i. 13, where a catalogue of the eleven is inserted, he mentioned

this individual in exactly the same manner. Are we to suppose then that the Evangelist commits a deliberate error in this particular? We have distinct and satisfactory witnesses to prove that there really was an Apostle, besides Iscariot, who bore the name of Judas. Both Matthew (xiii. 55,) and Mark (vi. 3,) concur in speaking of James and Jude as the near relations of Christ, and part of this statement is incidentally confirmed by St. Paul, who calls James ‘the Lord’s brother.’ (Gal. i. 19.) But farther, St. John (xiv. 22,) presents us with a remark made by ‘Judas not Iscariot;’ evidently one of the Apostles; and St. Jude himself, in the first verse of his Epistle, styles himself ‘the brother of James.’ There is thus amply sufficient evidence, that all the Gospel writers acknowledge an Apostle of this name, though St. Matthew, with his usual simplicity, familiarly mentions him by two of his appellations, omitting that of Judas, and St. Mark sees no occasion to depart from his language, in a matter of such general notoriety. Luke, on the other hand, usually studious of accuracy, distinguishes this Apostle by the name generally current in the Church, when his Gospel was written. This variation then may, upon the whole, convince us how undesignedly the writers of Scripture confirm each other’s statements; yet can this only be the result of a minute examination upon our part, and upon the probability of this, a cautious writer would hardly stake his reputation for truth or exactness.” See ROBERTS’S “Light shining out of Darkness,” pp. 91-93.

144 It may be objected that Matthew, in saying that this discourse was delivered sitting on a mountain, is contradicted by Luke, who says, that Jesus was standing on a plain. Luke vi. 17. But Dr. Clarke, on this latter place, has suggested that Jesus “being pressed with great multitudes of people, might retire from them again to the top of the hill.” And Dr. Priestley observes that “Matthew’s saying that Jesus was _sat down_ after he had gone up the mountain, and Luke’s saying that he stood on the plain, when he healed the sick before the discourse, are no inconsistencies.” Harm. p. 83.

The whole picture is striking. Jesus ascends a mountain, employs the night in prayer, and having thus solemnly invoked the divine blessing, authoritatively separates the twelve apostles from the mass of his disciples. He descends, and heals, in the plain, all among a great multitude, collected from various parts by the fame of his miraculous power. Having thus created attention, he satisfies the desire of the people to hear his doctrine; and retiring first to the mountain whence he came, that his attentive hearers might follow him, and might better arrange themselves before him. Sacro digna silentio Mirantur _omnes_ dicere. _Hor_. NEWCOME.

The different accounts of the Sermon on the Mount may be reconciled, by considering that Mathew wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law, and the teaching and practice of Scribes and Pharisees; which he does particularly and with many examples; while Luke, on the contrary, wrote chiefly for Gentile Christians, to whom the contrast with the Jewish law was of less interest; and therefore he omits those parts of the discourse, and dwells only upon those which were of practical importance to all. ROBINSON. NEWCOME.

145 The Greek word here employed is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king’s messengers or posts were called _Angari_. These had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships, and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were sent. The word therefore signifies, to be compelled by violence to do any particular service, especially of the public kind, by the king’s authority. And the sentiment is a lesson of patience and gentleness under severe exactions from man. _Lightfoot, apud_ A. CLARKE, _in loc_. SIR J. CHARDIN’S Travels, Vol. i. p. 238, 257.

146 Calvin says that Matthew, being more brief, introduces the centurion himself as speaking; and that Luke expresses more at large his sending by his friends; but that the sense of both is the same. _Harm_. p. 124.

(Toinard quotes Exod. xviii. 6, where the words related as spoken by Jethro, were evidently a message sent by him to Moses. _Harm_. 147.) Considering then the sameness of the scene, of the person, of the words, and of the transaction, I cannot but conclude with Grotius, that the miracle is one and the same, related in general by Matthew, and with greater accuracy by Luke. NEWCOME.

147 The nature of our Lord’s ministry, as it now appeared, so unlike what John as a Jew expected, may have surprised and perplexed him. And his own misfortune, coming upon this disappointment and perplexity, would increase his doubt and embarrassment. His faith was shaken;—the question implies no more;—and he sent that his doubts might be removed, and his faith confirmed. Jesus therefore merely referred John to the miracles he was doing, and the prophecies which spake of him, and which were fulfilled by those miracles. Bp. SUMNER, in loc.

148 Is. xxxv. 5, seq.

149 Mal. iii. 1.

150 Mal. iv. 5.

151 We here learn that the demoniac was both blind and dumb. St. Luke omits the former circumstance, but does not contradict it. NEWCOME.

152 An accurate reader will observe that Matt. xii. 22, and Luke xi. 14, show the general occasion of the blasphemy against Jesus; and that Matt. xii. 23, shews the particular occasion of it, the multitude alarming the Jewish rulers by their question whether Jesus were the Christ. No cause for the absurd and impious insinuation of the Scribes and Pharisees is assigned by St. Mark: however, he suggests an important circumstance, that they came from Jerusalem to watch the conduct of Jesus. The latter part of Luke viii. 19, shows that his relations were not able to enter the house on account of the press. Thus one Evangelist is wonderfully supplemental to another by notations of time, place, and other circumstances; and the strictest propriety and agreement result from diligently comparing them. NEWCOME.

153 The writer of a false narrative would either have omitted to mention the request for a sign, or would have related that it was complied with. He would never have exposed his Master to the suspicion of a want of power. See also, Matt. xvi. 1.

154 Jonah i. 17.

155 Jonah iii. 4, 5.

156 1 Kings x. 1 seq.

157 This omission may seem inconsistent with the character of Jesus, who appears to have generally complied with all the innocent usages of his countrymen; and of course it may be adduced as an objection against the veracity of the Evangelist. Luke simply records the fact, however it may seem to make against the character of his Master, or his own veracity. But Mark, vii. 3-9, in a manner equally incidental and without design, discloses the truth that this washing was superstitious, and connected with the dangerous error of placing the traditions of the elders on equal footing with the commands of God. Where there was danger of his practice being misinterpreted, our Lord withheld his compliance, even in things indifferent. See Bp. SUMNER on Luke, Lect. 41.

158 Gen. iv. 8; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, seq.

159 The autumnal rains in Palestine come mostly from the west or south-west. ROBINSON’S Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 97. The incidental allusion here made to that fact, would hardly have been made by a writer of fiction.

160 Is. vi. 9, 10.

161 Ps. lxxviii. 2.

162 This is made consistent with the other Evangelists, by reading “Gadarenes.” If Gergasa was subordinate to Gadara, the metropolis of Perea, as Cellarius and Reland judge, and St. Mark did not write in Judea, what wonder that he chose the more general name, which was best known in the world? But Cellarius from Eusebius takes notice that some esteemed Gergasi, so Eusebius writes it, and Gadara two names of the same city; and this he thinks was the sentiment of the Syriac translator. To this Sir Richard Ellis most inclines, in his “Fortuita Sacra.” TOWNSON, p. 72.

In Matthew mention is made of two demoniacs; in Mark and Luke of one only. Here Le Clerc’s maxim is undoubtedly true: Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur: qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat. _Harm_. p. 524.

We may collect a reason from the Gospels themselves, why Mark and Luke mention only one demoniac; because, one only being grateful for the miracle, his cure only was recorded by the two Evangelists, who mention this gratitude, and who are more intent on inculcating the moral, than on magnifying our Lord’s power. NEWCOME.

163 There is no contradiction here between Matth. and Mark. The demoniacs met Jesus on the shore, as he came out of the ship. Luke viii. 27. The swine were within sight, on the ascending ground, Luke viii. 32, at the side of the mountain, Mark v. 11, which was at some distance from the shore where they stood. Matth. viii. 30.

164 Since swine were held in abhorrence by the Jews, how happened a herd of them to be feeding by the sea of Tiberias? The answer shows the accuracy of the Evangelist and his intimate knowledge of the local circumstances of Judea; for it appears from Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11, 4, that _Gadara_ was a _Grecian city_, the inhabitants of which, therefore, were not Jews. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. sect. ii. 6.

165 Here is a reference to an Eastern custom, which affords internal evidence of the truth of the narrative. The master sat on a higher seat, and the scholars sat at his feet. Sitting at the feet, was the posture of a learner; and indicated the reverence and submission due to the teacher. Thus Moses says of the people, to whom God gave the law from Mount Sinai,—“they sat down at thy feet.” Deut. xxxiii. 3. Isaiah, speaking of Abraham, who was taught of God, says “he called him to his foot.” Is. xli. 2. Mary “sat at Jesus’s feet and heard his words.” Luke x. 39. Paul was brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel;” Acts xxii. 3; studied law with him. And the restored maniac sat down at Jesus’s feet, in the posture of a humble learner, desiring no other wisdom than to be taught of him.

166 Both Mark and Luke state that this was in Matthew’s own house; and Luke calls it a great feast, made in honour of Jesus. The omission of this fact by Matthew, not only shows his modesty and humility, but adds much to the weight of evidence in his favour, both as a man, and as a witness. See BLUNT’S Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 4.

167 Hos. vi. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 22.

168 Neither of the Evangelists expressly mentions the death of Joseph; yet from all four of them it may indirectly be inferred to have happened while Jesus was yet alive. Comp. Luke viii. 19, John ii. 12, and xix. 25-27. Such harmony as this could not have been the effect of concert. See BLUNT’S Veracity, &c. sect. i. 7.

169 Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this section. In Matthew, _shoes are_ forbidden; in Mark the Apostles are commanded to be shod with _sandals_. But the true solution seems to be this, that the Apostles should not furnish themselves with spare garments, and should wear the simplest covering for their feet. “Non vult ullis rebus studiose comparatis onerari.” Beza. See Newcome, in loc.

170 The synagogues were used, not only for divine service, but for holding courts of justice, especially for ecclesiastical affairs; and the lesser punishments, such as whipping, were inflicted in the synagogue, immediately after sentence, as the burning in the hand was formerly inflicted in England, upon praying the benefit of clergy. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 376. Such an allusion as this would not be likely to have been found in a work of fiction.

171 Mic. vii. 6.

172 Matth. xiv. 2, _unto his servants_. Matthew alone mentions, and without any apparent reason for such minuteness, that Herod addressed his remark to his _servants_ it. Luke, in the parallel passage, says he _heard of all that was done by him_; but by referring to Luke viii. 3, and to Acts xiii. 1, we find that Christ had followers from among the household of the very prince, with whom Herod was likely to converse on a subject in which they were better informed than himself. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sec. i. 8.

173 Here is a very natural passing allusion to what we learn from Josephus was a settled custom in the family of Herod; namely, the making of a feast on his birth-day, at which the officers of his government were guests. JOSEPHUS, Ant. xix. vii. § 1.

174 Mark incidentally mentions the great multitude coming and going, and the purpose of Jesus to withdraw _awhile_. The occasion of this great multitude of _travellers_ is stated in the like incidental manner by John, vi. 4, that the _passover_ was nigh at hand; and hence, if Jesus withdrew awhile, the throng would be drawn off towards Jerusalem. These undesigned coincidences tend to verify both the narratives. Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

175 Why Jesus addressed this question to Philip, and why John mentioned so unimportant a fact, is not here explained. Nor does Luke indicate any reason for his own statement of the place where this miracle was wrought, namely, near Bethsaida. But John, in another place, (ch. i. 44,) with apparently as little reason, gratuitously states that Philip was of Bethsaida; and this fact renders both the others intelligible and significant. Jesus, intending to furnish bread for the multitude by a miracle, first asked Philip, who belonged to the city and was perfectly acquainted with the neighbourhood, whether bread could be procured there. His answer amounts to saying that it was not possible. These slight circumstances, thus collected together, constitute very cogent evidence of the veracity of the narrative, and evince the reality of the miracle itself. See Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

176 In Luke, Jesus commands that the people should be made to sit down by _fifties_. In Mark it is said that they sat down _by hundreds and by fifties_. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of his comment on St. Paul’s Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming variation. NEWCOME.

177 This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v. 23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that “the wind was contrary,” that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him, with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not have permitted them to cross the lake. BLUNT, Veracity of the Gospels, sect. i. 17.

178 Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.

179 Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.

180 Ex. xvi. 15.

181 The truth of the Gospels has been argued from the _confessions_ they contain. On this verse Paley asks, “Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in suppression and disguise, to put down _this_ anecdote?” _Evid._ 255.

182 The admission of Judas Iscariot into the domestic and confidential circle of our Lord, was the result of profound and even of divine wisdom. It showed that Jesus was willing to throw open his most secret actions, discourses, and views not merely to his devoted friends, but to a sagacious and hardened enemy. If Judas had ever discovered the least fault in the character or conduct of Jesus, he certainly would have disclosed it;—he would not have publicly confessed that he had betrayed innocent blood, and have sunk down in insupportable anguish and despair. See TAPPIN’S Lect. on Eccl. Hist. ii.

183 The traditions of the elders were unwritten ordinances of indefinite antiquity, the principal of which, as the Pharisees alleged, were delivered to Moses in the mount, and all of which were transmitted through the High Priests and Prophets, down to the members of the great Sanhedrim in their own times; and from these, as the Jews say, they were handed down to Gamaliel, and ultimately to Rabbi Jehudah, by whom they were digested and committed to writing, toward the close of the second century. This collection is termed the Mishna; and in many cases it is esteemed among the Jews as of higher authority than the law itself. In like manner, there are said to be many Christians, at the present day, who receive ancient traditionary usages and opinions as authoritative exponents of Christian doctrine. They say that the preached gospel was before the written gospel; and that the testimony of those who heard it is entitled to equal credit with the written evidence of the Evangelists; especially as the latter is but a brief record, while the oral preaching was a more full and copious announcement of the glad tidings.

These traditions, both of the Jewish and the Christian Church, seem to stand _in pari ratione_, the arguments in favour of the admissibility and effect of the one, applying with the same force, in favour of the other. All these arguments may be resolved into two grounds, namely, contemporaneous practice subsequently and uniformly continued; and contemporaneous declarations, as part of the _res gestæ_, faithfully transmitted to succeeding times. It is alleged that those to whom the law of God was first announced, best knew its precise import and meaning, and that therefore their interpretation and practice, coming down concurrently with the law itself, is equally obligatory.

But this argument assumes what cannot be admitted; for it still remains to be shown that those who first heard the law, when orally announced, had any better means of understanding it than those to whom the same words were afterwards read. The Ten Commandments were spoken in the hearing of Aaron and all the congregation of Israel; immediately after which they made and worshipped a golden calf. Surely this will not be adduced as a valid contemporaneous exposition of the second commandment. The error of the argument lies in the nature of the subject. The human doctrine of contemporaneous exposition is applicable only to human laws and the transactions of men, as equals, and not to the laws of God. Among men, when _their own_ language is doubtful and ambiguous, _their own_ practice is admissible, to expound it; because both the language and the practice are but the outward and visible signs of the meaning and intention of one and the same mind and will, which inward meaning and intention is the thing sought after. It is on the same ground, that, where a statute, capable of divers interpretations, has uniformly been acted upon in a certain way, this is held a sufficient exposition of its true intent. In both cases it is the conduct of _the parties_ themselves which is admitted to interpret their own language; expressed, in cases of contract, by themselves in person, and in statutes, through the medium of the legislators, who were their agents and representatives; and in both cases, it is merely the interpretation of what a man says, by what he does. But this rule has never been applied, in the law, to the language of any other person than the party himself; never, to the command or direction of his superior or employer. And even the language of the _parties_, when it is contained in a sealed instrument, is at this day held incapable of being expounded by their actions, on account of the greater solemnity of the instrument. See Baynham _v_. Guy’s Hospital, 3 Vesey’s Rep. 295. Eaton _v_. Lyon, Ibid. 690, 694. The practice of men, therefore, can be no just exponent of the law of God. If they have mistaken the meaning of his command from the beginning, the act of contravention remains a sin in the last transgressor, as well as the first; for the word of God cannot be changed or affected by the gloss of human interpretation.

The other ground, namely, that the testimony of those who heard Jesus and his apostles preach, is of equal authority with the Scriptures, being contemporaneous declarations, and parts of the _res gestae_, and therefore admissible in aid of the exposition of the written word, is equally inconsistent with the sound and settled rules of law respecting writings. When a party has deliberately committed his intention and meaning to writing, the law regards the writing as the sole repository of his mind and intention, and does not admit any oral testimony to alter, add to, or otherwise affect it. The reasons for this rule are two; first, because the writing is the more solemn act, by the party himself, designed to prevent mistake, and to remain as the perpetual memorial of his intention; and, secondly, because of the great uncertainty and weakness of any secondary evidence. For no one can tell whether the by-standers heard precisely what was said, nor whether they heard it all, nor whether they continued to remember it with accuracy until the time when they wrote it down, or communicated it to those who wrote it; to say nothing of the danger of their mixing up the language of the speaker with what was said by others, or with their own favourite theories. And where the witnesses were not the original auditors of what was said, no one knows how much the truth may have suffered from the many channels through which it has passed, in coming from the first speaker to the last write or witness. On all these accounts, the law rejects oral testimony of what the parties said, in regard to anything that has already been solemnly committed to writing by the parties themselves, and rejects the secondary evidence of hearsay, when evidence of a higher degree, as, for example, a written declaration of the party, can be obtained.

Now, inasmuch as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why should not the documentary evidence of the Gospel, thus drawn up by them, be treated with at least as much respect as other written documents? If they were inspired to write down those great truths for a perpetual memorial to after ages, then this record is the primary evidence of those truths. It is the word of God, penned by his own dictation, and sealed, as it were, with his own seal. If it were a man’s word and will, thus solemnly written, no verbal or secondary evidence could be admitted, by the common law, to explain, add to, or vary it; nothing could be engrafted upon it; nor could any person be admitted to testify what he heard the party say, in regard to what was written. The courts would at once reject all such attempts, and confine themselves strictly to the writing before them, the only inquiry being as to the meaning of the language contained in that document, and not as to what the party may elsewhere have spoken. The law presumes that the writing alone is the source to which he intended that resort should be had, in order to ascertain his meaning. But by calling in the fathers, with their traditions, to prove what Christ and his Apostles taught, beyond what is solemnly recorded in the Scriptures, the principle of this plain and sound rule of law is violated; resort is had to secondary evidence of the truths of our religion, when the primary evidence is already at hand; and the pure fountain is deserted for the muddy stream.

184 Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers.—_Paley_. But the explanation here given by Mark is an additional evidence of the fact asserted by Jerome and Clement of Alexandria, that he wrote at Rome, for the benefit chiefly of the converts of that nation.

185 Ex. xxii 12. Ex. xxi. 17. Deut. v. 16.

186 Is. xxix. 13.

187 Mark designates the woman by the country where she dwelt; Matthew calls her a woman of Canaan, because of the people to whom she belonged. Thus they do not contradict each other. The treatment of this woman by our Lord has been the subject of remark, as evasive and insincere. But it was far otherwise. He had a twofold object; to call the attention of his disciples to the fact of her being a foreigner, in order to show them that his ministry, though primarily and chiefly to the Jews, was in truth designed for the benefit of the Gentiles also; and to draw out, as it were, the great faith of the woman, in order to teach them the effect of faithful and persevering supplication. To attain these objects, he took the direct and most obvious method. In this instance also, as in those of the centurion, (Matth. viii. 5-13,) and of the Samaritan leper, (Luke xvii. 16-18,) he indicated that the gospel would be more readily received by the Gentiles than by the Jews. See A. CLARKE, _in loc_. NEWCOME, Obs. on our Lord. p. 165. Bp. Horsley’s Sermons on this subject, Serm. xxxvii. and xxxviii. p. 444-464.

188 Cellarius and Lightfoot think that Dalmanutha and Magdala were neighbouring towns. See Calmet, voc. Dalmanutha. It is probable that Dalmanutha and Magdala were in Gaulanitis, towards the south-east part of the lake. See Matth. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24. NEWCOME.

189 Our Lord’s words, Matth. xvi. 8, 10, and Mark viii. 17, 20, are the same in substance, though differently modified. The evangelists are not scrupulous in adhering to the precise words used by Christ. They often record them in a general manner, non numerantes, sed tanquem appendentes; regarding their purport, and not superstitiously detailing them. However, in this place, after uttering what Matthew relates, Jesus may have asked the questions recorded by Mark. NEWCOME.

190 The notice of this circumstance affords a proof of the veracity of the evangelist; for he barely states a fact having no apparent connexion with any other in his narrative. The reason of it is found in facts stated by the other evangelists. The people of Bethsaida had already witnessed the miracles of our Lord, but these only served to increase their rage against him; and they were therefore abandoned to the consequences of their of their unbelief. Matth. xi. 21.

191 The phrase _three days and three nights_ is equivalent to _three days_, three natural days of twenty-four hours. Gen. i. 5; Dan. viii. 14. Comp. Gen. vii. 4. 17.

(It is a received rule among the Jews, _that a part of a day is put for the whole_; so that whatsoever is done in any part of the day, is properly said to be done that day. 1 Kings xx. 29; Esth. iv. 16. “When eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child,” &c. Yet the day of his birth and of his circumcision were two of these eight days. _Whitby_, quoted by SCOTT, on Matth. xii. 40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning the _parts_ of the first and third days for _two days_, by Aben Ezra on Lev. xii. 3.

(In proof that the phrase “_after three days,_” is sometimes equivalent to “_on the third day,_” compare Deut. xiv. 28 with xxvi. 12; 1 Sam. xx. 12 with v. 19; 2 Chron. x. 5 with v. 12; Matth. xxvi. 2 with xxvii. 63, 64; Luke ii. 21 with i. 59.)

St. Luke omits our Lord’s sharp reproof of Peter, and the occasion of it; though he records the discourse in consequence of it. Le Clerc’s 12th canon is “Qui pauciora habet, non negat plura dicta aut facta; modo ne ulla sit exclusionis nota.” Perhaps the disciple and companion of that apostle who had withstood Peter to his face, Gal.