« ElőzőTovább »
then was it, that just principles concerning the way of life Si. Who only are truly happy (v. 1-12.), and the duty of Christians to be and happiness, and the nature and extent of the Gospel,
6 ii. The design of Christ's coming, viz. to ratify the divine law (17--20.), should be infused into the breasts of these sons of Sion, that
which had been much impaired by the traditions of the Pharisees.--1. they might be able to work out their own salvation, and pro
IN RESPECT OF ITS EXTENT :--this is exemplified in what concerns, I. mote that of others; since they were to be the salt of the
Murder (21-26.); 2. Adultery (27-30.); 3. Divorce (31, 32.); 4. Oaths earth, and the light of the world ; the first preachers of right
(33–37.); 5. Retaliation (35—42.); 6. The love of our neighhour (43.
48.)II. IN RESPECT OF MOTIVE; where the end is applause, the virtue eousness to the nations, and the instruments of calling man- is destroyed. This is exemplified, l. In ilms.giring (vi. 1-4.); 2. In kind to the knowledge of the truth.
prayer (5—15.); 3. In fusting. (16-18.) “ Matthew, therefore, has chose out of the materials be
siii. Heavenly-mindedness enforced by various considerations. (vi. 19
- 31.) fore him, such parts of our blessed Saviour's history and $ iv. Cautions against censoriousness in judging of others (vii. J-5.); addiscourses as were best suited to the purpose of awakening
monition to discretion in dispensing religious benefits (6.); to assiduity
in pursuing spiritual good (7-11.); to humanity and equity in our be. them to a sense of their sins, of abating their self-conceit haviour to all (12.); and to withstand all sinful affections (13, 14.); and overweening hopes, of rectifying their errors, correcting warnings against false teachers, who are commonly known by their their prejudices, and exalting and purifying their minds.
actions (15--2.); the wisdom of adding practice to knowledge, and the
insignificancy of the latter without the former. (21--29.) After a short account, more particularly requisite in the first writer of a Gospel, of the genealogy and miraculous birth
Sect. 3. A narrative of several miracles, performed by Christ, of Christ, and a few circumstances relating to his infancy,
and of the call of Matthew. (viii. ix.) he proceeds to describe his forerunner John the Baptist, who Sect. 4. Christ's charge to his twelve apostles, whom he sent preached the necessity of repentance to the race of Abraham forth to preach to the Jews. (x. xi. 1.) and children of the circumcision; and by his testimony pre
Sect. 5. relates the manner in which the discourses and acpares us to expect one mightier than he: mightier as a tions of Jesus Christ were received by various descriptions prophet in deed and in word, and above the sphere of a of men, and the effect produced by his discourses and miraprophet, mighty to sanctify by his spirit, to pardon, reward, cles. (xi. 2.-xvi. 1-12.) and punish by his sovereignty. Then the spiritual nature Sect. 6. contains the discourses and actions of Christ, immeof his kingdom, the pure and perfect laws by which it is diately concerning his disciples. (xvi. 13.-xx. 1-16.) administered, and the necessity of vital and universal obedi- Part IV. contains the Transactions relative to the Passion and ence to them, are set before us in various discourses, be- Resurrection of Christ. (xx. 17.-xxviii.) ginning with the sermon on the mount, to which Saint Mat
Sect. 1. The discourses and miracle of Christ in his way to thew hastens, as with a rapid pace, to lead his readers. And that the holy light shining on the mind by the word and life
Jerusalem. (xx. 17–34.) of Christ, and quickening the heart by his spirit, might be
Sect. 2. The transactions at Jerusalem until his passion. seconded in his operations by the powers of hope and fear: $i. On Palm Sunday (as we now call it), or the first day of Passion the twenty-fifth chapter of this Gospel, which finishes the
week, Christ makes his triunıphal entry into Jerusalem, where he
expels the inoney.changers, and other traders out of the temple. (xxi legislation of Christ, exhibits him enforcing his precepts, 1- 17.) and adding a sanction to his laws, by that noble and awful S ii. On Monday, or the second day of Passion-week.-The barren fig
tree withered. (xxi. 18-22.) description of his future appearance in glory, and the gathering of all nations before him to judgment. Saint Matthew,
$ ini. On Tuesday, or the third day of Passion-week.
(a) In the Temple.-The chief priests and ellers confuted, 1. By a then, passing to the history of the Passion, shows them that question concerning John's baptisin. (xxi. 23–27.)-2. By the para.
bles of the two sons (23–32.), and of the labourers of the vineyard the new covenant, foretold by the prophets, was a covenant of
(33—41.); for which they seek to lay hands on hiin. (45, 46.) The spiritual not temporal blessings, established in the sufferings
parable of the marriage-feast. (xxii. 1-14.) Christ confutes the and death of Christ, whose blood was shed for many, FOR THE
Pharisees and Sadducees by showing, l. The lawfulness of paying REMISSION OF SINS (Matt. xxvi. 28.); which it was not pos
tribute. (xxii. 15–22.)-2. Proving the resurrection. (23–33.)-3.
The great commandment (34-40.), and silences the Pharisees (41sible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away. To 46.), against whom he denounces cight woes for their hypocrisy purge the conscience from the pollution of dead and sinful (xxii, 1–36.); his lamentation over Jerusalem. (37-39.) works required the blood of Him, who through the eternal
(6) Out of the Temple.---Christ's prophetic discourse concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (xxiv.); the pa. Spirit offered himself without spot to God. With the instruc
rables of the ten virgins and of the talents, and the last judgment. tions of Christ are intermixed many hints, that the kingdom of (XXV.) God would not be confined to the Jews, but, while numbers
$ iv. On Wednesday, or the fourth day of Passion week, Christ fore.
warns his disciples of his approaching crucifixion: the chief priesis of them were excluded through unbelief, would be increased consult to apprehend him. (35.) A woman anoints Christ at Bethany. by subjects of other nations. And thus the devout Israelite was taught, in submission to the will and ordinance of Hea
Sv. on Thursday, or the fifth day of Passion-week. - Judas covenants
to betray him (14-16.); ihe passover prepared. (17—19.) ven, to embrace the believing Samaritan as a brother, and to $ vi. On the Passover day, that is, from Thursday evening to Friday welcome the admission of the Gentiles into the church, evening of Passion-week. which was soon after to commence with the calling of Cor
(a) In the etening Christ eats the passover (xxvi. 20-25.), and insti
tutes the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. (26-29.) nelius. And as they suffered persecution from their own (b) Towards night Jesus, 1. Foretells the cowardice of the apostles. nation, and were to expect it elsewhere in following Christ, (xxvi. 33–35.)-2. Is in an agony. (36-46.)-3. Is apprehendeid, re. all that can fortify the mind with neglect of earthly good,
proves Peter and the multitude, and is forsaken by all. (47–56.)
(c) During the night, 1. Christ is led to Caiaphas, falsely accused, con. and contempt of worldly danger, when they come in compe- demned, and derided. (57-68.)-2. Peter's denial of Christ and retition with our duty, is strongly inculcated."
pentance. (69-75.) VIII. The Gospel of Matthew, which comprises twenty
(d) On Friday morning, 1. Jesus being delivered to Pilate, Judas
commits suicide. (xxvii. 1-10.)-2. Transactions before Pilate. (11 eight chapters and 1071 verses, consists of four parts, viz. -26.)-3, Christ is mocked and led forth. (27-32.)
(e) Transactions of the third hour.-The vinegar and gall; the cruci. Part I. treats on the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
fixion; Christ's garments divided; the inscription on the cross; the Sect. 1. The genealogy of Christ. (i. 1–17.)
two robbers; blasphemies of the Jews, (xxvii. 33–44.) Secr. 2. The birth of Christ. (i. 18—25.)
From the sixth io the ninth hour. The darkness over the land;
Christ's last agony and death ; its concomitant events. (xxvii. 45–56.) Sect. 3. The adoration of the Magi, and slaughter of the (g) Beticeen the ninth hour and sunset, Christ is interred by Joseph infants at Bethlehem and in its vicinity. (ii.)
of Arimathea. (xxvii. 57–61.) Part II. records the Discourses and Actions of John the Bap- Sect. 3. The transactions on the Sabbath of the Passover
tist, preparatory to our Saviour's commencing his Public week (that is, from sunset on Friday to sunset on SaturMinistry. (iii. iv. 1-11.)
day in Passion-week.)—The sepulchre of Christ secured. Sect. 1. The preaching of John the Baptist, and the baptism
(xxvii. 62—66.) of Jesus Christ by him. (ii.)
Sect. 4. Transactions after Christ's resurrection, chiefly on Sect. 2. The temptation of Christ in the wilderness. (iv. Easter-day. 1-11.)
Si. Christ's resurrection testified, first, to the women by an angel (xxviii. Part III. relates the Discourses and Actions of Christ in Ga
1-8.), and afterwards by Christ himself. (9, 10.)
$ ii. The resurrection denied hy his adversaries (xxvii. 11-15.), but lilee, by which he demonstrated that he was the Messiah. (iv. proved to the apostles. (16--20.) 12.-xx. 16.)
IX. Except John, the evangelist Matthew enjoyed the best Sect, 1. Christ goes into Galilee, calls Peter, Andrew, James, opportunity for writing a regular and connected narrative of
and John, and performs various miraculous cures. (iv. the life of Christ, according to the order of time and the exact 12—25.)
series of his transactions. His style is every where plain Sect. 2. The sermon on the mount. (v. vi. vii.) showing, and perspicuous, and he is eminently distinguished for the
clearness and particularity with which he has related many 1 Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 5–7.
of our Saviour's discourses and moral instructions. “Of Ibid. 8vo, vol ii. pp. 166, 167. ; 410. vol. i. p. 332. 13 See the later testimonies in Lardner, Svo, vol. vi. pp. 8.-90.; 4to. vol.
ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT MARK.
these, his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, is not mentioned by Eusebius or any other ancient writer, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his pro- and is contradicted by Jerome, whose expressions seem to phecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also won- imply that he died a natural death. derfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies Inf. That Mark was the author of the Gospel which bears of his master to the cavils of his adversaries.”ı He is the his name, is proved by the unanimous testimony of ancient only evangelist who has given us an account of our Lord's Christians, particularly Papias,4 by several ancient writers description of the process of the general judgment; and his of the first century consulted by Eusebius, by Justin Marrelation of that momentous event is awfully impressive. tyr,6 Tatian, Irenæus,& Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 10
Ammonius, 11 Origen,l2 and by all the fathers of the third and following centuries.13 Though not cited by name, this Gospel
appears to have been alluded to by Clement of Rome in the SECTION III.
first century ;'' but the testimony of antiquity is not equally uniform concerning the order in which it should be placed. Clement of Alexandria affirms that the Gospels containing
the genealogies were first written : according to this account, 1. Title.—II. Author.—III. Genuineness and authenticity of Mark wrote after Luke; but Papias, on the information of
this Gospel.-IV. Probable date.-V. Occasion and scope. John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of -VI. In what language written.—VII. Synopsis of its con- the apostles, expressly states that it was the second in order; tents.-VIII. Examination of the question, whether Mark and with him agree Irenæus and other writers. transcribed or abridged the Gospel of Matthew.-IX. 06- Satisfactory as is the testimony, to the genuineness and servations on his style.
authenticity of the Gospel of Mark, generally, some critics
have thought that the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapI. The Title of the Gospel by Saint Mark is, in the Vati- ter were not written by the evangelist.15. The following is a can manuscript, xeta Mxpxov, according to Mark. In the Alex- concise statement of the question. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, andrian Ms., the Codex Bezæ, the Codex Regius, 62 (for- in Cappadocia, has said in his second discourse on the resurmerly 2862, Stephani ), and some other editions, it is to rection, that this Gospel terminates in the more correct copies X1T1 Mepxv Eurzzenov, the Gospel according to Mark'; and in with the words spoBourto zap, for they were afraid : and Jerome some manuscripts and editions, To XP52 Mcepxov zz.Cv Eurzze has observed,16 that few of the Greek MÁS. which he had
the Holy Gospel according to Mark, or (as in the author- seen, contained these verses. But the very concise affirmaized English version), the Gospel according to Saint Mark.2 tion of Jerome is greatly restrieted by what he had himself In the Syriac version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, it is said of a various reading in the fourteenth verse, viz. that it entitled "The Gospel of the Evangelist Mark ;' in the Ara- is found in quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime Græcis codibic version, " The Gospel of St. Mark the Apostle, which he
cibus. It is evident, therefore, that, in the former passage, wrote in the Roman (tongue) by the inspiration of the Spirit he has exaggerated,—which is no unusual occurrence with of Holiness ;” and in the Persian version, “ The beginning this writer. . With regard to the assertion of Gregory, at this of the Gospel of Mark, which was written at Rome, in the distance of time it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine Latin tongue.
what he meant by the most exact manuscripts. Perhaps he II. This evangelist was not an apostle, or companion of intended MSS. more correctly written, but this merit alone Jesus Christ during his ministry, though Epiphanius and would add nothing to their authority ; nor can we now ascerseveral other fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy dis- tain the recension to which they belonged. We must
, thereciples. All that we learn from the New Testament concern- fore, examine the evidences which actually exist. The verses ing him is, that he was “ sister's son to Barnabas” (Col. iv. in question are certainly wanting in the Vatican manuscripts ; 10.), and the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at and in Nos. 137. and 138. of Griesbach’s notation they are whose house the apostles and first Christians often as- marked with an asterisk; they are also wanting in the canons sembled. (Acts xii. 12.) His Hebrew name was John, and of Eusebius : but, on the other hand, their authenticity is Michaelis thinks, that he adopted the surname of Mark when attested by authorities of the greatest importance. These he left Judæa to preach the Gospel in foreign countries,-a verses are extant in the Codex Alexandrinus; the most conpractice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who fre- siderable portion of the disputed passage (that is, the seven quently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which first verses) is in the Codex Bezæ, à primâ manu, but the they visited than by that which they had been distinguished remainder has been added by a later hand, and they are ex. in their own country. From Peter's styling him his son tant in the Greek commentaries of Theophylact. The whole (1 Pet. v. 13.), this evangelist is supposed to have been con- twelve verses are likewise found in the Peschito (or Old verted by Saint Peter; and on his deliverance (A. D. 44, re- Syriac) and Arabic versions, and in those MSS. of the l'ulcorded in Acts xii
. 12.), Mark went from Jerusalem with gate Latin Version, which are not mutilated at the end Paul and Barnabas, and soon after accompanied them to of the second Gospel; and they are cited by Augustine, other countries as their minister (Acts xiii. 5.) ; but declining Ambrose, and Leo bishop of Rome (surnamed the Great), to attend them through their whole progress, he returned to who followed this version. But what is of most importance Jerusalem, and kept up an intercourse with Peter and the is, that the manner in which so ancient a writer as Irenæus, other apostles. Afterwards, however, when Paul and Bar- in the second century, refers to this Gospel, renders it highly nabas settled at Antioch on the termination of their journey, probable that the whole passage was read in all the copies. we find Mark with them, and disposed to accompany them known to him. His words are these :- In fine autem Evan. in their future journeys. At this time he went with Barna- gelii, ait Marcus : Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus bas to Cyprus (Aets xv. 37–39.); and subsequently accom- est eis, receptus est in cælo, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.lt panied Timothy to Rome, at the express desire of Saint Paul
The verse here quoted is the nineteenth, and the chapter (2 Tim. iv. 11.), during his confinement in that city, whence contains only twenty verses. Hippolytus, who wrote in the Mark sent his salutations to Philemon (24.), and to the early part of the third century, also bears testimony in favour church at Colosse. (Col. iv. 10.) From Rome he probably of the disputed fragment, in the beginning of this book 11:0 went into Asia, where he found Saint Peter, with whom he X.upsoustav. It is further worthy of notice, that there is not a returned to that city, in which he is supposed to have written single manuscript containing this verse, which has not also and published his Gospel. Such are the outlines of this evangelist's history, as furnished to us by the New Testa
* A. D. 116. Lardner, Svo. vol. ii. pp. 109. 112. ; 4to. vol. i. pp. 338, 339. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome,3 we learn 6 A. D. 140. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 120.; 410. vol. i. p. 314. that Mark, after he had writien his Gospel, went to Egypt; * A. D. 172. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 138. ; 41o. vol. I. p. 354. and, having planted a church at Alexandria, Jerome states
. A. D. 178. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ij. pp. 153, 159. ; 4to. vol. i. pp. 3f5, 366. that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the
9 A. D. 194. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. Pp. 211, 212. ; 410. vol. i.
10 A, D. 20. Ibid. Svo. vol. in pp. 257, 253. ; 410. vol. 1. p. 420. reign of Nero. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other writers, 11 A. D. 220. ibid. Sro. vol. ii
. pp. 411, et seq. ; 4to. vol
. i. pp. 503, et eng. affirm that Saint Mark suffered martyrdom; but this fact
$ Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 33.
iii. pp. 179, 180. 1 Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 20. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to 1. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 31. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 291. the New Test. vol. 1. p. 176. Bishop Cleaver has an excellent Discourse on the style of Saint Matthew's Gospel in his Sermons on Select Subjects, ward some strong objections to the canonical authority of the Gospel of
15 Michaelis (Introd. chap. iii. sect. 3. vol. I pp. 87--97.) has brought for: pp. 159_205.
Merk. As his objections apply equally to the Gospel of Luke, the realer 2 Griesbach, Nov. Tost. tom. I. on Mark i. 1.
is referred to pp. 308, 309. infra : where those objections are considered, • See the passages of these writers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. and (it is hoped) satisfactorily refuted. pp. 82–81. ; 4t0. vol. iii. pp. 176, 177.
16 Quæst. ad Hedib. Quæst. 3. 11 Adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 10. (al. II.)
12 A. D. 230.
the whole passage from the eighth to the end : nor is there | Xonpezeta," riches.” Again, the word Gehenna, which in our a single manuscript, in which this verse is wanting, that version is translated hell (ix. 43.), originally signified the does not also want the whole. No authority of equal anti- valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed to Moquity has yet been produced on the other side. It has been loch, and where a continual fire was afterwards maintained conjectured that the difficulty of reconciling Mark's account to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not of our Lord's appearances, after his resurrection, with those have been understood by a foreigner, the evangelist adds the of the other evangelists, has emboldened some transcribers words, “ unquenchable fire” by way of explanation. These to omit them. The plausibility of this conjecture renders it particularities corroborate the historical evidence above cited, highly probable: to which we may subjoin, that the abrupt- ihat Mark designed his Gospel for the use of Gentile Chrisness of the conclusion of this history, without the words in tians.. question, and the want of any thing like a reason for adding Lastly, the manner in which Saint Mark relates the life them if they had not been there originally, afford a strong of our Saviour, is an additional evidence that he wrote for collateral proof of their authenticity. Transcribers, Dr. Gentile Christians. His narrative is clear, exact, and conCampbell well remarks, presume to add and alter in order to cise, and his exordium is singular; for while the other remore contradictions, but not in order to make them. The evangelists style our Saviour the “Son of man," Saint Mark conclusion, therefore, is, that the disputed fragment is an announces him at once as the Son of God (i. 1.), an august integral part of the Gospel of Mark, and consequently is title, the more likely to engage the attention of the Romans; genuine.
omitting the genealogy of Christ, his miraculous conception, IV. Although the genuineness and authenticity of Mark's the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, and other particuGospel are thus satisfactorily ascertained, considerable un- lars, which could not be essentially important in the eyes of certainty prevails as to the time when it was composed. It foreigners. is allowed by all the ancient authors that Mark wrote it at VÍ. That this evangelist wrote his Gospel in Greek is Rome; and many of them assert that he was no more than attested by the uninterrupted voice of antiquity ; nor was an amanuensis or interpreter to Peter, who dictated this Gos- this point ever disputed until the cardinals Baronius and pel to him, though others affirm that he wrote it after Peter's Bellarmine, and, after them, the Jesuit Inchofer, anxious to death. Hence a variety of dates has been assigned between exalt the language in which the Latin Vulgate version was the years 56 and 65; so that it becomes difficult to determine executed, affirmed that Mark wrote in Latín. This asserthe precise year when it was written. But as it is evident tion, however, not only contradicts historical evidence; but from the evangelist's own narrative (Mark xvi. 20.), that he (as Michaelis has well observed) is in itself almost incredible: did not write until after the apostles had dispersed themselves for, as the Latin church, from the very earliest ages of Chrisamong the Gentiles, and had preached the Gospel every tianity, was in a very fourishing state, and as the Latin where, the Lord working with them and confirming the words language was diffused over the whole Roman empire, the with signs following; and as it does not appear that all the Latin original of Mark's Gospel, if it had ever existed, could apostles quitted Judæa earlier than the year 50? (though not have been neglected in such a manner as that no copy. several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great of it should descend to posterity. The only semblance of success), perhaps we shall approximate nearest to the real testimony, that has been produced in support of this opinion, date, if we place it between the years 60 and 63.
is the subscription annexed to the old Syriac version, that V. Saint Peter having publicly preached the Christian Mark wrote in the Romish, that is, in the Latin language, religion at Rome, many who were present entreated Mark, and that in the Philoxenian version, which explains Romish as he had for a long time been that apostle's companion, and by Frankish. But subscriptions of this kind" are of no auhad a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that thority whatever: for the authors of them are unknown, and he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides, as when Mark had finished his Gospel, he delivered it to the the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immepersons who made this request. Such is the unanimous diately from the Greek, no appeal can be made to a Syriac iestimony of ancient writers, which is further confirmed by subscription in regard to the language in which Mark wrote internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself. Thus, the at Rome. The advocates for the Latin original of this great humility of Peter is conspicuous in every part of it, Gospel have appealed to a Latin manuscript pretended to be where any thing is related or might be related of him; his the autograph of the evangelist himself, and said to be preweaknesses and fall being fully exposed to view, while the served in the library of Saint Mark at Venice. But this is things which redound to his honour are either slightly now proved to be a mere fable: for the Venetian manuscript touched or wholly concealed. And with regard to Christ, formerly made part of the Latin manuscript preserved at searcely an action that was done, or word spoken by him, is Friuli, most of which was printed by Blanchíni in his Evanmentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and with geliarum Quadruplex. The Venice manuscript contained the such minuteness of circumstance as shows that the person first forty pages, or five quaternions of Mark's Gospel; the who dictated the Gospel had been an eye-witness of the two last quaternions or sixteen pages are preserved at Prague, transactions recorded in it.
where they were printed by M. Dobrowsky, under the title From the Hebraisms discoverable in the style of this Gos- of Fragmentum Pragense Evangelii S. Marci vulgo autographi. pel, we should readily conclude that its author was by birth | 1778. 4to.9 and education a Jew: but the numerous Latinisms; it con- VII. The Gospel of Mark consists of sixteen chapters, . tains, not only show that it was composed by a person who which may be divided into three parts; viz. had lived among the Latins, but also that it was written be- Part I. i'ne transactions from the Baptism of Christ to his yond the confines of Judæa. That this Gospel was designed
entering on the more public part of his Ministry. (ch. i. 1principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there
13.) were some Jewish converts in the church of Rome) is further Part II. The Discourses and Actions of Jesus Christ to his erident from the explanations introduced by the evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for
going up to Jerusalem to the fourth and last Passover. (i. 14. Hebrew Christians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, the appellation “ river” is added to the
Sect. 1. The transactions between the first and second passname. (Mark i. 5.). Again, as the Romans could not under- overs. (i. 14–45. ii. 1-22.) stand the Jewish phrase of " defiled or common hands,” the
6 Dr. Campbell's Pref. to Mark, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83. evangelist adds the parenthetical explanation of “that is, • Pritii, Introd. ad Lect. Nov. Test, p. 311. unuashen." (vii. 2.) When he uses the word corban, he • Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 225. See also Jones on the Canon of the New subjoins the interpretation, “that is, a gift” (vii. 11.); and
Test. vol. iii. p. 67-69.
9 The history of the pretended autograph manuscript of St. Mark is instead of the word mammon, he uses the common term briefly as follows. There was, at Aquileia, a very ancient Latin MS. of the
four Gospels; two quaternions or sixteen pages of which the emperor i Griesbach, Comm. Crit. in Text. Nov. Test. Particula 11. p. 199. Dr. Charles IV, obtained in 1531, from Nicholas, patriarch of Aquilcia, and sent Camphell, on the Gospels, note on Mark xvi. (vol. ii. p. 405. 3d edit.) Cel. them to Prague. The reinaining five quaternions the canons of the church lerier, Introd. au N. T. pp. 311-352. Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 285 at Aquileia, during the troubles which befell that city, carried to Friuli,
together with other valuable articles belonging to their church, A. D. 1420.. . See Dr. Iardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. 7., where this and from the inhabitants of Friuli the Venetian Doge, Toinaso Macenico subject is amply discussed." Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 65–77. ; 4to, vol. iii. obtained these five quaternions, which were subsequently passed for the
original athograph of St. Mark. (Alber, Hermeneut Nov. Test, ionn. i. * Clemens Alexandr. apud Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 14. Jerome de 238.) There is a particular account of the Prague Fragment of St. Mark's Viris Illustribus, cap. viii. Tertulliani Opera, p. 505. edit. Rigaltii. Gospel, by Scheepflin, in the third volume of the Historia et Commenta. • S: e several instances of this adduced in Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. tiones Academiæ Electoralis Theodoro-Palatinæ, Bro. Manheim, 1773. ; in
which a fac-simile is given. The account is abridged, and the fac-simile Several of these Latinisms are specified in Vol. I. p. 29.
copied in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1778, vol. xlvi. pp. 321, 322. VOL. II.
Sect. 2. The transactions between the second and third pass- strongest proof that he was totally unacquainted with the overs. (ii. 23—28. iii.vi.)
contents of Matthew's Gospel. T'he latter evangelist has Secr. 3. The transactions of the third passover to Christ's given us a very circumstantial description of Christ's congoing up to Jerusalem to the fourth passover. (vii.—x.) versation with his apostles on a mountain in Galilee, yet the
former, though he had before related Christ's promise that Part III. The Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. he would go before them into Galilee, has, in the last chap(xi.-xvi.)
ter of his Gospel, no account whatever of Christ's appearance Sect. 1. The first day of Passion-week or Palm Sunday- in Galilee. Now, if he had read Matthew's Gospel, this
Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. (xi. 1-11.) important event coul not have been unknown to him, and Sect. 2. The transactions of the second day, or Monday. consequently he would not have neglected to record it. (xi. 12–19.)
Michaelis further observes, that if Mark had had Matthew's Sect. 3. The transactions of the third day, or Tuesday Gospel before him, he would have avoided every appearance $i. In the morning. (xi. 20—33. xii.)
of contradiction to the accounts given by an apostle and an 8 ii. In the evening. (xiii.)
eye-witness. His account of the call of Levi, under the Sect. 4. The transactions of the fourth day, or Wednesday. very same circumstance as Matthew mentions his own call, (xiv. 1--9.)
is at least a variation from Matthew's description; and this Sect. 5. The transactions of the fifth day, or Thursday. very variation would have been avoided, if Mark had had (xiv. 10–16.)
access to Matthew's Gospel. The same may be observed Sect. 6. The transactions of the Passover-day, that is, from of Mark x. 46., where only one blind man is mentioned,
Thursday evening to Friday evening of the Passion-week; whereas Matthew, in the parallel passage, mentions two. In including the institution of the Lord's Supper, Christ's Mark's account of Peter's denial of Christ, the very same agony in the garden, his being betrayed by Judas, his trial, woman, who addressed Peter the first time, addressed him crucifixion, and burial. (xiv. 17–72. xv.)
likewise the second time, whereas, according to Matthew, Sect. 7. The transactions after the resurrection of Christ. he was addressed by a different person; for Mark (xiv. 69.) (xvi.)
uses the expression ý audiran, the maid, which, without a
violation of grammar, can be construed only of the same VIII. From the striking coincidence between the Gospel maid who had been mentioned immediately before, whereas of Mark and that of Matthew, several learned men have Matthew (xxvi. 71.) has aan, another maid. Now, in imagined that Mark compiled his Gospel from him. . Augus. whatever manner harmonists may reconcile these examples, tine was the first who asserted that Mark was a servile copy- there will always remain a difference between the two acist (pedissequus) and epitomizer of Matthew, and his opinion counts, which would have been avoided if Mark had copied has been adopted by Simon, Calmet, Adler,' Owen, Harwood, from Matthew. But what shall we say of instances, in and others.
which there is no mode of reconciliation? If we compare In the year 1782, Koppe published a dissertation,2 in which Mark iv. 35. and i. 35. with Matt. viii. 28–31., we shall he has proved that this hypothesis is no longer tenable, and find not only a difference in the arrangement of the facts, but Michaelis has acquiesced in the result of his inquiries. The such a determination of time as renders a reconciliation imfollowing observations are chiefly abridged from both these practicable. For, according to Matthew, on the day after writers.
the sermon on the mount, Christ entered into a ship, and The assertion, that Mark abridged the Gospel of Matthew, crossed the lake of Gennesareth, where he encountered a contradicts the unanimous voice of antiquity, which states violent tempest: but, according to Mark, this event took that Mark wrote his Gospel under the inspection and dicta- place on the day after the sermon in parables; and, on the tion of Peter; and, although there is a coincidence between day which followed that on which the sermon on the mount these two evangelists, yet it does not thence necessarily fol- was delivered, Christ went, not to the sea-side, but to a deow that he abridged the Gospel of Matthew. For, in the sert place, whence he passed through the towns and villages tirst place, he frequently deviates from Matthew in the order of Galilee. Another instance, in which we shall find it of time, or in the arrangement of his facts, and likewise egually impracticable to reconcile the two evangelists, is adds many things of which Matthew has taken no notice Mark xi. 28. compared with Matt. xxi. 23. In both places whatever. Now, as Matthew was an apostle, and eye- the Jewish priests propose this question to Christ, a Fut witness of the facts which he related, Mark could not have Ecuore Taute fuis; alluding to his expulsion of the buyers desired better authority; if, therefore, he had Matthew's and sellers from the temple. But, according to what Saint Gospel before him when he wrote his own, he would Mark had previously related in the same chapter, this
quesscarcely have adopted a different arrangement, or have in. tion was proposed on the third day of Christ's entry into serted facts which he could not have found in his original Jerusalem; according to Matthew, it was proposed on the author.
second. If Mark had copied from Matthew, this difference Again, although there are several parts of Matthew's Gos- in their accounts would hardly have taken place.? pel, which an evangelist, who wrote chiefly for the use of the Since, then, it is evident that Saint Mark did not copy Romans, might not improperly omit—such as the genealogy from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the question recurs, how -the healing of the centurion's servant at Capernaum- are we to reconcile the striking, coincidences between them, -Christ's argument to John's disciples, to prove that he was which confessedly exist both in style, words, and things? the Messiah--the sermon on the mount—some prophecies Koppe, and after him Michaelis, endeavoured to account for from the Old Testament—and the narrative of the death of the examples of verbal harmony in the three first Gospels, Judas Iscariot ;-yet, on the other hand, there are several by the supposition that in those examples the evangelists relations in Matthew's Gospel, for the omission of which it is very difficult to assign a reason, and which therefore lead
6 The whole difficulty, in reconciling this apparent discrepancy between to the conclusion that his Gospel was not used by Mark.- the two evangelists, " has arisen from the vam expectation that they njust See particularly the discourses and parables related in Matt. always agree with each other in the most ininute and trivial particulars: as viii. 18–22.; X. 15--22.; xi. 20—30.; xii. 33—45.; xiii. able scheme of inspiration required this exact correspondency. The 1-39.; xviii. 10—35.; xix. 10-12.; xx. 16.; and xxii. solution, which Michaelis afterwards offered in his Anmerkungen, affords 1-14.5
After stating that Mat
thew had said 'another maid,' Mark 'the maid,' and Luke another man' Lastly, Mark's imperfect description of Christ's transac-(irspos), he observes, the whole contradiction vanishes at once, if we only tions with the apostles, after his resurrection, affords the attend to John, the quiet spectator of all which passed. For he writes
(xviii. 25.), They said unto him, Wast thou not also one of his disciples?' · Prof. Adler's hypothesisis, that Mark first epitomized the Gospel of Matthew into Greek, omitting those topics which the heathens (for whom and that all which is said by Matthew, Mark, and Luke may very easily be
Whence it appears that there were several who fpake on this occasion, He wrote) would not understand ; such as the Genealogy, the Discourse true. There might probably be more than the three who are nained, bue delivered on the Mount, the 230 chapter, which was addressed to the Phari the maid, who had in a former instance recognised Peter, appears to have which he imagines (for the hypothesis is utterly destitute of proon) that the Gospel to Mark, he might have said the maid." Bishop Middleton's Docwhole was translated into Greek, for the use of the Greek or Hellenistictrine of the Greek Article, p. 235. first edition.
: Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 2:20. Koppe (ut supra, pp. 57—59.) has given seve1 The title of this tract is Marcus non Epitomator Matthæi. It was ral additional examples of sceming contradictions between the two evange. reprinted by Pou and Ruperti in the first volume of their Sylloge Com lists, proving that Mark could not have copied from Matthew. On the mentationum Theologicarum. Helmstadt, 1800, 8vo.
subject above discussed, the reader will find inuch important information 3 Koppe has given thirteen instances. See Pott's Sylloge, vol. i. pp. 55 in Jones's Vindication of the former part of Saint Matthew's Gospel from
Mr. Whiston's Charge of Dislocations, pp. 47–86., printed at the end of his • Koppe has given twenty-three instances of these additions. Ibid. pp. I third volume on the Cenon: and also in the Latin thesis of Bartus van Koppe has specified several other omissions in the Gospel of St. Mark, narrata, aut copiosius et explicatius, ab eo, qualu a cæteris Evangelistis
all the satisfaction which a candid man can desire.
Willes, entitled Specinien Hermeneuticum de iis, quæ ab uno Marco sunt which we have not room to enumerate. Ibid. pp. 49–53.
exposita. Svo. Trajecti ad Rhenun, 1811.
ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT LUKE.
retained the words which had been used in more ancient Gos-, is of opinion that he was a Gentile, on the authority of Paul's pels, such as those mentioned by Luke in this preface. But expressions in Col. iv. 10, 11. 14. The most proable conjecthere does not appear to be any necessity for resorting to ture is that of Bolton, adopted by Kuinoel, viz. that Luke such an hypothesis : for, in the first place, it contradicts the was descended from Gentile parents, and that in his youth accounts given from the early Christian writers above cited; he had embraced Judaism, from which he was converted to and, secondly, it may be accounted for from other causes. Christianity. The Hebraic-Greek style of writing observable Peter was, equally with Matthew, an eye-witness of our in his writings, and especially the accurate knowledge of the Lord's miracles, and had also heard his discourses, and on Jewish religion, rites, ceremonies, and usages, every where some occasions was admitted to be a spectator of transactions discernible both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, to which all the other disciples were not admitted. Both sufficiently evince that their author was a Jew; while his were Hebrews, though they wrote in Hellenistic Greek. intimate knowledge of the Greek language, displayed in the Peter would therefore naturally recite in his preaching the preface to his Gospel, which is composed in elegant Greek, same events and discourses which Matthew recorded in his and his Greek name Acuxus, evidently show that he was deGospel; and the same circumstance might be mentioned in scended from Gentile parents. This conjecture is further the same manner by men, who sought not after “excellency supported by a passage in the Acts, and by another in the of speech," but whose minds retained the remembrance of Epistle to the Colossians. In the former (Acts xxi. 27.) it facts or conversations which strongly impressed them, even is related that the Asiatic Jews stirred up the people, because without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural Paul had introduced Gentiles into the temple, and in the guidance.2
following verse it is added that they had before seen with IX. Simplicity and conciseness are the characteristics of him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supMark's Gospel, which, considering the copiousness and ma- posed that Paul had brought into the temple. No mention jesty of its subject—the variety of great actions it relates, is here made of Luke, though he was with the apostle. and the surprising circumstances that attended them, together Compare Acts xxi. 15. 17., where Luke speaks of himself with the numerous and important doctrines and precepts among the companions of Paul. Hence we infer that he which it contains-is the shortest and clearest, the most was reckoned among the Jews, one of whom he might be marvellous, and at the same time the most satisfactory his-accounted, if he had become a proselyte from Gentilism to tory in the whole world.3
the Jewish religion. In the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 11. 14.) after Paul had written the salutations of Aristarchus, Marcus, and of Jesus, surnamed Justus, he adds, “who are
of the circumcision. These only,” he continues, "are my felSECTION IV.
low-workers (meaning those of the circumcision) unto the kingdom of God.". Then in the fourteenth verse, he adds, “ Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, salute you." As the
apostle in this passage opposes them to the Christians who 1. Title.-II. Author.-III. General proofs of the genuineness had been converted from Judaism, it is evident that Luke and authenticity of this Gospel.-1. Vindication of its genu
was descended from Gentile parents. ineness from the objections of Michaelis in particular:- Testament, is in his own history of the Acts of the Apostles.
The first time that this evangelist is mentioned in the New 2. Genuineness of the first two chapters, and of chapters We there find him (Acts xvi
. 10, 11.) with Paul at Troas; viii. 27–39., and xxii. 43, 44.-IV. Date, and where written. thence he attended him to Jerusalem: continued with him in -v. For whom written.-VI. Occasion and scope of this his troubles in Judæa; and sailed in the same ship with him, Gospel.–VII. Synopsis of its contents.-VIII. Observations when he was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, where on this Gospel.
he stayed with him during his two years' confinement. As I. The Title of this Gospel in manuscripts and early
none of the ancient fathers have mentioned his suffering marIn the Syriac version it is called “The Holy Gospel, the and of his history of the Acts of the Apostles, are confirmed editions is nearly the same as that of the Gospel by St. Mark! tyrdom, it is probable that he died a natural death.
III. The genuineness and authenticity of Luke's Gospel, preaching of Luke the evangelist, which he spoke and pub- by the unanimous testimonies of the ancient writers. — 'The lished (or announced) in Greek, in Great Alexandria :" in Gospel is alluded to by the apostolical fathers, Barnabas, the Arabic version, it is “The Gospel of St. Luke the phy- Clement of Rome, Herinas, and Polycarp. In the followsician, one of the seventy, which he wrote in Greek, the Holy Spirit inspiring Chim] :” and, in the Persian version, ing century, it is repeatedly cited by Justin Martyr,10 by the * The Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Egyptian Greek martyrs of Lyons, and by Irenæus.2 Tertullian,' at the
commencement of the third century, asserted against Marcion tongue, at Alexandria." information: from what is recorded in the
Scriptures, as well tians in general, and for this he appealed to various apostolical II. Concerning this evangelist, we have but little certain the genuineness and integrity of the copies of Luke's Gospel,
which were admitted to be canonical by himself and Chrisas from the circumstances related by the early Christian churches. Origen,'t a few years after, mentions the Gospels writers, the following particulars have been obtained. According to Eusebius, Luke was a native of Antioch, by third of which he says, " is that according to Luke, the Gos
in the order in which they are now generally received; the the apostle Paul. The report, first announced by Nicephoras pel commended by Paul, published for the sake
of the Gentile Callisti, a writer of the fourteenth century, that he was a the pseudo-Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen,
converts.” These testimonies are confirmed by Eusebius, painter, is now justly exploded, as being destitute of foundation, and countenanced by no ancient writers. From his ignorant of the name of the other disciple, which Dr. Gleig understands to attending Paul in his travels, and also from the testimony of be Luke himself, and thinks that he concealed his name for the same reasome of the early fathers, Basnage, Fabricius, Dr. Lardner, | Origin of the first three Gospels, in Bp. G.'s edition of Stackhouse's Hisand Bishop Gleig have been led to conclude that this evan- tory of the Bible, vol. i. pp39–93., and also in his Directions for the gelist was a Jew, and Origen, Epiphanius, and others have study of Theology, pp. 366-—-377.). But this hypothesis, which is proposed supposed that he was one of the seventy disciples; but this and supported with great ability, is opposed by the facts that the name of appears to be contradicted by Luke's own declaration that he native Jews as his apostles and missionaries (for in this light we inay con. was not an eye-witness of our Saviour's actions. Michaelis sider the seventy disciples), it is not likely that he would have selected one
who was not a Hebrew of the Hebrews, in other words, a Jew by descent 1 Pott's Sylloge Comment. vol. i. pp. 65–69. Michaelis, vol. iii. pp. 214, from both his parents, and duly initiated into the Jewish church. Besides,
the words tv imor-among us (i. 1.) authorize the conjecture that he had 9 Pritii, Introd. ad Lectionem Nov. Test. p. 179. Bishop Tomline's Ele.
considerable time in Judæa: and, as he professes that he ments of Christ. Theol. vol. i. p. 319.
derived his information from eye witnesses and ministers of Jesus Christ, : Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. i. p.
this circumstance will account for the graphic minuteness with which he • Bishop Gleig, however, has argued at great length, that the construc. has recorded particular events. tion of Luke i. 2. leads to the conclusion that he was himself an eye witness • Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. viii. Works, 8vo. vol. and personal altendant upon Jesus Ohrist; and that, as he is the only viii. pp. 105–107. ; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 187, 188. evangelist who gives an account of the appointment of the seventy, it is & Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 15. ; 410, vol. I, p. 285, most probable that he was one of that number. He adds, that the account • Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii, p. 31. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 294. of Christ's coinmencement of his ministry at Nazareth (iv. 16–32.), which & Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 55. ; 4to. vol. i. pp. 307, 308. is only slightly referred to by Matthew, and is related by none other of the Ibid. 8vo. vol, ii. p. 93. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 328. erangelists, is given with such particularity of circumstances, and in such 10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. li. p. 120. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 314. a manner, as evinces that they actually passed in the presence of the 11 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 150. ; 410. vol. i. p. 361. writer: and, further, that, as he mentions Cleopas by name in his very 19 lbid. 8vo. vol. ij. pp. 159, 160. ; 4to. vol. 1. p. 366. particular and interesting
account of all that passed between Christ and the 13 Ibid. 8vo. vol. 11. P. 258. ; 4to. vol. 1. p. 420. two disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can hardly suppose him to be 1. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 466. 4to. vol. i. p. 532.