For heaven is gathering, one by one, in its capacious breast, Both by the earthly and by the heavenly sundering of the saints their fellowship is partly hindered; but being all in the Head, they have communion even now. 1. Those in heaven, we cannot doubt, have blessed intercourse with one another in presence of the Father. Concerning this, however, we know so little, that it may be well to leave it until we get there to see if we get there;—and that you, dear reader, may get is the writer's earnest prayer, even as he requests of you to pray, that when Jesus comes to take His ransomed home he may not be left behind. 2. Those in heaven have fellowship with those on earth. Of the myriads now in glory most are unknown to us. But all are not so. The records of the past, both sacred and ecclesiastical, have made us familiar with the names and history of not a few; and with some we were personally intimate during their pilgrimage on earth. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neighbours and friends, ministers and people, revered Professors and fellow-students, are now amid the white-robed throng. And we cannot think that those who loved us only yesterday, as it were, have now ceased to care for us. No, they are interested in us yet; they love us still, fervently desiring our salvation, and eagerly hoping to meet us erelong at heaven's gate, and bid us welcome home. Nor have we ceased to remember them. We love them all the more now that they are gone. We used to sympathize with them in their sorrows, and now, exulting in their triumph, we feel that their welfare is our joy, and their felicity our bliss. We have fellowship with those who, being absent from the body, are present with the Lord. 3. The saints on earth have fellowship among themselves. They are often far apart, being widely severed from each other by lofty mountains, broad rivers, or rolling seas; by differences of language; by diverse creeds and conflicting sentiments in religion; by sad lack of love; by denominational prejudice and mistaken zeal Nevertheless, even those very widely separated do often meet at the throne of grace, and by their mutual supplications help to enrich each other's souls; and the Christian rarely assumes a loftier attitude than when taking a soul, a family, or a church (if not his own so much the nobler), into the arms of his faith, he draws down upon it the Father's choicest blessings. But it is among those who know one another that the sweetest communion is realised. When two or three Christians, of kindred spirit, meet to spend an hour together with God, how precious is their intercourse! They read the Word of life together, they speak of the great things God has done for their souls, and they pour out their hearts in united prayer. What nearness to God! what unction! what light and liberty! what love for each other! what holy joy! "Tis heaven begun!" exclaimed in rapture a young Christian who had just tried it, and found it sweet. Blessed, too, is the fellowship which the saints often have in the sanctuary, when by a more than usually abundant unction from on high they have been led to realise their common brotherhood in Christ. Most blessed of all that is experienced on earth is their communion in the ordinance of the supper. Sitting at the same table, eating of the same bread, and drinking of the same cup, they muse upon the dying love of the same Saviour. They look not to one another; they speak not, for each soul is holding high communion with the HEAD; but as they drink a long, deep, silent draught of love, they feel that they are all one in Christ. "For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart." Oh! for a double portion of the same spirit to rest now upon the saints on earth, divided, alas! into sections innumerable, yet not searching their own hearts so much as engaging in mutual fault finding, each section assuming that it is in the right, and taking credit to itself for superior faithfulness in the Master's cause. During generations of embittered strife denominational self-righteousness has grown, and budded, and blossomed, and is now bearing fruit to the perpetuation of existing divisions-nay, has already shed it down so abundantly, that many are little inclined to listen when God seems offering to heal the breaches of Zion. Can there be deafness to such a call on the part of those who "believe in the communion of saints?" Can there be deafness to it on the part of those who hold the universal headship of the Mediator, and account it the peculiar glory of their testimony for the truth? Does not the special prominence given to such a distinctive principle involve special obligation to promote to the utmost the union and communion of those who are already one in Christ? Is it a legitimate use to make of the blessed truth that all things are gathered into one in Christ, to convert it into a barrier for severing those who most firmly believe it from the rest of the members of Christ's body? Should it not rather be regarded as a bond of connection, and employed as the King's highway of communication between all that are His? Can they be deaf to such a call who own the binding obligation of the Covenants? In the very first head of the Solemn League we swear, "That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, . that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." The Church's utmost efforts, if put forth, may fail to effect union upon a satisfactory basis, with even one or two sister denominations, but one thing seems plain, that the creed of the universal Church, the Solemn League and Covenant of our fathers, and the glory of the Redeemer's crown, alike demand that the effort should be made. HORAE EVANGELICAE. NO. II. MATTHEW PUBLICAN, SINNER, JEW; CONVERT, AND APOSTLE: HOW HE WROTE THE GOSPEL STORY. We have found four sufficient explanations of the first phenomenon presented by the structure of the New Testament, four reasons why the Holy Spirit has employed as many evangelists each to write a Gospel narrative. The history is made in this way to rest on surer testimony: the supreme importance of that history is emphatically proclaimed the infinite fulness and greatness of the Lord Christ required such variety of portraiture: and that variety is adapted in the wisest and most gracious manner to the wants of different ages and different classes of men. "The Gospel according to Matthew" is rightly placed first among the books of the New Testament. The order in which the other books stand may not be the order in which they were given to the Church, but this narrative by Matthew, if not the very first in point of time of all the writings of the New Testament, has every claim to be placed at the beginning of it. Pursuing the line of inquiry already indicated we are to ask Why should all men, upon opening the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, find at the head of its first writing the name of Matthew? Why should it be so arranged that we have scarcely read the great rich blessed word Gospel" till we read the name of a fellow man, and one about whom we know nothing beforehand? Who was Matthew? and To what extent has the Holy Spirit employed his individual peculiarities to impart a distinctive character to this narrative concerning the Lord Jesus? I. THE EVANGELIST HIMSELF. The one circumstance of prominent interest in connection with Matthew is his character previously to being called by our Lord. Jesus, in constituting the body of apostles, did not select twelve men of the same age, the same social position, the same temperament, or even of the same moral char acter. Each one has something to distinguish him more or less markedly from all the rest; so that men might expect to find every variety of circumstance and character among His ministers in all ages. Matthew stands out as the example of a degraded sinner and an outcast from the commonwealth of Israel being called to fill the highest office in the Church of the living God. His name stands in all the lists of the apostles, being coupled in that list which he himself gives, but in none of the others, with the epithet "publican." He feels that in relation to the Lord Christ, his distinction is the same as Paul's-" Christ Jesus came to save sinners: of whom I am chief" (Matt. x. 3. 1 Tim. i. 15). He was one of those who farmed the revenue of Palestine under the Roman government, for such is the meaning of the name "publican." It was an occupation into which no Jew would enter who had any lingering spark of patriotism about him, one which was specially detested by the whole nation as being so closely connected with the constant and sore reminder of their bondage, and one moreover which was demoralising to the person engaged in it, the taxes being often oppressive in themselves and needing to be exacted with cruel extortion. The name had thus come to be coupled, even in the mouth of Jesus Himself, with "heathen man" and "harlot." Matthew therefore while of Israel by birth, was among "the outcasts of Israel" whom our Lord came to "gather" (Psalm exlvii. 2). His conversion is recorded by Mark and Luke as well as by himself, and the same circumstances are mentioned by all the three as having preceded and followed that event so momentous in its consequences to all the generations since. It is well worthy of your notice that they all mention the healing of the paralytic who was let down through the roof, as occurring immediately before the call of Matthew,—a type surely being furnished in that miracle and in the full pardon which accompanied it of such sudden conversion as his; and that the feast in Matthew's house, in which he proved at once his love to Christ and his zeal to bring those who were like his former self into contact with the great Healer, is recorded, also by them all, as immediately following. Whether they were so grouped in point of time or not, these three events are so grouped for us in the evangelical narratives. (See Mark ii. 1-17; Luke v. 17-32; and Matt. ix. 1-13, and notice that it is not Matthew himself, but Luke, who tells us that, when Jesus sat at meat in the house with publicans and sinners, it was Matthew's own house; and that the meal was not an ordinary one, but a great feast" made "for Him." To discover these minor traits, so beautiful and instructive, is the frequent reward of close examination.) Such are the scanty items of information to be gathered concerning the personal history of the evangelist: it is not a career but a character that is set before us in his case. And if we look to the few sentences in which the sacred narratives record Levi's feast, and remember that he was a Galilean Jew, I think we shall find the key to a right understanding of that character and the clue also to discover some of the most interesting peculiarities of his narrative. You see there how grace impels a believer to use" the unrighteous mammon" with a view to "make for himself friends who shall receive him into everlasting habitations" (Luke xvi. 9): for if the publican is richer than the fishermen so that he can "make Jesus a great feast in his own house," the guests whom he invites prove that he is the equal of Peter or John in love for perishing souls," There was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them." Nor was he disappointed in his wise and good purpose; it was in his house and on this occasion that the words were spoken, "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke v. 27-32). Here we have fit commencement of an apostle's career, and a representation in miniature of that lifelong work on which Matthew now entered, the work of gathering as many sinners as he could around the Lord Christ and craving His blessing on them. II. Such work he doubtless performed with his lips as long as he was spared on earth. But how long that was we know not; nor have we any account of Matthew's preaching on even a single occasion. He performed his work as an apostle mainly by writing HIS EVANGEL. Let us try now what we can discover about it that is interesting and instructive, as distinguished from the other three. 1. As to the date of this writing it is the first of the Evangels, and with the exception of some of Paul's Epistles-those to Thessalonica, for example-the earliest of the New Testament books. Irenæus, one of the early fathers, (A.D. 150-202) speaks of Matthew as having written "while Peter and Paul were in Rome, preaching the Gospel and founding the Church :" and there is other ancient testimony to the same effect. We may trust it in this case, seeing that it is in entire agreement with internal marks. While recording the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem he never hints that they have been fulfilled when he writes, but gives them as being still predictions: now, Jerusalem fell in A.D. 72. Mentioning the field which the chief priests bought with Judas' conscience-money, he says 66 that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day' (xxvii. 8). When exposing the story which the priests put into the mouths of the soldiers about the body of Jesus, he adds, " and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (xxviii. 15). At the same time the whole tone of the narrative goes to indicate that a considerable number of years had elapsed since the Ascension, probably not less than twenty. 2. There is strong evidence to prove that this Evangel existed at first in two languages,-in Hebrew, or, to speak more accurately, in the vernacular of Palestine, as well as in the present Greek. There is a good deal of debate on this point among the learned, into which of course we need not enter: but the fact is an interesting one, as bearing upon translations of the Word of God generally and shewing them to be of very early, even of apostolical, date and origin. Both versions-supposing two to have existed, which I think we may-had the authority of Matthew himself, although only the Greek one has been preserved and transmitted. 3. Whether he wrote in the Hebrew language or not, it is at any rate quite certain that Matthew wrote with a special view to the benefit of native Hebrews, of those descendants of Abraham who remained in Judea and Galilee. It is this which gives to his narrative much of its distinctive character and value. Early and authentic church history offers testimony to the fact; but we scarcely need that. No one can read the book through with moderate care and attention, disregarding the uninspired division into chapters and reading straight on as he would another book, without being convinced of the following things: (1.) That it was written by a Jew; (2.) by |