MATTHEW ii,

HAVING

AVING in the preceding Lecture taken a fhort comprehenfive view of the feveral books of the facred volume, I now proceed to the Gofpel of St. Matthew; and shall in this Lecture confine myfelf to the two first chapters of that book.*

The history of our Saviour's birth, life, do&rines, precepts, and miracles, is contained in four books or narratives called Gofpels, written at different times, and by four different perfons, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who were among the first converts to Chriftianity, and perfectly well acquainted with the facts they relate; to which two of them were eye-witneffes, and the other two conftant companions of those who were fo, from whom they received immedi ately every thing they relate. This is better authority for the truth of these histories than we have for the greater part of the histories now extant, the fidelity of which we do not in the least question. For few of our best hiftories, either ancient or modern, were written by persons who were eyewitnesses of all the tranfactions which they relate ; and there is fcarce any inftance of the hiftory of the fame perfon being written by four different contemporary historians, all perfectly agreeing in the main articles, and differing only in a few minute particulars of no moment. This however we find actually done in the life of Jefus, which has been written by each of the four evangelifts, and it is a very strong proof of their veracity. For let us confider what the cafe is, at this very day, in the affairs of common life. When four different perfons are called upon in a court of juftice to prove the

For fome very valuable observations in fome parts of this, and the third and thirteenth Lecture, I am indebted to my late excellent friend and patron, Arch-bishop Secker.

reality of any particular fact that happened twenty or thirty years ago, what is the fort of evidence which they ufually give? Why, in all the great leading circumstances which tend to establish the fact in question, they in general perfectly agree. In a few other points perhaps they differ. But then these are points which do not at all affect the main question, which were too trifling to make much impreffion at the time on the memory of the obfervers, and which therefore they would all relate with fome little variation in their account. This is precifely the cafe with the writers of the four Gof pels; and this fubftantial coincidence and accidental variation has much more the air and garb of truth, than where there is a perfect agreement in every the minutest article ; which has too much the appearance of a concerted ftory.

That the books which we now have under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by the perfons whose names they bear, cannot admit the smallest doubt with any unprejudiced mind. They have been acknowledged as fuch by every Christian church in every age, from the time of our Saviour to this moment. There are allufions to them, or quotations from them, in the earliest writers, -as far back as the age of the apostles, and continued down in a regular fucceffion to the present hour; a proof of authenticity, which scarce any other ancient book in the world can produce. They were received as genuine hiftories, not only by the first Christians, but by the first enemies of Christianity, and their authority was never queftioned either by the ancient heathens or Jews.*

The first of these Gospels is that of St. Matthew. It was written probably at the latest not more than fifteen years, fome think only eight years, after our Lord's afcenfion. The author of it was an apoftle and conftant companion of Jefus, and of course an eye-witness of every thing he relates. He was called by our bleffed Lord from a most lucrative occupation, that of a collector of the public revenue, to be one of his difciples and friends: a call which he immediately

Whoever wishes for further fatisfaction on this most important fubject, will not fail of finding it in Dr. Lardner's learned work, The Credibility of the Gafpel Hiftory, where this question has been very ably treated, and the authenticity of the Gofpels eftablished on the most folid grounds.

obeyed, relinquishing every thing that was dear and valuable to him in the prefent life. This is a facrifice which few people have made for the fake of religion, and had St. Matthew's object been the applaufe of men, he might have displayed the merits of this facrifice in a light very favorable to himself. But the apostle, confcious of much nobler views, describes this tranfaction in the simplest and most artlefs words. "As Jefus," fays he, "paffed forth from thence, he faw a man named Matthew, fitting at the receipt of custom, and he faith unto him, Follow me: and he arofe and followed him."

The first thing that occurs in the Gospel of St. Matthew, is the genealogy of Chrift, in order to prove that he was defcended from the house and family of David, as the prophets foretold he should be.

In this genealogy there are confeffedly fome difficulties, at which we cannot be much furprised, when we confider of what prodigious antiquity this genealogy is, going back fome thousands of years; and when we know too that feveral Jewish perfons had the fame name, and that the fame person had different names, (especially under the Babylonish captivity) which is ftill the cafe in India, and other parts of Afia. This must neceffarily create fome perplexity, especially at fuch a distance as we are from the first fources of information. But to the Jews themselves at the time, there were probably no difficulties at all; and it does not appear that they (who were certainly the best judges of the queftion) made any objection to this genealogy of Chrift, or denied him to be defcended from the family of David. We may therefore reasonably conclude, that his defcent was originally admitted to be fairly made out by the evangelifts, whatever obícurities may have arifen fince. Indeed it is highly probable, that this genealogy was taken from fome public records or registers of the ancient Jewish families, which is very evident from Jofephus that the Jews had, efpecially with regard to the lineage of David, and which were univerfally known and acknowledged to be authentic documents. I fhall therefore only obferve further on this head, that St. Matthew gives the pedigree of Jofeph, and St. Luke that of Mary.

But they both come to the fame thing, because among the Jews the pedigree of the husband was confidered as the legal pedigree of the wife; and as Mary and Jofeph were nearly related, and were of the fame tribe and family, their gene alogies of course must run nearly in the fame line.

After the genealogy of Chrift, follows an account of his birth, which, as we may eafily fuppofe of fo extraordinary a perfon, had fomething in it very extraordinary. Accordingly the evangelift tells us, "that the angel of the Lord appeared unto Jofeph in a dream," saying, " Jofeph, thou fon of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost: and fhe fhall bring forth a fon, and thou fhalt call his name Jesus (that is a Saviour;) for he fhall fave his people from their fins."*

This undoubtedly was a most wonderful, and fingular, and unexampled event. But it was natural to imagine, that when the Son of God was to appear upon the fcene, he would enter upon it in a way fomewhat different from the fons of men. And in fact we find him appearing upon earth in a manner perfectly new, and peculiar to himself; in a manner which united in itself at once the evidence of prophecy and of miracle. He was born of a virgin, and what is no lefs wonderful, it was predicted of him feven hundred years before that he fhould be fo born. "Behold," fays

Ifaiah, "a virgin fhall conceive and bear a fon, and they fhall call his name Immanuel;" a Hebrew word, fignifying, God with us. What man, but a prophet, infpired of God, could have foreseen an event fo completely improba ble, and apparently impoffible? What impoftor would have hazarded fuch a prediction as this? and, what is still of more importance, what impoftor could have fulfilled it? What lefs than the power of God could have enabled Jesus to fulfil it? By that power he did fulfil it. He only, of the whole human race, did fulfil it, and thus proved himself to be at the very moment of his birth, what the whole courfe of his fu ture life, his death, his refurrection, and his afcenfion into heaven, further declared him to be, THE SON OF GOD.

*And as fuch he was foon acknowledged, and due homage paid to his divinity by a very fingular embassy, and in a very fingular manner. For the evangelift proceeds to tell us in the beginning of the fecond chapter, that "when Jefus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, there came wife men from the east to Jerufalem, faying, where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have feen his ftar in the east, and are come to worship him." As this is a very remarkable, and very important event, I fhall employ the remaining part of this lecture in explaining it to you at large, fubjoining fuch reflections as naturally arife from it.

The name of these persons, whom our translation calls wife men, is in the original magoi, in the Latin language, magi, from whence is derived our English word, magicians. The magi were a fet of ancient philofophers, living in the eaftern part of the world, collected together in colleges, addicted to the ftudy of astronomy, and other parts of natural philosophy, and highly efteemed throughout the eaft, having jufter fentiments of God and his worship than any of the ancient heathens: for they abhorred the adoration of images made in the form of men and animals, and though they did represent the Deity under the symbol of fire (the pureft and moft active of all material fubftances) yet they worshipped one only God; and fo blameless did their studies and their religion appear to be, that the prophet Daniel, fcrupulous as he was to the hazard of his life, with refpect to the Jewish religion, did not refuse to accept the office which Nebuchadnezzar gave him, of being mafter of the magi, and chief governor over all the wife mén of Babylon.* They were therefore evidently the fittest of all the ancient heathens to have the first knowledge of the Son of God, and of falvation by him imparted to them.

The country from whence they came is only defcribed in St. Matthew as lying eaft from Judea, and therefore might be either Perfia, where the principal refidence of the magi was, or elfe Árabia, to which ancient authors fay they did, and undoubtedly they eafily might extend themfelves; which it is well known abounded in the valuable things that the

* Vid. Dan, v. II.
E