and by an appeal to pretended miracles, to impose it upon the world as a revelation from Heaven. The object of the former series of miracles is worthy of a God of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power. The object of the latter is absolutely inconsistent with wisdom and goodness, which are demonstrably attributes of that Being by whom alone miracles can be performed. Hence it follows, that the supposition of the Apostles bearing false testimony to the miracles of their Master, implies a series of deviations from the laws of nature, infinitely less probable in themselves than those miracles; and therefore, by the maxim of Hume and his disciples, we must reject the supposition of falsehood in the testimony, and admit the reality of the miracles.*

See more on the credibility of the Scripture miracles, in Stackhouse's History of the Bible, 4to Edition.

No. II.

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.

Of late years many questions have been keenly, and even acrimoniously agitated, about the origin of the three first Gospels; the inspiration of the second and third; and the order in which they were made generally public. This last question would indeed be of very little importance, were it not combined in some degree with the other two. If all the three were written under the superintendence of the Spirit of God, it can be of no consequence to the pious Christian which was written first-whether St Matthew wrote before St Mark and St Luke, or St Luke before St Matthew and St Mark; but if the evidence of the inspiration of St Luke, which has lately been controverted by divines of some eminence both in England and in Germany, be thought to depend in any degree on the resolution of that question, the question itself changes its nature, and becomes indeed of the greatest importance.

The most prevalent opinion perhaps is, that St Matthew wrote his Gospel for the use of the Jewish converts many years before St Mark and St Luke wrote their gospels; and this opinion is made to rest on the order in which the four Gospels have been generally published when collected together in one volume, and upon the concurring testimony of

the earliest fathers of the Christian church, who mention the subject.

The concurring testimony of the fathers to the truth of any fact which fell under their own immediate observation, is entitled to the highest credit; but the order in which the Gospels have been generally arranged in the same volume, furnishes no proof whatever of the order of time in which they were respectively written, and separately published among the faithful. We know not indeed with certainty when or by whom they were first collected into one volume. If this was done by St John, he might be induced to place St Matthew's first, on account of the dignity of its author in the church; and his own last, both from a principle of modesty, for which he is known to have been remarkable, and because his Gospel is so obviously supplemental to the other three, that without the previous perusal of some one of them-indeed I think without the previous perusal of St Matthew's or St Luke's-no man could, by reading St John's Gospel, acquire an adequate knowledge of “ all that Jesus taught and did on earth till he was taken up into Heaven."

If the different Gospels were not collected into one volume till after the death of St John, and this is at least possible, he or they who undertook the task of arranging them, may have been guided by the same principles, which I have supposed likely to direct the arrangement of the Apostle himself; and this is the more probable, that we know the arrangement of St Paul's epistles to have been directed by such principles, without regard to the order in which they were written. "The epistles which were sent to whole bodies of Christians, have been generally placed before those which were sent to individuals; and of the former, the epistle to the Romans has had the first rank, because Rome was the capital of the empire. Next in order come the two epis

tles to the Corinthians, because Corinth was then the principal city of that part of Greece in which Christianity had made any progress; and the epistle to the Galatians is placed in the third rank, because it was addressed to a people inhabiting a country which, though considered as less important than the cities of Rome and Corinth, with their respective dependencies, was deemed higher in rank than any other single city. Yet the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and some others, were certainly, every one of them, written before that to the Romans, the epistle to the Galatians being probably the earliest of all St Paul's epistles that are now extant."*

That it was some such principle as this, and not the order of time in which the Gospels were written, that directed their arrangement when collected into one volume, may be inferred from the fact, that they are differently arranged in different manuscripts. "The Latin church arranged them thus, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; and that arrangement is observed, not only in the old Latin manuscripts, but likewise in the Codex Bezæ,"+ one of the most ancient and valuable Greek manuscripts extant. From the order in which the Gospels are generally published, nothing therefore can be inferred with certainty respecting the priority of any one of them to the others.

The testimony of the ancients, were it unanimous and snfficiently early, would indeed be conclusive; but it is far from unanimous. The reports of the different writers have been collected with great industry by Lardner,‡ to whom I therefore refer; and it will be seen, from a comparison of these reports, that the only points in which they seem to be all agreed, are, that St Matthew and St Luke wrote before

* Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. IV.

+ Ibid. Vol. III. Chap. i. Note J. by the Editor.

+ History of the Apostles and Evangelists.

St Mark and St John, and that the former wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. When I say that in these points they seem to be all agreed, I allude only to those who may be considered as the original reporters-such as Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen; for those who succeeded them have added each some opinion of his own, though nothing, I think, to contradict the assertion of Clemens, that the evangelists, who give the different genealogies of our Lord, wrote their Gospels before the other two. Whether St Matthew or St Luke wrote first, must therefore be decided, if it can be decided at all, by the internal evidence afforded by their two Gospels themselves; and about the force of that evidence, modern divines of the greatest eminence have differed in opinion.

Calvin, Beza, Gomarus the antagonist of Arminius, Lardner, Michaelis, Dr Macknight of Edinburgh, and of late Mr Dunster,* seem all to have been decidedly of opinion that St Luke wrote before St Matthew; but by much the most general opinion is, I believe, that St Matthew was the first writer of a Gospel. Of those who have lately defended this opinion, the two most eminent writers are, Dr Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels; and Dr Townson, in his Discourses on the Four Gospels,—a work unquestionably of very great merit, and, according to the

• The reverend Charles Dunster, M. A. rector of Petworth in Sussex, who has published four tracts on the subject, which have by no means attracted the attention, to which they are well entitled from every Biblical scholar. For this neglect two reasons may be assigned. The modest author, in every tract, proclaims himself to be a very inferior Greek scholar, and in comparison of those with whom he differs in opinion, a mere sciolist in criticism; and the public, as usual in such cases, appears to have taken him at his word; though every page, in which that word appears, shows that his learning and industry are inferior only to his modesty. The second reason to which I attribute the general neglect of the tracts, is more solid; for it must be admitted that Mr Dunster has paid very little regard to lucidus ordo in writing, appearing to have committed his thoughts to paper just as they arose in his own mind. The modest author is now dead.