,་

pecially for the benefit of Jews, and in the near prospect of the destruction of Jerusalem. The only circumstance besides, perhaps, that can easily be elicited from his narrative, is, that he was not one of the earliest disciples of Christ, nor attended him in that circuit through Galilee, which our Lord commenced after spending a Sabbath at Capernaum (Matthew viii. 3-17; Mark i. 21-39; Luke vii. 1-11); and closed previous to his visit to the Gadarenes (Mark iii. 7; iv. 35, &c.) That the writer, if an apostle, was not present at our Lord's transactions during that journey, appears from the place which he has assigned to them in his narrative: they are inserted, collectively, between the dismission of the twelve apostles (Matt. xi. 1) and their return to Christ. (Compare Matt. xiv. 12, 18, with Mark vi. 30-32, and Luke ix. 10.) Such a transposition of these events is the more remarkable, as, in general, the author appears to have related things in the order in which they occurred, as an eye-witness was likely to do; and the only motive which can reasonably be assigned for placing these transactions only, at an interval when none of the apostles was with Christ, seems to be that of indicating the writer not to have been present at any of them. It was certainly the plainest and strongest indication of such a fact that he could give, without departing from the uniform practice of the evangelists, to avoid speaking in their own names. At the same time, it was obviously desirable, if an apostle undertook to write a history of Christ, that he should distinguish what he reported as the testimony of others, from those events of which he had been an eye-witness.

It was, however, impossible for an apostle to write a connected narrative of our Lord's ministry, absolutely without naming himself; because it was indispensable for him to name those twelve disciples whom our Lord selected to be witnesses to others of what he performed and taught; but this very circumstance affords an intimation that Matthew wrote our first gospel; for in that alone, his name is connected with the disgraceful title of the Publican' (Compare Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15) as well as placed after that of Thomas, though seemingly earlier called to be an apostle. The call of Matthew probably preceded our Lord's serion on the mount; and the mention of it was postponed, only to connect. it with the parting-feast which he gave to his fellow-publi cans; on which occasion he is called Levi by the other evangelists (Mark ii. 14, 15; Luke v. 27—29) that being apparently the name which he bore as a publican; but (consistently with the instance already cited) he is mentioned on that occasion also, by the same name which he bore as an apostle, in the gospel which is ascribed to his own hand. All these intimaons (with more than our limits can admit) furnish concur、 rent proofs that MATTHEW was the author of our first gospel.

1

From this view of the internal evidence of the Four Gospels concerning their respective authors, we can barely suggest, as subjects of farther reflection and improvement, 1. The solid ground which there is for our reliance on those invaluable foundations of Christianity, as chiefly the direct testimony of eye-witnesses, and wholly transmitted to us on similar authority. 2. The exemplary simplicity, fidelity, and humility of all the Evangelical historians. 3. The wisdom and goodness of God in having qualified, called, instructed, and directed them for so important an employment, and in having preserved their writings for our learning, that we, through Patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.' RABKASHEB.

SEASONABLE HINT TO PROFESSORS OF RELIGION; BUT ESPECIALLY TO MINISTERS.

OUR blessed and holy Redeemer has given us an excellent rule whereby to judge of men who profess to be religious; and especially of those who profess to teach others to be religious. The rule is, By their fruits ye shall know them*. He refers the Trial of Religious Truth to its moral influence; and this will generally be found to be easy and certain in its application. Indeed, it is the only rule adapted to the lower classes of society, who form the bulk of mankind. They cannot enter into polemical disputes, nor determine on the comparative talents, learning, and sentiments of opposing divines and their adherents; but they can and do judge of the comparative excellence of moral and religious characters; and as they judge that a tree is good which produces good fruit, so they conclude that the religion of a man who is pious, devout, indefatigable, humble, generous, and self-denied, must be good also, even though he should have many adversaries, who are far his superiors in rank and authority. This is confirmed by facts in our own country, and under our own eyes. We could easily point out numerous instances of the great success and popularity of ministers, who are much opposed by men of rank and substance in their respective neighbourhoods, but who are followed and beloved by a great number of the inferior orders, who admire their character as contrasted with that of their adversaries. There are also remarkable instances of the continued respect of the people for eminent men, who have been dead a hundred years; and the denomination which those men once supported and adorned, continues in those places still to be numerous and respectable. We might mention Mr. Baxter, of Kidderminster, and many others.

And this was remarkably the case in Scotland. In those parts of Scotland where, a hundred-and-fifty years ago, there

were some very pious Episcopal ministers, there Episcopacy is, in some degree, still preserved; but in other parts of that country, where most of the ministers of that persuasion were ignorant and vicious, very few of that denomination remained, or are now to be found. When Dr. Burnet visited the western part of Scotland, a lady of quality addressed him to the following effect: We, Sir, of the laity, cannot judge upon controversial points; but we see those men whom you persecute grave in their deportment, strictly holy in their conversation, and very laborious in their functions, many of your clergy are ignorant, slothful, and vicious*!' Now this is what determined, determines, and will determine the judgment of the people.

while

If, therefore, those who are now eager to restrain the zeal of Dissenters and Methodists would prevail in their efforts, they must out-pray them, out-preach them, and out-live them;" for unless they do this, they may write 'Refutations,' and propose Restrictions,' till they are tired. They will labour in vain, unless they can convince the people that they are more pious, humble, and active, as ministers of Christ. A contention of this kind will do no harm; it will be exceedingly beneficial to the public, on whom it will produce a far better effect than complaints of the growth of sectaries, and bitter railings against those who labour in season and out of season,' to'save both themselves and them that hear them.'

And this suggests the most useful and seasonable advice to those ministers whose painful lot it is to struggle against that official, parochial, and even magisterial influence which is opposed to their humble efforts to be useful. Let them not return railing for railing; let not the weapons of their warfare be formed of any carnal materials; but, with well-doing' let them silence their opposers, for so is the will of God!' Let your neighbours judge of you by your fruits; and in this way it may be hoped that, seeing your good works, they may glorify God in the day of visitation.' PAX-TIBI.

* See Dr. Witherspoon's Sermon on the Trial of Religious Truth.Sermon 16, Vol. iv.

SIMPLICITY IN PRAYER RECOMMENDED.

Dear Sir,

To the Editor.

I HAVE always considered Simplicity as a prominent feature in the religion of Jesus Christ. The gospel appears to breathe a spirit which, if properly imbibed, will lead to an open, ingenuous deportment,-totally incompatible with that duplicity which is conspicuous in a character formed on worldly principles. He who is governed by it will neither re

ceive adulation himself, nor offer it to others. What seems a breach of propriety in this respect (and of no small magnitude) has induced me to trouble you with these lines; perhaps the insertion of them in your useful and widely-extended Miscellany, may not be altogether without the desired effect. The circumstance to which I allude has reference to the article of devotion; in which, of all others, purity of motive, and language the most unequivocal, are indispensably requisite. Here we ought to lose sight of every thing beside what has immediate connexiou with the duty itself. The great object of our addresses, and the inomentous concerns we have to negotiate in his dread presence, one would think, are more than sufficient to awe the spirit, and prevent the most distant approach to levity. This, however, does not appear to be always the case. I have witnessed professors of religion availing themselves of the opportunity afforded by public prayer, to insinuate the most disrespectful things of their minister, and utter the vilest slander against their fellow Christians! Í have also heard ministers offering something like compli mentary remarks on each other, in their joint services in public; and when leading domestic worship, by the tone and emphasis with which they have pronounced, Thy dear servants,' &c. I have fancied they were anxious to ingratiate themselves with the heads of the family; and I thought I could perceive, in both these instances, that these indirect modes of flattery were not destitute of success. My conjectures may have been unfounded in some of these particulars. I hope, for the sake of pure and undefiled religion, they were so. Surely it cannot be, that they who minister in holy things should stoop to things so mean and pitiful, so opposite to the dignified character of their distinguished calling: nor that those of whom we are inclined to hope well, should be pleased with what must be considered as a gross insult to the God they profess to adore and love. But ought not every disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ to avoid the appearance of evil, to study plainness of speech, which cannot be condemned' nor misconstrued to his disadvantage, to commend himself to every man's conscience as in the sight of God, disdaining to swerve from the right line of duty, either to avoid the censure, or ensure the esteem of mortals? Thus we should honour the integrity which shone so conspicuously in our blessed Redeemer, and cut off occasion of reproach hom those who are sharp-sighted to discern the failings of his disciples, and forward to revile religion on that account. Not wishing to trespass further on your attention, or that of your readers, than what was deemed necessary, and hoping that what has been advanced may tend to remove a stumbling block out of the way of the weak.

I remain yours, &c.

SINCERUS.

Mr. Editor,

THERE is a subject on which my thoughts have been employed for some time past; and which I think it a duty I owe to the common feelings of humanity to make public. The sufferings of the brute creation in this country are become so great, that they cry aloud for redress; and certainly the favour and blessing of Divine Providence can never be expected to manifest itself in our preservation from impending destruction, while a sin like this, which continually cries to God for vengeance, is hourly committed among us.

The dreadful sufferings of the post-horse, particularly claim attention. There is no need for me dwell on the usefulness of the horse, or the obligation under which every one is to take care of it. This is self-evident; but I would endeavour to shew that it is the duty of every one to use it with humanity.

How little do those who are returning from a journey to their expecting friends, think that every order they give the driver to push forward is an additional load of misery to the unhappy animals who drag their carriage. The loud thunder of the whip, as they scour along the roads, strikes not upon their mind; nor does the goading spur, streaming with blood, give them any easiness. Poor unfortunate horse! thy miseries are great. Arrived at the end of a long stage, panting for breath, and covered with blood and dirt, thou art Jed to the stable, not quietly to take that repose which thy exertions and sufferings have so dearly earned, but to be dragged out again, ere thou hast half recruited thy exhausted nature, to undergo fresh exertions, and scourges, and misery! The horses in our stage and mail-coaches are equally abused. Obliged to go a certain distance in a given space of time, there is no alternative: -Go the poor creatures must; and pity for their state, diseased, galled, and perhaps lame, never influences their merciless proprietors. Horses that run in the hackney-coaches are equally objects of pity.

It is astonishing to me, that the legislature has never taken into consideration this important subject. The labours of horses may be very easily regulated, and the ill-treatment of them severely punished by the exertions of the magistrates, provided the power were put into their hands. If this should attract the attention of any Member of the British Parliament, I hope he will take the subject into consideration. Man will have to give an account at the final day of retribution, for all the pain which he inflicts.

The dreadful treatment which cattle experience at Smithfield, notwithstanding the regulations which exist, are sufficient to strike horror into every feeling mind. I shall deferthe account of this, together with some observations on the conduct of the butchers in London, to another opportunity.

M. F.