143

in which

ten

gelists has been more careful than Matthew, that no- Script thing of this kind should be overlooked.

That which chiefly distinguishes Matthew's writings 14 Distin from those of the other Evangelists, is the minute and guishin distinct manner in which he has related many of our charact 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. Be ing early called to the apostleship, he was an eye and ear witness of most of the things which he relates. And these are circumstances which incline Dr Campbell to think that Matthew has approached as near the precise order of time in which the events happened as any of the Evangelists.

Scripture. which it was written. This we are assured by Papias, by Irenæus, and Origen, was the Hebrew; but the truth of this fact has been disputed by Erasmus, WhitLanguage by, and others. Whitby urges the improbability that it was writ. Providence would have suffered the original of this gospel to be lost, and nothing to remain but a translation. This is an argument of no force against written testimony; indeed we are always in danger of drawing false conclusions when we argue from our own opinions of the conduct of Providence: For His ways are not as our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts. But though we are forced to acknowledge that the gospel according to Matthew which we possess is a translation, it is evidently a close one; and the very circumstance that it has superseded the original, is a clear proof that it was thought equally valuable by the ancient Christians. It is necessary to remark, that the language in which the gospel according to Matthew was originally composed, and which is called Hebrew by Papias, Irenæus, and Origen, is not the same with the Hebrew of the Old Testament: it was what Jerome very properly terms Syro-Chaldaic, having an affinity to both languages, but much more to the Chaldean than to the Syrian.

144 Date,

The time when this gospel was composed has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Irenæus says that Matthew published his gospel when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." Now Paul arrived at Rome A. D. 60 or 61, and it is very probable suffered martyrdom in A. D. 65. This may be justly concluded from comparing the relation of Tacitus with that of Orosius, a writer of the fifth century. Orosius having Lardner's given an account of Nero's persecution of the Christians, Hist. of the and of the death of the two apostles in it, adds, that it Apostles. was followed by a pestilence in the city, and other disasters. And Tacitus relates that a pestilence prevailed in the city, and violent storms took place in Italy, in the year of Christ 65. Matthew's gospel was therefore written between the year 60 and 65.

bell's Preface to Matthew's Gospel.

145 and design That this history was primarily intended for the use of it. of the Jews, we have, besides historical evidence, very Dr Camp strong presumptions from the book itself. Every circumstance is carefully pointed out which might conciliate the faith of that nation; every unnecessary expression is avoided, which might in any way serve to obstruct it. To come to particulars, there was no sentiment relating to the Messiah with which the Jews were more strongly possessed, than that he must be of the race of Abraham, and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jesus. That he should be born at Bethlehem in Judea, is another circumstance in which the learned among the Jews were universally agreed. His birth in that city, with some very memorable circumstances that attended it, this historian has also taken the first opportunity to mention. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, which either foretel any thing that should happen to him, or admit an allusive appellation, or were in that age generally understood to be applicable to events which respect the Messiah, are never passed over in silence by this Evangelist. The fulfilment of prophecy was always to the Jews, who were convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, strong evidence. Accordingly none of the Evan

Concerning the life of the apostle Matthew we have nothing to add, as the principal circumstances in his life have already been mentioned. See MATTHEW.

The Gospel according to Matthew is cited seven times in the epistle of Barnabas, twice in the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, eight times in the Shepherd of Hermas, six times in Polycarp's small epistle to the Philippians, and seven times in the smaller epistles of Ignatius. These citations may be seen at full length in Jones's New and Full Method of settling the Canon, with the parallel passages in the gospel according to Matthew.

147

Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 39.

That Mark was the author of the gospel which bears Gospel aehis name, and that it was the second in the order of cording to St Mark. time, is proved by the unanimous testimony of the an 148 cient Christians. Many authorities are therefore un- Its authencessary; we shall only mention those of Papias and ticity, Irenæus. Eusebius has preserved the following passage of Papias: "This is what was related by the elder (that is, John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus); Mark being Peter's interpreter wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer or follower of our Lord; but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord's teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occurred to his memory: for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood into his narrative." Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded as he assigns his authority. He spake not from hearsay, but from the information which he had recei ved from a most credible witness, John the elder, or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles.

149

lib. iii. eap.

Irenæus, after telling us that Matthew published his and date. gospel whilst Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, Adv. Hær. adds: "After their departure (sodov), Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in 1. writing the things which had been preached by Peter." The Greek sodos, like the English word departure, may either denote death, which is a departure out of the world, or mean a departure out of the city. It is probably in the former of these senses it is here used. Yet by the accounts given by, some others, Mark's gospel was published in Peter's lifetime, and had his approbation.

Scripture. approbation. The gospel of Mark is supposed to be but two years posterior in date to that of Matthew. The precise year, however, cannot be determined with certainty; and it is a matter of no importance, since we have ascertained the author and the time in which he lived.

Mark has generally been supposed to be the same person who is mentioned in the Acts and some of Paul's epistles, who is called John, and was the nephew of Barnabas. But as this person was the attendant of Paul and Barnabas, and is nowhere in scripture said to have accompanied Peter in his apostolical mission, which ancient writers informs us the author of the gospel did, Dr Campbell has justly concluded that these were dif Preface o ferent persons. The author of the gospel is certainly meant by Peter when he says, Marcus my son saluteth * 1 Pet. v. you *.

Mark.

13.

Language in which it

ten.

That Mark wrote his gospel in Greek, is as evidently conformable to the testimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. The carwas writ dinals Baronius and Bellarmine, anxious to exalt the language in which the vulgate was written, have maintained that this Evangelist published his work in Latin. The only appearance of testimony which has been produced in support of this opinion is the inscription subjoined to this gospel in Syriac, and in some other oriental versions. But these postscripts are not the testimonies of the translators: they proceed from the conjecture of some tra.scriber; but when written, or by whom, is equally unknown. Against positive testimony, therefore, they are

131

Design of

it

entitled to no credit.

From the Hebraisms in the style, we should readily conclude that the author was by birth and education a Jew. There are also expressions which show that he had lived for some time among the Latins, as xEYTUNIWY, "centurion," and λarwę, "sentinel;" words which do not occur in the other gospels. There are other internal evidences that this gospel was written beDr Camp yond the confines of Judea. The first time the Jorbell's Pre- dan is mentioned, woraus, "river," is added to the face to name for explanation; for though no person in Judea Mark's Gospel. needed to be informed that Jordan was a river, the case was different in distant countries. The word Gehenna, which is translated Hell in the New Testament, originally signified the Valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed by fire to Moloch, and where a continual fire was afterwards kept up to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the Evangelist adds, by way of explanation, vg To arßisov, "the unquenchable fire." Instead of the word Mammon, he uses the common term χρήματα, "riches." When he employs the oriental word Corbon, he subjoins the interpretation & 5 dago, hat is, "a gift." These peculiarities will corroborate the historical evidence that has been already mentioned, that Mark intended his gospel for the use of the Gentiles.

152

Mark not

It has been affirmed that this evangelist is the abridger the abrid of Matthew. It is true that Mark sometimes copies ger of Ma'-the expressions used by Matthew; but he is not to be thew, considered as a mere abridger, for he omits altogether several things related by Matthew, viz. our Lord's pedigree, his birth, the visit of the Magians, Joseph's flight into Egypt, and the cruelty of Herod. Dr Lardner has given a list of thirty-three passages, where

in circumstances are related which are omitted by the Scripture. other evangelists. There is one parable, and an account of two miracles peculiar to Mark. The parable or similitude is mentioned in chap. iv. 26. One of these miracles was the curing of a deaf and dumb man, chap. vii. 31, 37. The other was the giving sight to a blind man at Bethsaida, chap. viii. 22, 26. The style of Mark, instead of being more concise than that of Matthew, is more diffuse. That he had read Matthew's gospel cannot be doubted, but that he abridged it, is a mistake.

153

tion from

According to the testimony which has been already but derived produced, Mark derived his information from the apostle his informaPeter. It would be improper, therefore, not to remark, Peter. that this evangelist has omitted many things tending to Peter's honour, which are related in the other gospels, and has given the most particular account of Peter's fall. This gospel is seven times cited by Irenæus, and nine times by Tertullian.

154

That the author of the gospel which is the third in Gospel acorder was Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, is cording to evident from the testimonies of Irenæus, Clemens of St Luke. Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and many succeeding writers. But it has been disputed whether he was a Jew or a Gentile. That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul. If he had been an uncircumcised Gentile, exceptions would have been made to him, especially at Jerusalem; but nothing of that kind appears. It is also rendered highly probable, from his mode of computing time by the Jewish festivals, and from his frequent use of the Hebrew idiom. It has been supposed that Luke was one of the 70 disciples; but he does not pretend to have been a witness of our Lord's miracles and teaching; on the contrary, he tells us in his introduction, that he received his information from others.

155

The design of Luke in writing his gospel was to su Design of persede some imperfect and inaccurate histories of our it. Saviour, which had then been published. What these were, it is impossible now to determine, as they are not mentioned by any contemporary writer, and probably did not survive the age in which they were com posed.

tion it was

156 It has been supposed that Luke chiefly derived his From what information from the apostle Paul, whom he faithfully source of attended in his travels; but, from Luke's own words, informawe are led to conclude, that the principal source of his derived. intelligence, as to the facts related in the gospel, was from those who had been eye and ear witnesses of what our Lord both did and taught. Now Paul evidently was not of this number. It was from conversing with some of the twelve apostles or disciples of our Lord, who heard his discourses and saw his miracles, that he obtained his information.

As to the time when this gospel was written, we have hardly any thing but conjecture to guide us. But as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, have ranged it after those of Matthew and Mark, we have no reason to doubt but they were written in the same order.

Dr Camp bell's Pre

face to Luke's Gospel.

many

Scripture, an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zaccheus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for 18 years; the cure of the dropsical man; the cleansing of the ten lepers; the inhospitable treatment of our Saviour by the Samaritans, and the instructive rebuke which he gave on that occasion to two of his disciples for their intemperate zeal; also the affecting interview which he had after his resurrection with two of his disciples. Luke has also added many edifying parables to those which the other evangelists had recorded. Most of these are specified by Irenæus as particularly belonging to this gospel, and has thereby shown to us, without intending it, that the gospel of Luke was the same in his time that it is at present.

158 Style and

of it.

The style of this evangelist abounds as much with composition Hebraisms as any of the sacred writings, but it contains more of the Grecian idiom than any of them. It is also distinguished by greater variety and copiousness; qualities which may be justly ascribed to the superior learning of the author. His occupation as a physician would naturally induce him to employ some time in reading, and give him easier access to the company of the great than any of the other evangelists. As an instance of Luke's copiousness, Dr Campbell has remarked that each of the evangelists has a number of words which are used by none of the rest; but in Luke's gospel the number of such peculiarities or words, used in none of the other gospels, is greater than that of the peculiar words found in all the three other gospels put together; and that the terms peculiar to Luke are for the most part long and compound words. The same judicious writer has also observed, that there is more of composition in Luke's sentences than is found in the other three, and consequently less simplicity. Of this the very first sentence is an example, which occupies no less than four verses. Luke, too, has a greater resemblance to other historians, in giving what may be called his own verdict in the narrative part of this work; a freedom which the other evangelists have seldom or never ventured to use. He calls the Pharisees lovers of money; in distinguishing Judas Iscariot from the other Judas, he uses the phrase, he who proved a traitor, (os xaι eyeveto #godorns). Matthew and Mark express the same sentiment in milder language," he who delivered him up." In recording the moral instructions of our Lord, especially his parables, this evangelist has united an affecting sweetness of manner with genuine simplicity.

Chap xvi.

14.

159

Cited by ancient

This gospel is frequently cited by Clemens Romanus, the contemporary of the Apostles, by Ignatius, and JusChristian tin Martyr. Irenæus has made above a hundred cita

authors.

John.

160

tions from it. In his lib. iii. adv. Hæres. c. 14. he vin dicates the authority and perfection of Luke's gospel, and has produced a collection of those facts which are only recorded by this evangelist.

Gospel acThat the gospel which is placed last in our editions cording to of the New Testament was written by John, one of our Saviour's apostles, is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Christians. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida in Galilee, by his wife Salome, and the brother of James, surnamed the elder or greater. He was the beloved disciple of our Saviour, and was honoured, along with Peter and James, with

marks of distinction which were not conferred on Scrip the other disciples. He possessed a high degree of intrepidity and zeal, a warm and affectionate heart, and was strongly attached to his master. His brother James and he were honoured with the title of Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder. He was anxious to restrain whatever he considered as a mark of disrespect against his master, and to punish his enemies with severity. He was incensed against some persons for attempting to cast out demons in the name of Jesus; and required them to desist because they were not his disciples. James and he proposed to our Saviour to call down fire from heaven to punish the inhospitable Samaritans. Nor was the courage of John less ardent than his zeal. When Peter had disowned his Lord, and all the other disciples had fled, John continued to attend his master. He was present at his trial, and followed him to the cross, where he was a spectator of his sufferings and death. The interview between Jesus and this disciple at Calvary, though concisely related, is an event which will strongly affect every man of feeling, while it convinces him of the unalterable affection of Jesus to his beloved disciple, as well as discovers his respectful tenderness for his mother. See JOHN.

161

The ancients inform us, that there were two motives Motives which induced John to write his gospel; the one, that for writhe might refute the heresies of Cerinthus and the Nico-ing it. laitans, who had attempted to corrupt the Christian doctrine; the other motive was, that he might supply those important events in the life of our Saviour which the other evangelists had omitted. Of the former of these motives Irenæus gives us the following account: "John, desirous to extirpate the errors sown in the minds of men by Cerinthus, and some time before by those called Nicolaitans, published his gospel; wherein he acquaints us that there is one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they say, one who is the Creator of the world, and another who is the father of the Lord; one the son of the Creator, and another the Christ, from the supercelestial abodes who descended upon Jesus, the son of the Creator, but remained impassible, and afterwards fled back into his own pleroma or fulness." As Irenæus is the most ancient anthor who has written upon this subject, many appeals have been made to his authority. The authority of Not to cons Irenæus is certainly respectable, and we have often re- fute hereferred to his testimony with confidence; but we think tics. necessary to make a distinction between receiving his testimony to a matter of fact, and implicitly adopting his opinion. He does not tell us, that he derived his information from any preceding writer, or indeed from any person at all. Nay, he seems to have believed that John wrote against these heresies by a prophetic spirit; for he says in another place, chap. xx. 30. "As John the disciple of our Lord assures us, saying, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name; FORESEEING these blasphemous notions that divide the Lord, so far as it is in their power."

it

Indeed it seems very improbable that an apostle should write a history of our Lord on purpose to confute the wild opinions of Cerinthus or any other heretic. Had John considered such a confutation necessary, it is more likely that he would have introduced it

162

Seripture. into an epistle than blended it with the actions of his venerable Master. But were the opinion of Irenæus wellfounded, we should surely discover some traces of it in the gospel of John; yet except in the introduction, there is nothing that can with the least shadow of probability be applied to the opinions of Cerinthus; and few, we presume, will affirm, that the gospel of John was composed merely for the sake of the first eighteen

163 But to

verses.

The intention of John in writing his gospel was far prove that more extensive and important than to refute the opiJesus was nions of a few men who were to sink into oblivion in the the Mescourse of a few centuries. It was evidently (according Kish the Son of to the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria) to supply the God, omissions of the other evangelists: It was to exhibit the evidences of the Christian religion in a distinct and perspicuous manner: It was, as he himself in the conclusion of his gospel assures us, to convince his readers, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that be#John xv. lieving they might have life through his name e*. Now it will appear to any person who reads this gospel with attention, that he has executed his plan with astonishing ability, and has given the most circumstantial and satisfactory evidence that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God. After declaring the pre-existence of Jesus, he proceeds to deliver the testimony of John the Baptist, and selects some of the greatest miracles of Jesus, to prove his divine mission. In the fifth chapter he presents us with a discourse which our Saviour delivered in the temple in the presence of the Jews, wherein he states in a very distinct manner the proofs of his mission from, 1. The testimony of John; 2. His own miracles; 3. The declaration of the Father at his baptism; 4. The Jewish Scriptures. Indeed the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, naturally arises from almost every miracle which our Saviour is said to have performed, and from every discourse that he delivered. This declaration is very often made by our Saviour himself; particularly to the woman of Samaria, to Nicodemus, and to the blind man whom he had cured.

164

ment to

three

pels.

gos

Is a supple. It must be evident to every reader, that John studiously passes over those passages in our Lord's history the other and teaching which had been treated at large by the other evangelists, or, if he mentions them at all, he mentions them slightly. This confirms the testimony of ancient writers, that the first three gospels were written and published before John composed his gospel. Except the relation of our Saviour's trial, death, and resurrection, almost every thing which occurs in this Dr Campbook is new. The account of our Saviour's nativity, be's Pre- of his baptism, and of his temptation in the wilderness, is omitted; nor is any notice taken of the calling of the twelve apostles, or of their mission during our Saviour's life. It is remarkable, too, that not one parable is mentioned, nor any of the predictions relating to the destruction of Jerusalem. All the miracles re

face to

John's Gospel

corded by the other evangelists are passed over, except Scripture. the miraculous supply of provision, by which five thousand were fed and it is probable that this miracle was related for the sake of the discourse to which it gave birth. The other miracles which are mentioned are few in number, but in general they are minutely detailed. They consist of these: the turning of water into wine at Cana; the cure of the diseased man at the pool of Bethesda; the cure of the man that had been blind from his birth; the restoring of Lazarus to life; and the healing of the servant's ear which Peter had cut off. But valuable would this gospel be, though it had only recorded the consolation of Jesus to his disciples previous to his departure; which exhibits a most admirable view of our Saviour's character, of his care and tender regard for his disciples. Having opened every source of comfort to their desponding minds; exhorted them to mutual love, and to the obedience of his Father's precepts; having warned them of the impending dangers and sorrows-our Saviour concludes with a prayer, in the true spirit of piety and benevolence; ardent without enthusiasm, sober and rational without lukewarmness.

165

was writ

ten.

The time in which this gospel was written has not Time at been fixed with any precision. Irenæus informs us, that which it it was written at Ephesus, but leaves us to conjecture whether it was written before or after John's return from Patmos. He was banished to Patmos by Domitian, who reigned 15 years, and according to the best computation died A. D. 96. The persecution which occasioned the exile of John commenced in the 14th year of Domitian's reign. If John wrote his gospel after his return to Ephesus, which is affirmed by Epiphanius to have been the case, we may fix the date of it about the year 97 (F).

166

This gospel is evidently the production of an illite-Style of it. rate Jew, and its style is remarkable for simplicity. It abounds more with Hebraisms than any of the other gospels; and contains some strong oriental-figures which are not readily understood by an European.

167

168

The book which we intitle the Acts of the Apostles Acts of the connects the gospels and the epistles. It is evidently a Apostles continuation of Luke's gospel, which appears both from the introduction and from the attestations of ancient Christians. Both are dedicated to Theophilus; and in the beginning of the Acts a reference is made to his gospel, which he calls a former treatise, recording the actions and discourses of Jesus till his ascension to heaven. Luke is mentioned as the author of the Acts of the Apostles by Irenæus, by Tertullian, by Origen, and Eusebius.

From the frequent use of the first person plural, it is manifest that Luke the author was present at many of the

VOL. XIX. Part I.

E

Scripture. the transactions which he relates. He appears to have

169 Contents

of that

book.

170

Often cited

accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi. He attended him also to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome, where he remained for two years. He is mentioned by Paul in several of those epistles which were written from Rome, particularly in the 2d epistle to Timothy, and in the epistle to Philemon.

This book contains the history of the Christian church for the space of about 28 or 30 years, from the time of our Saviour's ascension to Paul's arrival at Rome in the years 60 or 61. As it informs us that Paul resided two years in Rome, it must have been written after the year 63; and as the death of Paul is not mentioned, it is probable it was composed before that event, which happened A. D. 65.

The Acts of the Apostles may be divided into seven parts. 1. The account of our Saviour's ascension, and of the occurrences which happened on the first Pentecost after that event, contained in chap. i. ii. 2. The transactions of the Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem, in Judea, and Samaria, chap. iii.-ix. xi. 1-21. xii. 3. Transactions in Cæsarea, and the admission of the Gentiles, chap. x. 4. The first circuit of Barnabas and Paul among the Gentiles, chap. xi. 22. 5. Embassy to Jerusalem, and the first council held in that city, chap. xv. 6. Paul's second journey, chap. xvi.—xxi. 7. His arrestment, trial, appeal to Cæsar, and journey to Rome, chap. xxi. to the end

xiii. xiv.

of the book.

The Acts of Apostles are cited by Clemens Romaby the ear-nus, by Polycarp, by Justin Martyr, thirty times by ly Christi- Irenæus, and seven times by Clemens Alexandrinus.

ans.

All the essential doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion were certainly taught by our Saviour himself, and are contained in the gospels. The epistles may be considered as commentaries on the doctrines of the gospel, addressed to particular societies, accommodated to their respective situations; intended to refute the errors and false notions which prevailed among them, and to inculcate those virtues in which they were most deficient.

The plan on which these LETTERS are written is, first, to decide the controversy, or refute the erroneous notions which had arisen in the society to which the epistle was addressed: And, secondly, to recommend those duties which their false doctrines might induce them to neglect; at the same time inculcating in general exhortations the most important precepts of Christian morality.

Of the epistles fourteen were written by St Paul. These are not placed according to the order of time in which they were composed, but according to the supposed precedence of the societies or persons to whom they were addressed. It will be proper, therefore, to exhibit here their chronological order according to Dr Lardner.

A TABLE of St PAUL'S EPISTLES, with the Places where, and times when, written, according to Dr Lardner.

174

I John
2d and 3d of
John
Jude
Revelation

Ephesus }

Unknown
Patmos or
Ephesus

between

Sand

}

rity.

It is more difficult to understand the epistolary wri- Causes of tings than the gospels; the cause of which is evident. their obse Many things are omitted in a letter, or slightly mentioned, because supposed to be known by the person to whom it is addressed. To a stranger this will create much difficulty. The business about which St Paul wrote was certainly well known to his correspondents; but at this distance of time we can obtain no information concerning the occasion of his writing, of the character and circumstances of those persons for whom his letters were intended, except what can be gleaned from the writings themselves. It is no wonder, therefore, though many allusions should be obscure. Besides, it is evident from many passages that he answers letters and questions which his correspondents had sent him. If these had been preserved, they would have thrown more light upon many things than all the notes and conjectures of the commentators.

175

St Paul's

The causes of obscurity which have been now men- Causes of tioned are common to all the writers of the epistles ; obscurity but there are some peculiar to St Paul. 1. As he had peculiar to an acute and fertile mind, he seems to have written pistles. with great rapidity, and without attending much to the common rules of method and arrangement. To this cause we may ascribe his numerous and long parentheses. In the heat of argument he sometimes breaks off abruptly to follow out some new thought; and when he has exhausted it, he returns from his digression without informing his readers; so that it requires great attention to retain the connection. 2. His frequent change of person, too, creates ambiguity: by the pronoun I he sometimes means himself; sometimes any Christian; sometimes a Jew, and sometimes any man. In using the pronoun WE he sometimes intends himself; sometimes comprehends his companions; sometimes the apos

tles;