a prophet of THE MOST HIGH, and a harbinger of CHRIST, ver. 18-79.

In the sixth month of the conception of Elizabeth, the same angel Gabriel was sent by God to the virgin Mary, of the house of David, who then dwelt at Nazareth, in Galilee, and was betrothed, but not yet married, to Joseph, a man of the same tribe, and he hailed, or saluted her, as "blessed among women," "the virgin" foretold by the prophet Isaiah "to conceive and bear a son, called IMMANUEL," expressive of his divinity, signifying

This was precisely the hour," the ninth, or third afternoon," when Gabriel formerly appeared to Daniel, ix. 24.

See his conversion of the people of Israel from Baal, 1 Kings xviii. 21-40; his reproofs of Ahab, 1 Kings xviii. 17, 18, xxi. 20-29; of Ahaziah, 2 Kings i. 16, 17.