and another to be forced, dubious, or fanciful. These are distinctions which ought to be always retained in our thoughts. THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. No. I.-Chap. x. 2-4. In this passage the twelve apostles are enumerated in pairs; a mode of arrangement adopted by no other evangelist, though the same order is in some measure preserved. The reason for the son of the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another." It is upon the plan of this judicious and excellent work, that the following papers are drawn up; and to it the reader is referred for a full and "Now the names of the twelve clear exposition of the argument. apostles are these: the first, SiThe several instances of agreement, mon, who is called Peter, and to adopt the statements of that Andrew his brother; James the able writer, are disposed under son of Zebedee, and John his broseparate numbers, not only to mark ther; Philip, and Bartholomew; more sensibly the divisions of the Thomas, and Matthew the publisubject, but also to remind the can; James the son of Alpheus, reader that they are independent and Lebbeus, whose surname was of each other, and complete of Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite, themselves. Nothing has been and Judas Iscariot, who also beadvanced which did not appear trayed him." probable, but the degree of probability by which different instances are supported is undoubtedly very different. If the reader, therefore, meets with a number which contains an instance that appears to him unsatisfactory, or founded on adoption of such an arrangement mistake, he will dismiss that num- is not immediately obvious. Conber from the argument, but with-sanguinity might justly be assigned out prejudice to any other. He as the cause in the cases of Simon will also please to remember this Peter and Andrew his brother, word, undesignedness, as denoting James the son of Zebedee and that upon which the construction John his brother, and James the and validity of our argument chiefly son of Alpheus and Lebbeus or depend; and which, it is hoped, Thaddeus, also called Judas the will be sufficiently apparent from brother of James (Luke vi. 16.); the instances themselves, and the and if Bartholomew be the same separate remarks with which they with Nathanael, as some have supare accompanied. It should also posed, he might with propriety be be observed, that the more oblique associated with his friend Phillip, or intricate the comparison of a who first introduced him to a coincidence may be, the more cir-knowledge of the Saviour. John i. cuitous the investigation is, the 43-46. But there appears no better; because the agreement reason why Thomas, a fisherman which finally results is thereby of Galilee (John xxi. 1—13.), further removed from the suspicion should be united with Matthew the of contrivance, affectation, or de- publican; nor why Simon the Casign. And it should be remem-naanite, or Zelotes (i. e. the Zealbered, concerning these coinci-ous, Luke vi. 15.) should be assodences, that it is one thing to be ciated with Judas Iscariot, the minute and another to be precari- betrayer of our Lord. ous; one thing to be unobserved, and another to be obscure; one thing to be circuitous or oblique, If it be said, that, as there were but four of the Apostles who remained to be classed, it was im material which of the two possible | coincidence between the accounts modes of arrangement were adopt-of these Evangelists, appears on ed, and that there might be no rea- the very face of it, to be wholly son why the present one was cho- undesigned; and consequently, sen, the possibility is readily con- clearly proves that they wrote inceded though apart from every dependently of each other, and other consideration, it seems more establishes the truth of their reprobable, that the association of spective relations. Had St. Mark persons so different in their ordi- possessed a copy of St. Matthew's nary avocations as Thomas and Gospel, and merely abridged his Matthew, and so dissimilar in their larger history, as some have imacharacters as Simon Zelotes and gined, it can scarcely be conceived Judas Iscariot, was not a fortuit- that he would have concluded from ous circumstance, but the effect of St. Matthew's arrangement that choice, grounded upon some de- our Saviour sent out his twelve terminate reason of preference. In apostles "two and two;" and, if fact, it appears, that neither con- we can suppose that he could have sanguinity nor friendship, nor yet inferred this, yet it is highly imthe blind direction of chance, was probable that he would have been the proximate cause of this ar- content with merely stating the rangement; for Simon, who was fact, without giving the order in the third son of Alpheus, and bro- which they were sent out. But, ther of James and Lebbeus or so far from this being the case, Judas, (Matt. xiii. 55.) is disjoined where he does enumerate the Aposfrom them, and united with Judas tles, he not only does not arrange Iscariot, in consequence of this them in pairs, but differs materimode of arranging in pairs having ally in the order of the names; inbeen adopted. A circumstance, terposing James the son of Zebehowever, related by St. Mark, we dee, and John his brother, between conceive, furnishes us with the Simon Peter, and Andrew his brotrue reason why St. Matthew has ther, adding, that our Lord called thus enumerated them. He re- the former two "Boanerges, which lates, that our Lord having "call- is, the sons of thunder," and placed unto him the twelve," "6 began ing Matthew before Thomas. (Mark to send them forth by two and iii. 16-18.) On the other hand, two." (Mark vi. 7.) From this if St. Matthew had had St. Mark's statement we at once clearly per- gospel before him, (which, we beceive why St. Matthew should have lieve, has never been imagined,) thus arranged them in pairs. It it will scarcely be supposed that also satisfactorily accounts forevery he drew up his arrangement of the circumstance connected with this Apostles from the simple assertion arrangement; our Lord having, as a of St. Mark, that Jesus sent out pious man remarks, "united by his disciples "two and two;" or, grace those who were before united that, if he did so, he would omit, by nature; and intending, per- as he does, the statement of the haps, to counteract the timidity and fact. As, therefore, neither of unbelief of Thomas by the firmness these suppositions can be admitted, and faith of Matthew, and the it must be inferred, that each of worldly-mindedness of Judas Is- these sacred writers wrote indecariot, by the zealous fervour of pendently of the other, and related Simon. in their own manner the circumstances of a act with which they Now this minute and striking EXTRACT FROM AN ORIGINAL LETTER Oxford, 25th March, 1813. "DEAR BROTHER, I NEVER shall use the diploma of which you speak.* I request you forbid, in my name, its insertion on the cover of the Baptist Magazine. I have no right to it, and if I had I should decline it as Mr. H. has done. I wish the M. A. to my name always to be omitted. took it merely as a ticket of admission to the Bodleian Library, because they would not admit me without such an appendage to my On the Magazine I wish it not to stand. Your affectionate brother, name. J. HINTON. SLAVERY. I morals, act like him, and with "Let me not, however, be misunderstood. I do not mean to justify the conduct of Pharaoh towards Israel. My apology is not absolute, but comparative. I only object to the practice of representing the slavery of Israel as the hardest ever endured; and of Pharaoh as the most unjustifiable of all slave-holders. It is not cor rect. And the people of every country where slavery is tolerated, and especially slave-holders, would do well to borrow their proverbs respecting slavery and oppression, from a different quarter than ancient Egypt. If I am not mistaken, these two facts can be fully THE following attack upon Slavery, in the form of a defence, the production of an American pen, is so ingenious and novel, that we can-made out, from the Hebrew acnot be satisfied to withhold it from our readers. The writer, of course, as he twice informs us, did not mean seriously to apologize for Pharaoh; his shrewd irony being intended not to exculpate that tyrannical monarch, but to shew the proportionably greater criminality of those who, possessing an infinitely higher code of faith and count of their bondage; - first, that it was not as hard as several kinds of modern slavery; and secondly, that Pharaoh not only had more plausible, but better, reasons for his course, than many modern slave-holders have. In proof of the first, I adduce the following facts :- "1. The Hebrews were allowed to live separate to themselves, and retain their own manners, customs, It was known that a Doctor's degree and religion. (Exod. ix. 26.) They had been sent to Mr. Hinton, from one of the American universities.-ED. formed a community by them selves. Their slavery was rather and embroidery; working in wood political than personal. They were held as public, not as private property. The labour exacted from them was for the benefit of the state, rather than of individuals. (Exod. i. 9-14.) and iron; in gold, silver, and brass; even to the cutting and setting of diamonds, with many other things connected with the erecting of the tabernacle- prove a very considerable knowledge of "2. They were not bought and the ornamental, as well as useful sold, transferred from hand to arts. (Exod. xxxv-xxxix.; Numhand, and removed from place to bers, vii.) The direction to write place, as caprice or profit might parts of their law upon their doordictate. They formed family con- posts and on their gates (Deut. nexions as they pleased, which xi. 18-20), seems to imply that were not broken in upon. The the great mass of the people, if not education and management of their all, could read and write. own children were left to them- notice of writing the names of selves; and all the endearments oflicers (Num. xi. 26), of writing of the domestic circle were un- the law on pillars (Deut. xxvii. 3), touched; the temporary attempt of writing a copy of the law upon to destroy their male children ex- stones (Joshua viii. 32), of the cepted, which we will notice pre-king's writing out a copy of the sently. law for his own use (Deut. xvii. 18), agree with the opinion that reading and writing were common among the people. "3. They remained where they were first settled, in the best part of the land of Egypt. (Gen. xlvii. 4-11; Exod. ix. 26.) "4. They not only were allowed to retain the property which they brought into Egypt, but greatly increased it during their stay. (Gen. xv. 14; Exod. xii. 38.) "5. They lived well, by their own confession; so much so, that they afterwards lamented the loss of their good living; and had almost returned to slavery for the sake of it. (Exod. xvi. 3; Num. xi. 4-6.) "6. They were made to labour; but their great increase is against the notion that their labour was so very oppressive as some suppose. (Exodus, i. 9-14.) Experience proves that oppressive labour, especially on the part of females, operates against a great increase. But the increase of the Hebrews, while in Egypt, I think unparalleled. "7. It does not appear that they were shut out from any of the common modes of improvement and education. The various works rformed as spinning, weaving, The It "8. The attempt to destroy their male children was the darkest feature in the case. We shall have occasion to refer to this again, in noticing Pharaoh's excuses and reasons. In this place I must notice, that the whole facts of the case favour the opinion that the number destroyed must have been very small. The first attempt to effect it totally failed. The attempt to drown them, appears to have lasted but a short time. was not, we may infer, in operation at the birth of Aaron; as nothing is said about a difficulty in saving him. Moses was but three years younger. (Exod. vii. 7.) It was in force at his birth. (Exod. ii. 2, 3.) At three months old he was cast out, but was immediately rescued and adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh. No other case is particularly mentioned. From Acts vii. 20, it seems probable some others were cast out. In all probability, the same sympathy which led Pharaoh's daughter to save and adopt Moses, led her to prevail on | made prime minister, the cordial her father to abandon the cruel welcome given to his family in practice. We can indeed hardly their distress,-giving them as a conceive of her indulging the full residence the best district in Egypt tide of female and maternal kind-(Gen. xlvii. 11), supporting them ness for the infant Moses, and not from the public stores for about six make an effort to save others from years (what they carried to Canaan the watery grave from which she cost them nothing, as Joseph rehad rescued him. That the prac-turned their money, Gen. xlii. 25, tice was abandoned-that but few xliv. 1), and their prospect of a were destroyed-I think nearly free trade with Egypt, with Joseph certain, from the fact that there prime minister there, might with were 600,000 men contemporaries some reason be thought a pretty with Moses when they left Egypt, liberal reward. Not many good and that the number of Israelites deeds get better pay. immediately after leaving Egypt “2. At the end of the famine, in(Exod. xii. 27), compared with stead of returning to Canaan, as their number on entering Egypt might naturally have been expect(Gen. xlvi. 27), only about 215 ed, the Hebrews continued to ocyears before, shews that they dou-cupy the land of Goshen. Joseph bled, in less than every fifteen never forgot that he was a Hebrew, years-an unusual increase. The or lost any just and proper opporabove statement, I think, proves tunity of advancing the interests that Egyptian slavery was much of his own kindred. While Egypt milder than the slavery which has owed much to him in many rebeen often practised since, and is spects, various things were so manow practised by many who profess naged (perhaps accidentally) that Christianity. the Hebrews had decidedly the ad"The following facts, drawn from vantage, as to wealth, ease, and the Hebrew records, will shew, I the means of improvement, over think, that Pharaoh had what he the Egyptians. The close of the probably thought good reasons for famine found the Egyptians withholding that people in bondage ;-out money, flocks or herds, or reasons which at least will bear comparison with what pass for good reasons now: even personal freedom (Gen, xlvii. 12-26), and under an engagement to give Pharaoh one fifth part 1. The Hebrews were received of all their produce. On the other into Egypt at a time of unexampled hand, the Israelites were full handscarcity, when like to perish; and ed, had lost nothing, were in poswere, with their flocks and herds, session of the best part of Egypt, supported free of cost (Gen. xlv. and had under their management 10, 11); while the Egyptians, who the cattle of Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii. raised the grain laid up in store 6); and as all the cattle of the (Gen. xli. 34, 35), had to sell their Egyptians had come into Pharaoh's flocks, herds, and even themselves, hands, the Hebrews no doubt refor food for their families. (Gen.ceived a good portion of Pharaoh's xlvii. 15-24.) While the obliga- fifth, in payment for managing tion of Pharaoh to Joseph for his them for him. They had full emforesight and ability is fully ad-ployment, of the very kind they mitted, it is thought that some preferred (Gen. xlvi. 33, 34): no bounds ought to be set to the re- wonder therefore they were willing turns made to him, and especially to have remained where they were. to his whole kindred. His being (To be concluded in our next.) |