with the rest. Accordingly, when Jesus.shewed himself to the apostles at the sea of Tiberias, after his resurrection, Nathaniel is expressly mentioned, by John, among them.

Farther, in the catalogue of the apostles given by Matthew, where the apostles are thought to be coupled in pairs as they were sent out to preach, Philip was joined with Bartholomew, which agrees very well with the supposition that Bartholomew was the same person with Nathaniel. For, from the history of Nathaniel's conversion, it appears, that Philip was his intimate acquaintance, and the person who first introduced him to Jesus. The difference of names is no objection to the supposition which Dr. Macknight contends for. Bartholomew signifies the son of Tolmai, so may have been a patronymic, and not this disciple's proper name. Or, without having recourse to this solution, why not Bartholomew have had two names as well as Matthew, who, throughout the whole of his gospel, does not sign himself by his other name Levi? After the death of Judas Iscariot, when the apostles met to choose one in his place, Nathaniel was not proposed as a candidate for that office. This cannot he accounted for on any supposition, but that he enjoyed the diguity already. For that he was still alive, and continued to associate with the disciples, is evident from John xx. 1. To conclude the antients seem to have thought Bartholomew the same with Nathaniel; for, from what John tells us of the latter, that he was of Cana, [John xxi. 2.] they assign the honour of Bartholomew's nativity to the same town, and add, that he was a person skilled in the law.

Matthew was a publican of Capernaum. He was otherwise named Levi, [Mark ii. 14.] and left a gainful employment for the sake of Christ. He wrote the gospel to which his name is prefixed, and was the son of one Alpheus, [Mark ii. 14.] of whom we know nothing but the name, excepting that he was a different person from Alpheus the father of James.

There is no mention made of Thomas before his conversion. However, it is conjectured, that, like the rest, he was of mean extraction. And because he is named among those who went a fishing, [John xxi. 2, 3.] it is supposed that he was a fisherman by occupation. He obtained the surname of Didymus, [John xi. 16.] probably, because he was a twin. This apostle made himself remarkable, by continuing longer than his brethren to doubt of Christ's resurrection.

In the college of apostles, besides James, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his master, and Simon surnamed Peter, we find James, the son of Alpheus, surnamed the less or younger, [Mark xv. 40.] to distinguish him from the other James, the son of Zebedee, who was elder than he; also Judas, or Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, the brother of James the Less, and Simon, surnamed Zelotes. James the Less, Judas Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, were brothers, and sons of one Alpheus, or Cleophas, [John xix. 25, compared with Mat. xxvii. 56, and Mat. xiii. 55, and Mark iii. 18.] who was, likewise, a disciple, being one of the two to whom our Lord appeared on the road to Emmaus, after his resurrection. They are called Christ's brethren, [Mat. xii 55.] that is, his cousins, in which sense the word is used Lev. x. 4. It seems, their mother Mary [Mat. xxviii. 56, compared with John xix. 25.] was sister to Mary, our Lord's mother; for it was no unusual thing among the Jews to have more children than one of a family called by the same The three apostles, therefore, who go by the name of our Lord's brethren, were, really, his cousin-germans. James the Less, and Judas Thaddeus, wrote the epistles which bear their names. This James was a person of great authority among the apostles; for, in the council which met at Jerusalem to decide the dispute about

name.

the necessity of circumcision, we find him, as president of the meeting, summing up the debate, and wording the decree.

Simon, the cousin of our Lord, and brother of James the Less, is called, by Mark, the Canaanite. But, from the above account of his relations, it is plain that the epithet does not express his descent, otherwise his brothers, James and Judas, ought to have been Canaanites likewise. Luke calls him Simon Zelotes, which seems to be the Greek translation of the Hebrew appellation given him by Mark; for, from zelotypus fuit, he was jealous, comes of the Chaldaic word zelotes, a zealot. Wherefore, the appellation of Canaanite given to Simon, by Mark, and Zelotes, the epithet which he he bears in Luke, are as perfectly the same as Cephas and Petros, Tabitha and Dorcas. The zealots were a particular sect or faction among the Jews, who, in later times, under colour of zeal for God, committed all the disorders imaginable. They pretended to imitate the zeal which Phinehas, Elijah, and the Maccabees, expressed, in the manner of punishing offenders; but they acted from blind fury, or from worse principles, without regard either to the laws of God, or to the dictates of reason. Some are of opinion, that Simon, the apostle, had formerly been one of this pestilential faction but as there is no mention made of it till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, we may rather suppose that the surname of Zelotes was given him on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.

Judas, the traitor, was the son of one Simon. [John vi. 71. He had the surname of Iscariot given him, to distinguish him from Judas Thaddeus, our Lord's cousin. The literal meaning of Iscariot is a man of Cariot, or Kerioth, which was a town in the tribe of Judah. [Josh. xv. 25.] In all probability, therefore, this surname denotes the place of the traitor's nativity. Some pretend that, among the Jews, no person was surnamed by the place of this birth, but such as were illustrious on account of their station; and so would have us believe that Judas was a person of some distinction. They think his being intrusted with the bag, or stock-purse, preferably to all the rest, is a confirmation of this. But as the other apostles were men of mean condition, these arguments are too trivial to prove that Judas was distinguished from them in that particular.

Thus were the foundations of the church laid in twelve illiterate Galileans, who, being, at first, utterly ignorant of the nature and end of their office, and destitute of the qualifications necessary to discharge the duties of it, integrity excepted, were the most unlikely persons in the world to confound the wisdom of the wise, to baffle the power of the mighty, to overturn the many false religions which then flourished every where under the protection of civil government, and, in a word, to reform the uni versally corrupted manners of mankind. Had human prudence been to make choice of instruments for so grand an undertaking, doubtless, such as were remarkable for deep science, strong reasoning, and prevailing eloquence, would have been pitched upon ; and these endowments, probably, would have been set off with the external advantages of wealth and power. But lo! the wisdom of God, infinitely superior to that of men, acted quite differently in this matter. For the treasure of the gospel was committed to earthen vessels, that the excellency of its power might, in all countries, be seen to be of God. Accordingly, the religion which these Galileans taught through the world, without having at all applied themselves to letters, exhibited a far juster notion of the nature and perfections of God, and of the duty of man, than the Grecian and Roman philosophers were able to attain, though their lives were spent in contemplation and study. Hence, by its own intrinsic splendour, as well as by the external glory of the miracles which accompanied it, this religion shewed itself to be altogether

of divine original. Besides, it was attended with a success answerable to its dignity and truth. It was received every where, by the bulk of mankind, with the highest applause, as something they had hitherto been seeking in vain; while the maxims and precepts of the philosophers never spread themselves farther than the particular schools. It was, therefore, with the highest wisdom, that the foundations of the church were thus laid in the labours of a few weak, illiterate fishermen. For, with irresistible evidence, it demonstrated, that the immense fabric was, at first, raised, and is still sustained, not by the arm of flesh, but purely by the hand of Almighty God.

A a

FROM THE FIRST TO THE SECOND MISSION OF THE Apostles.

Christ preaches the sermon on the plain--whether it was the same as the sermon on the mount---cures a centurion's servant in Capernaum---whether the same with the young man recorded Mat. viii.---the apostles receive their commission and instructions---the widow's son raised at Nain---publicity of the miracle---Matthew's feast---conversation between our Lord and John's disciples---cure of the woman who had the bloody issue--the resurrection of Jairus's daughter---manner of the Jewish mourning---Christ cures two blind men, and expels a demon---the Pharisees ascribe his miracles to Beelzebub--he answers the enquiries of John's messengers, and vindicates the Baptist's character--he pronounces heavy woes upon such cities as had slighted his doctrine--he dines with Simon, the Pharisee, and has his feet anointed with fragrant ointment---pious women supply Christ's necessities---Christ's miracles again ascribed to Beelzebub---the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit---the sign from heaven---Christ greater than Jonas or Solomon---his followers dearer than his mother or brethren---the sermon of parables--the parable of the sower---of the lighted lamp---why Christ taught in parables---the parable of the tares, or darnel---of the sced that sprung up imperceptibly--of the leaven ---many parables---the explanation of the parable of the tares---the parable of the treasure hid in the field---of the pearl of great price---of the net which gathered of every kind---of the householder who brings forth things new and old---Christ goes to Nazareth, but is rejected by his townsmen---the twelve apostles sent forth a second time---their commission.

>

1

THE miracles of our Lord Jesus Christ had been so numerous, public, and astonishing, that they excited very general attention, and induced many to suppose that he was a great prophet, if not the Messiah of God. It was little wonder, therefore, that the people gathered round him, from all quarters, in such vast crowds, as to tread one another down, [Luke xii. 1.] and waited for him whole nights in the fields, and followed him from place to place, even to the remotest corners of the country. He was followed, not merely by vast multitudes of the common people, but many of those who were of character and station occasionally visited him, to hear his conversation, to observe his miracles, and, in some instances, to solicit the cures of their children and servants. Therefore, the character, as well as the multitude, of our Lord's followers, and the frequent application that was made to him for cures, by persons of all

ranks and stations, in all the parts of the country, shew, beyond contradiction, now universal the persuasion was, that now prevailed, concerning the truth of his miracles; a persuasion which could be founded on nothing but the reality of those miracles, clearly evident to every spectator. Thus, when our Lord had descended from the mountain, whither he had retired with his disciples, he found a vast concourse of people collected together, out of all Judea, and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases, and they that were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch him; for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. By this benignity he put the cure in the power of the diseased themselves, and wrought many more miracles than could have been done in the way of a formal application to him for a cure.

The multitude that pressed to touch Jesus, in order to be healed, being quieted, he turned to his disciples, perhaps, the twelve apostles lately chosen, and delivered a discourse, in many particulars, like that which is called the sermon on the mount. In comparing these two discourses with each other, it appears, that both of them begin with nearly similar benedictions, contain the same exhortations to the love of our enemies, to the exercise of universal benevolence, and to the carefully avoiding rash judgment; and conclude, in like manner, with the remarkable similitude, in which he that only hears the word of Christ without obeying it, is compared to a man that built his house on the sand; while he who diligently practises agreeably to the instructions he has obtained, digs deep, and builds his house upon a rock, where it opposes a firm and effectual resistance to all the fury of the contending elements. The sermon at the plain has, however, nothing answerable to Mat. v. 13..37, the whole sixth chapter, nor to that part of the seventh which is included between the sixth and fifteenth verses. But that which most deserves to be remarked is, that Luke has several additions to the discourse, as recorded by Matthew. For instance, in the latter, our Lord pronounced only blessings; but here he has also added curses. But. woe unto you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation. As poverty, which is either good nor bad in itself, does not recommend one to God, unless it is accompanied with the virtues which are suitable to an afflicted state; so riches do not make us the objects of God's hatred, unless they be accompanied with those vices. which oftentimes spring from an opulent fortune, namely, pride, luxury, love of pleasure, covetousness. Rich men, infected with such vices as these, are the objects of the woe here denounced; and not they who make a proper use of their wealth, and possess the virtues which should accompany affluence. Wherefore, though there is no restriction added to the word rich, in the malediction, as there is to the word poor, in the complete enunciation of the beatitude, [Mat. v. 3.] it is equally to be understood in both. Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Woe unto you that are rich in spirit, you who are proud, covetous, lovers of pleasure; for ye have received your consolation. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus may be considered as an illustration both of the beatitude and the malediction.

Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger: you shall experience the want of every real good, and endure pains, in the other world, more than equal to those distressing sensations which arise from famine.

Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. A modern auther hath explained this well, in the following terms: "Our Lord's malediction is not inconsistent with the apostle's precepts, which commands Christians always to rejoice. Neither is the mirth, against which the woe is here denounced, to be understood of that constaut cheerfulness of temper, which arises to true Christians from the com