2d. "He was buried."

3d. "He was raised from the dead the third day according to the Scriptures.'

In all the discourses of the inspired ambassadors of the Saviour, after his resurrection, these were the prominent and reliable facts, preached for the conversion of men to God. Moreover, every infidel that has assailed the religion of Jesus Christ, has made his attacks at this impregnable fortress. That Jesus of Nazareth lived in Judea at the time reported by his witnesses, and that he died by the authority of a warrant from Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the province of Judea, even the enemies, in all time since, have freely admitted; and consequently, the only point in controversy to fully establish Christianity is, did Jesus Christ rise from the dead as reported? That it is against nature and contrary to all the logic and philosophy of men, we freely admit; but the very admission-and none will refuse to make it-that man did not happen on the earth, but is the creation of One who is above creation, concedes all that the Christian religion demands. Grant

that God is, and the miraculous delivery of our Saviour from the tomb, is also admitted. True, we have not demonstrable evidence of the resurrection, and we should not ask it, for this would be walking "by sight and not by faith." We are to believe that Christ rose from the dead upon the authority of men who sacrificed all worldly honor and died, not for opinions, or strong persuasion, but for telling the truth in regard to what they saw and heard of the Lord.

In the great commission, the chosen of heaven, were commanded to preach this Gospel; and no one has charged them with unfaithfulness. They not only preached, "Jesus Christ and him crucified," but such as believed, "with all the heart unto righteousness, made the confession with the mouth unto salvation."

وو

In the Gospel of our salvation, we observe nothing resembling a party system of religion, a partisan creed, or any important fact which can be misunderstood. Though simple in its statements, there is a majesty in every declaration which cannot fail to fill the soul with awe and devotion. But the

main object of our inquiry, after setting forth plainly the meaning, matter, and intention of the Gospel, is to ascertain in what books it is contained.

We have often heard clerks, justices of the peace, and lawyers speak of swearing men "on the four Gospels," or "Holy Evangelists," meaning neither all the Bible nor all of the New Testament. When one is sworn on these four books, without reference to any other portion, it is agreed the person has taken a Gospel oath.

While we might mention with due respect, that the phrase, "Four Gospels," is not critically correct, it is a most singular and significant truth that, men who speak of the Gospel with an untheological intent, are usually more accurate in their style, than many sticklers for party systems.

In the early ages of the Church, this Gospel of the Son of God, not really "four Gospels," but this single everlasting Gospel, written by the four servants of God, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, formed a separate and independent volume. All acquainted with church history, are aware that, in pri

mitive times, these books were preserved in a distinct form for the purpose of giving the most perspicuous conception of their character. We believe it would be far better for the present generation, to study the Gospel set forth, disconnected from all the other books of the Bible.

The plan would at least save the young mind from much confusion on the subject of searching the Scriptures. Irenæus, an ancient father of the Church, speaks of the Gospel as "the one four-formed, or foursided Gospel." But can we be mistaken in our position, that these books contain, emphatically, the Gospel in all its fullness and details, which cannot be found elsewhere?

It will be in keeping with our design, and we hope, with the design of the reader, to briefly notice the contents of these books.

Matthew opens his narrative with the genealogy of our Saviour Jesus Christ. He traces His family from Abraham to Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of our Lord, through a space of nearly two thousand years.

Luke, in his genealogical table, begins with Jesus, whom he calls the son of Heli, and traces back to Adam the Son of God. In a part of these family tables, there seems to be a contradiction, which, perhaps, will disappear, if we admit with Dr. Barrett, Olshansen and others, that Matthew relates the history of Joseph through his real father Jacob, and Luke, gives the history of Mary, the mother of our Lord, through Heli, who was the father-in-law of Joseph. Both narratives then, are correct. Jacob was the father of Joseph after the flesh, but as Joseph was not, in fact, the father of Jesus, he was acknowledged the lawful father, because he was the husband of Mary, the daughter of Heli. They both unite at David, and one traces through Solomon, and the other through Nathan. This brief statement seems to us, to remove the discrepancy. But there is perfect agreement, that our Lord was born in Bethlehem, near Jerusalem, according to the prophecy.

Matthew details the conception and birth of the Saviour, as follows: "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,