SECT. 2. The transactions between the second and third passovers. (ii. 23-28. iii.—vi.) SECT. 3. The transactions of the third passover to Christ's going up to Jerusalem to the fourth passover. (vii.—x.) PART III. The Pussion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. (xi.-xvi.) SECT. 1. The first day of Passion-week or Palm Sunday- SECT. 3. The transactions of the third day, or Tuesday- ii. In the evening. (xili.) SECT. 4. The transactions of the fourth day, or Wednesday. SECT. 5. The transactions of the fifth day, or Thursday. VIII. From the striking coincidence between the Gospel of Mark and that of Matthew, several learned men have imagined that Mark compiled his Gospel from him. Augus tine was the first who asserted that Mark was a servile copyist (pedissequus) and epitomizer of Matthew, and his opinion has been adopted by Simon, Calmet, Adler,1 Owen, Harwood, and others. strongest proof that he was totally unacquainted with the contents of Matthew's Gospel. The latter evangelist has given us a very circumstantial description of Christ's conversation with his apostles on a mountain in Galilee, yet the former, though he had before related Christ's promise that he would go before them into Galilee, has, in the last chap. ter of his Gospel, no account whatever of Christ's appearance in Galilee. Now, if he had read Matthew's Gospel, this important event could not have been unknown to him, and consequently he would not have neglected to record it. Michaelis further observes, that if Mark had had Matthew's Gospel before him, he would have avoided every appearance of contradiction to the accounts given by an apostle and an eye-witness. His account of the call of Levi, under the very same circumstance as Matthew mentions his own call, is at least a variation from Matthew's description; and this very variation would have been avoided, if Mark had had access to Matthew's Gospel. The same may be observed of Mark x. 46., where only one blind man is mentioned, whereas Matthew, in the parallel passage, mentions two. In Mark's account of Peter's denial of Christ, the very same woman, who addressed Peter the first time, addressed him likewise the second time, whereas, according to Matthew, he was addressed by a different person; for Mark (xiv. 69.) uses the expressiondoan, the maid, which, without a violation of grammar, can be construed only of the same maid who had been mentioned immediately before, whereas Matthew (xxvi. 71.) has an, another maid. Now, in whatever manner harmonists may reconcile these examples, there will always remain a difference between the two accounts, which would have been avoided if Mark had copied from Matthew. But what shall we say of instances, in which there is no mode of reconciliation? If we compare Mark iv. 35. and i. 35. with Matt. viii. 28-34., we shall find not only a difference in the arrangement of the facts, but such a determination of time as renders a reconciliation impracticable. For, according to Matthew, on the day after 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 first 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 equally 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, v witness of the facts which he related, Mark could not have a Taura Tuis; alluding to his expulsion of the buyers desired better authority; if, therefore, he had Matthew's Gospel before him when he wrote his own, he would scarcely have adopted a different arrangement, or have inserted facts which he could not have found in his original In the year 1782, Koppe published a dissertation, in which he has proved that this hypothesis is no longer tenable, and Michaelis has acquiesced in the result of his inquiries. The following observations are chiefly abridged from both these writers. author. Again, although there are several parts of Matthew's Gospel, which an evangelist, who wrote chiefly for the use of the Romans, might not improperly omit-such as the genealogy -the healing of the centurion's servant at Capernaum-Christ's argument to John's disciples, to prove that he was the Messiah the sermon on the mount-some prophecies from the Old Testament and the narrative of the death of Judas Iscariot;—yet, on the other hand, there are several relations in Matthew's Gospel, for the omission of which it is very difficult to assign a reason, and which therefore lead to the conclusion that his Gospel was not used by Mark.See particularly the discourses and parables related in Matt. viii. 18-22.; x. 15-22.; xi. 20-30.; xii. 33-45.; xiii. 1-39.; xviii. 10-35.; xix. 10-12.; xx. 16.; and xxii. 1-14.5 and sellers from the temple. But, according to what Saint Mark had previously related in the same chapter, this question was proposed on the third day of Christ's entry into Jerusalem; according to Matthew, it was proposed on the second. If Mark had copied from Matthew, this difference in their accounts would hardly have taken place. Since, then, it is evident that Saint Mark did not copy from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the question recurs, how are we to reconcile the striking coincidences between them, which confessedly exist both in style, words, and things? Koppe, and after him Michaelis, endeavoured to account for the examples of verbal harmony in the three first Gospels, by the supposition that in those examples the evangelists The whole difficulty, in reconciling this apparent discrepancy between the two evangelists, "has arisen from the vain expectation that they must always agree with each other in the most minute and trivial particulars: as if the credibility of our religion rested on such agreement, or any reasonable scheme of inspiration required this exact correspondency. The solution, which Michaelis afterwards offered in his Anmerkungen, affords all the satisfaction which a candid man can desire. After stating that Matthew had said another maid,' Mark 'the maid,' and Luke another man,' Lastly, Mark's imperfect description of Christ's transac-(rp), he observes, the whole contradiction vanishes at once, if we only tions with the apostles, after his resurrection, affords the Prof. Adler's hypothesisis, that Mark first epitomized the Gospel of Matthew into Greek, omitting those topics which the heathens (for whom he wrote) would not understand; such as the Genealogy, the Discourse delivered on the Mount, the 23d chapter, which was addressed to the Pharisees, some references to the Old Testament, and a few parables. After which he imagines (for the hypothesis is utterly destitute of proof) that the whole was translated into Greek, for the use of the Greek or Hellenistic Jews. 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 ?' Whence it appears that there were several who spake on this occasion, and that all which is said by Matthew, Mark, and Luke may very easily be true. There might probably be more than the three who are named; but the maid, who had in a former instance recognised Peter, appears to have made the deepest impression on his mind; and hence, in dictating this Gospel to Mark, he might have said the maid." Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 285. first edition. 2 The title of this tract is Marcus non Epitomator Matthai. It was reprinted by Pott 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. -57. Koppe has given thirteen instances. See Pott's Sylloge, vol. i. pp. 55 Koppe has given twenty-three instances of these additions. Ibid. pp. Koppe has specified several other omissions in the Gospel of St. Mark, which we have not room to enumerate. Ibid. pp. 49-53. 59-64. Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 220. Koppe (ut supra, pp. 57-59.) has given seve ral additional examples of seeming contradictions between the two evange subject above discussed, the reader will find much important information 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 third volume on the Canon; and also in the Latin thesis of Bartus van Willes, entitled Specimen Hermeneuticum de iis, quæ ab uno Marco sunt narrata, aut copiosius et explicatius, ab eo, quain a cæteris Evangelistis exposita. 8vo. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1811. 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 suen 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 Acunas, 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 him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. No mention is here made of Luke, though he was with the apostle. Compare Acts xxi. 15. 17., where Luke speaks of himself among the companions of Paul. Hence we infer that he was reckoned among the Jews, one of whom he might be accounted, if he had become a proselyte from Gentilism to 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 fellow-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 had been converted from Judaism, it is evident that Luke was descended from Gentile parents. IX. Simplicity and conciseness are the characteristics of Mark's Gospel, which, considering the copiousness and majesty of its subject—the variety of great actions it relates, and the surprising circumstances that attended them, together with the numerous and important doctrines and precepts which it contains-is the shortest and clearest, the most marvellous, and at the same time the most satisfactory history in the whole world.3 SECTION IV. ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT LUKE. I. Title.-II. Author.-III. General proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel.-1. Vindication of its genuineness from the objections of Michaelis in particular. 2. Genuineness of the first two chapters, and of chapters viii. 27—39., and xxii. 43, 44.-IV. Date, and where written. -V. For whom written.-VI. Occasion and scope of this Gospel. VII. Synopsis of its contents.—VIII. Observations on this Gospel. I. THE TITLE of this Gospel in manuscripts and early editions is nearly the same as that of the Gospel by St. Mark. In the Syriac version it is called "The Holy Gospel, the preaching of Luke the evangelist, which he spoke and published (or announced) in Greek, in Great Alexandria:" in the Arabic version, it is "The Gospel of St. Luke the physician, one of the seventy, which he wrote in Greek, the Holy Spirit inspiring [him]:" and, in the Persian version, "The Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Egyptian Greek tongue, at Alexandria." II. Concerning this evangelist, we have but little certain information: from what is recorded in the Scriptures, as well as from the circumstances related by the early Christian writers, the following particulars have been obtained. According to Eusebius, Luke was a native of Antioch, by profession a physician, and for the most part a companion of the apostle Paul. The report, first announced by Nicephoras Callisti, a writer of the fourteenth century, that he was a painter, is now justly exploded, as being destitute of foundation, and, countenanced by no ancient writers. From his attending Paul in his travels, and also from the testimony of some of the early fathers, Basnage, Fabricius, Dr. Lardner, and Bishop Gleig have been led to conclude that this evangelist was a Jew, and Origen, Epiphanius, and others have supposed that he was one of the seventy disciples; but this appears to be contradicted by Luke's own declaration that he was not an eye-witness of our Saviour's actions.1 Michaelis Pott's Sylloge Comment. vol. i. pp. 65-69. Michaelis, vol. iii. pp. 214, 2 Pritii, Introd. ad Lectionem Nov. Test. p. 179. Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christ. Theol. vol. i. p. 319. 215. Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. i. p. 293. 4 Bishop Gieig, however, has argued at great length, that the construction of Luke i. 2. leads to the conclusion that he was himself an eye-witness and personal attendant upon Jesus Christ; and that, as he is the only evangelist who gives an account of the appointment of the seventy, it is most probable that he was one of that number. He adds, that the account of Christ's commencement of his ministry at Nazareth (iv. 16-32), which is only slightly referred to by Matthew, and is related by none other of the evangelists, is given with such particularity of circumstances, and in such a manner, as evinces that they actually passed in the presence of the writer and, further, that, as he mentions Cleopas by name in his very particular and in.eresting account of all that passed between Christ and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, we can hardly suppose him to be Testament, is in his own history of the Acts of the Apostles. Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. viii. Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 105-107.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 187, 188. • Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 15.; 4to. vol. i. p. 285. 12 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.; 4to. vol. i. p. 366. Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and a host of later writers; | duced. There is not in all the writings of antiquity, a hint, that whose evidence, being collected by the accurate and laborious any Christian belonging to the church ever suspected that these Dr. Lardner, it is not necessary to repeat in this place. Gospels were inferior in authority to the others. No books in Notwithstanding this unbroken chain of testimony to the the canon appear to have been received with more universal genuineness and authenticity of Luke's Gospel, its canonical consent, and to have been less disputed. They are contained in authority (together with that of the Gospel by Mark) has every catalogue which has come down to us. They are cited as been called in question by Michaelis; while various attempts Scripture by all that mention them; and are expressly declared have been made to impugn the authenticity of particular by the fathers to be canonical and inspired books. Now, let it psssages of St. Luke. The celebrity of Michaelis, and the be remembered, that this is the best evidence which we can have plausibility and boldness of the objections of other assailants, that any of the books of the New Testament were written by will, it is hoped, justify the author for giving to their objec-inspiration. Michaelis, indeed, places the whole proof of inspitions a full and distinct consideration. 1. The objections of Michaelis to the canonical authority of the Gospels of Mark and Luke are as follow:OBJECTION 1. The two books in question were written by assistants of the apostles. This circumstance, he affirms, affords no proof of their inspiration, even if it could be shown that St. Mark and St. Luke were endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit (as appears to have been the case with Timothy and the deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles), of which, however, there is no historical proof: because a disciple might possess these gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired. And if we ground the argument for their inspiration on the character of an apostle's assistant, then we must receive as canonical the genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and the writings of other apostolical fathers.3 ration on the promise made by Christ to his apostles; but while it is admitted that this is a weighty consideration, it does not appear to us to be equal in force to the testimony of the universal church, including the apostles themselves, that these writings were penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not perfectly clear, that the promise referred to was confined to the twelve. Certainly, Paul, who was not of that number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and much the larger part of the twelve never wrote any thing for the canon. There is nothing in the New Testament which forbids our supposing, that other disciples might have been selected to write for the use of the church. We do not wish that this should be believed, in regard to any persons, without evidence, but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the undeniable fact, that the writings of these two men were, from the beginning received as inspired. And this belief must have prevailed before the death of ANSWER. "It will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were the apostles; for all the testimonies concur in stating, that the humble, pious men; also, that they were intelligent, well-informed men, and must have known that the committing to writing Gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of Luke by Paul, the facts and doctrines comprehended in the Gospel was not left these apostles, and John who survived them many years, would and approved by them respectively. Now, is it credible that to the discretion or caprice of every disciple, but became the have recommended to the Christian church the productions of duty of those only, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake the work. Now, if these two disciples had been unin- uninspired men? No doubt, all the churches, at that time, looked up to the apostles for guidance, in all matters that related spired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles who to the rule of their faith, and a general opinion that these Gospossessed plenary inspiration, it would have argued great pre-pels were canonical could not have obtained without their consumption in them, without any direction, to write Gospels for the instruction of the church. The very fact of their writing is, therefore, a strong evidence, that they believed themselves to be inspired. There is then little force in the remark of the learned professor, that neither St. Mark nor St. Luke have declared, in any part of their writings, that they were inspired: for such a declaration was unnecessary; their conduct in undertaking to write such books, is the best evidence that they believed themselves called to this work."4 OBJECTION 2. It has been said that the apostles themselves have in their epistles recommended these Gospels as canonical. That the passages depended upon for proof do refer to these or any other written Gospels, Michaelis denies: but even if they did so recommend these Gospels, the evidence (he affirms) is unsatisfactory; because they might have commended a book as containing genuine historical accounts, without vouching for its inspiration. And the testimony of the fathers, who state that these Gospels were respectively approved by Peter and Paul, Michaelis dismisses with very little ceremony: and, finally, he demurs in regard to the evidence of the canonical authority of these books, derived from the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which they were undoubtedly received into the canon; and suggests that the apostles might have recommended them, and the primitive church might have accepted them, as works indispensable to a Christian, on account of the importance of their contents, and that by insensible degrees they acquired the character of being inspired." ANSWER 1. The objection drawn from the writings of other apostolical men is not valid: "for none of them ever undertook to write GOSPELS, for the use of the church. All attempts at writing other Gospels, than THE FOUR, were considered by the primitive church as impious; because, the writers were uninspired men. But “2. The universal reception of these books by the whole primitive church, as canonical, is, we think, conclusive evidence that they were not mere human productions, but composed by divine inspiration. That they were thus universally received, is manifest, from the testimonies which have already been ad 1 Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 107-112.; 4to. vol. iii. 22 Tim. i. 6. Acts vi. 3-8. 181-191. pp. Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 87, 88. "The Canon of the Old and New Testaments ascertained by Archibald Alexander, Professor of Theology at Princeton, New Jersey," pp. 202, 203. (Princeton and New York, 1826. 12mo.) Michaelis Introduction, vol. i. pp. 88-94. Alexander on the Canon, P. 201 currence. The hypothesis of Michaelis, that they were recom- 1 "3. But if we should, for the sake of argument, concede, that no books should be considered as inspired, but such as were the productions of apostles, still these Gospels would not be excluded from the canon. It is a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among the fathers, that Mark wrote his Gospel from the mouth of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had heard this apostle every day declaring in his public ministry. And Luke did the same in regard to Paul's preaching. These Gos pels, therefore, may, according to this testimony, be considered as more probably belonging to these two apostles, than to the evangelists who penned them. They were little more, it would seem, if we give full credit to the testimony which has been exhibited, than amanuenses to the apostles, on whom they at tended. Paul, we know, dictated several of his epistles to some 2. Besides the preceding objections of Michaelis to the canonical authority of this Gospel in general, the genuineness of some particular passages has been questioned, the evidence for which is now to be stated. (1.) The authenticity of the first two chapters has of late years been impugned by those who deny the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus Christ; but with how little real foundation, will readily appear from the following facts: [i.] These two chapters are found in ALL the ancient manuscripts and versions at present known. of his companions; and if Mark and Luke heard the Gospel from | ledged to have been written by uninspired men, and you will Peter and Paul, so often repeated, that they were perfect masters need no nice power of discrimination to see the difference of their respective narratives, and then committed the same to the first appear in every respect worthy of God; the last betray, writing, are they not, virtually, the productions of these apostles in every page, the weakness of man." which have been handed down to us? And this was so much the opinion of some of the fathers, that they speak of Mark's Gospel as Peter's, and of Luke's as Pau'ls. But this is not all. These Gospels were shown to these apostles, and received their approbation. Thus speak the ancients, as with one voice, and if they had been silent, we might be certain, from the circumstances of the case, that these evangelists would never have ventured to take such an important step, as to write and publish the preaching of these inspired men, without their express approbation. Now, let it be considered, that a narrative prepared by a man well acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely correct without inspiration; but of this we cannot be sure, and, therefore, it is of great importance to have a history of facts from men, who were rendered infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should be remembered, however, that the only advantage of inspiration in giving such a narrative, consists in the proper selection of facts and circumstances, and in the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose, then, that an uninspired man should prepare an account of such transactions as he had seen, or heard from eye-witnesses, of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative should be submitted to the inspection of an apostle, and receive his full approbation; might not such a book be consider[iii.] But because the first chapters of it were not found in ed as inspired? If in the original composition, there should the copies used by Marcion, the founder of the sect of Marcionhave crept in some errors, (for to err is human,) the inspired re-ites in the second century, it is affirmed that they are spurious viewer would, of course, point them out and have them corrected; interpolations. now such a book would be, for all important purposes, an inspired volume; and would deserve a place in the canon of Holy Scripture. If any credit, then, is due to the testimony of the Christian fathers, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are canonical books; for, as was before stated, there is a general concurrence among them, that these evangelists submitted their works to the inspection, and received the approbation of the apostles Peter and Paul. 66 [ii.] The first chapter of Luke's Gospel is connected with the second, precisely in the same manner as we have seen (p. 299. supra) that the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel are connected; Eero AE Tas ps-Now it came to pass in those days, &c. (Luke ii. 1.) And the second chapter of St. Luke's Gospel is in a similar manner connected with the third ;—Ev STE DE TETEKLISEтw-Now, in the fifteenth year, &c. (Luke iii. 1.) This Gospel, therefore, could not possibly have begun with the third chapter, but must have been preceded by some introduction. A little consideration will show the falsehood of this assertion. The notions entertained by Marcion were among the wildest that can be conceived;-that our Saviour was man only in outward form, and that he was not born like other men, but appeared on earth full grown. He rejected the Old Testament altogether, as proceeding from the Creator, who, in his opinion, was void of goodness; and of the New Testament he received only one Gospel (which is supposed, but without foundation, to be the Gospel of Saint Luke2) and ten of Paul's Epistles, all of which he mu 4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in favour of the Gospels under consideration, as of any other books of the New Testament. There is no reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable of writing with such perfect simplicity and propriety, without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of inspired men. If we reject these books from the canon, we must give up the argument derived from internal evidence for the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures altogether. It is true, the learned professor, whose opinions we are opposing, has said, the oftener I compare their writings (Mark's and Luke's) with those of St. Matthew and St. John, the greater are my doubts.' And speaking in another place of Mark, he says, 'in some immaterial instances he seems to have erred,' and he gives it as his opinion, 'that they who undertake to reconcile St. Mark with St. Matthew, or to show that he is nowhere corrected by St. John, experience great difficulty, and have not seldom to resort to unnatural explanations.' But the learned professor has not mentioned any particular cases of irreconcilable discrepancies between this evangelist and St. Matthew; nor does he indicate in what statements he is corrected by St. John. Until something of this kind is exhibited, general remarks of this sort are deserving of no consideration. To harmonize the evangelists has always been found a difficult task, but this does not prove that they contradict each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable. Many things, which, at first sight, appear contradictory, are found, upon closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious; and if there be some things which commentators have been unable satisfactorily to reconcile, it is no more than what might be expected, in narratives so concise, and in which a strict regard to chronological order did not enter into the plan of the writers. And if this objection be permitted to influence our judgment in this case, it will operate against the inspiration of the other evangelists as well as Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discrepancies are impartially considered, and all the circumstances of the facts candidly and accurately weighed, there will be found no solid ground of objection to the inspiration of any of the Gospels ;certainly nothing, which can counterbalance the strong evidence arising from the style and spirit of the writers. In what respects these two evangelists fall short of the others, has never been shown; upon the most thorough examination and fair compari-piled a work of his own, for the service of his system and the use of his son of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all indited by the same spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all human compositions. "Compare these Gospels with those which are acknow. 1 Alexander on the Canon, pp. 203-210. The importance of the subject and the conclusive vindication of the Gospels of Luke and Mark, contained in the preceding observations, will, we trust, compensate for the length of the quotation above given; especially as the learned translator of Michae assertions of the German Professor, has offered no refutation of his illlis, whose annotations have so frequently corrected the statements and founded objections to the canonical authority of these Gospels. "There is," indeed,-Professor Alexander remarks with equal truth and piety,"something reprehensible, not to say impious, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in Ger many, first to attack the authority of particular books of Scripture, and next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, we need not say; for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late, the most dangerous enemies of the Bible, have been found occupying the places of its advocates; and the critical art, which was intended for the correction of the text, and the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in a most unnatural way, been turned against the Bible; and finally, the inspiration of all the sacred books, has not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, by Professors of Theo! And these men, while living on endowments which pious benevo lence had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far for gotten their high responsibilities, and neglected the claims which the church had on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning, to sap the foundation of that system which they were sworn to defend. They have had the shameless hardihood to send forth into the world, books under their own names, which contain fully as much of the poison of infidelity, as [was] ever distilled from the pens of the most malignant deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse upon the world. The only effectual security which we have against this new and most dangerous form of infidelity, is reading, that however many elaborate critical works may be published in found in the spirit of the age, which is so superficial and cursory in its foreign languages, very few of them will be read, even by theological stu dents, in this country. May God overrule the efforts of these enemies of Christ and the Bible, so that good may come out of evil!" (Alexander on the Canon, pp. 212, 213.) In this prayer, we are persuaded, every candid and devout critical student of the Scriptures will most cordially concur. chapters of Luke; but neither did it contain the third chapter, nor more The Gospel used by Marcion certainly did not contain the two first than one half of the fourth; and in the subsequent parts (as we are informed by Dr. Lardner, who had examined this subject with his usual minuteness and accuracy), it was "mutilated and altered in a great variety of places. He would not allow it to be called the Gospel of Saint Luke, erasing the name of that evangelist from the beginning of his copy." (Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 393-401.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 611-615.) His alterations were not made on any critical principles, but in the most arbitrary manner, in order to suit his extravagant theology. Indeed, the opinion that he used Luke's Gospel at all, rests upon no sufficient foundation. So different were times, particularly Semler, Eichhorn, Griesbach, Loeffler, and Marsh, have the two works, that the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern rejected that opinion altogether. Griesbach maintained that Marcion com (Hist. Text. Gr. Epist. Paul. p. 92.) "That Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel followers, from the writings of the evangelists, and particularly of Luke. at all," says Bp. Marsh, "is a position which has been taken for granted without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the Gospel of Luke; as Tertullian acknowledges, saying, Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit autorem. (Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 2.) It is probable tilated and disguised by his alterations, interpolations, and omissions. This conduct of Marcion's completely invalidates any argument that may be drawn from the omission of the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel in his copy; and when it is added that his arbitrary interpolations, &c. of it were exposed by several contemporary writers, and particularly by Tertullian,2 we conceive that the genuineness and authenticity of the two chapters in question are established beyond the possibility of doubt.3 (2.) From the occurrence of the word Av (Legio, that is, a Legion), in Greek characters, in Luke viii. 30., a suspicion has been raised that the whole paragraph, containing the narrative of Christ's healing the Gadarene demoniac (viii. 27—39.) is an interpolation. This doubt is grounded on the assertion that this mode of expression was not customary, either with Luke, or with any classic writer in the apostolic age. But this charge of interpolation is utterly groundless; for the passage in question is found in all the manuscripts and versions that are extant, and the mode of expression alluded to is familiar both with the evangelist, and also with classic writers who were contemporary with him. Thus, [i.] In Luke x. 35. we meet with Arape, which is manifestly the Latin word Denaria in Greek characters. In xix. 20. we also have Σcup; which word, though acknowledged in the Greek language, is nothing more than the Latin word Sudarium, a napkin or handkerchief; and in Acts xvi. 12. we also have KOANNIA (Colonia) a COLONY. [PART VI. CHAP. II are wanting in the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, in (3.) The forty-third and forty-fourth verses of Luke xxii. the Codex Leicestrensis, in the Codex Vindobonensis Lambecii 31., and in the Sahidic version: and in the Codices Basiliensis B. VI. and Vaticanus 354. (of the ninth or tenth century), and some other more recent manuscripts, these verses are marked with an asterisk, and in some of the MSS. collated by Matthæi with an obelisk. Their genuineness, therefore, has been disputed. time, these verses were wanting in some Greek and Latin MSS. Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome bear testimony that, in their But, on the other hand, they are found in by far the greater number of MSS. (as Rosenmüller remarks), without an obelisk, and in all the ancient versions except the Sahidic. They are also recognised by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenæus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Titus of Bostra, Cæsarius. The reasons for the omission of these verses in some MSS. and for their being marked as suspected in others, are obvious: they were rejected by some of the more timid, lest they should appear to favour the Arians. are accordingly retained by Griesbach in the text, without The verses in question are certainly genuine, and they any mark to indicate that they are either spurious or suspected.8 ten, there is some difference of opinion; Dr. Owen and IV. With regard to the time when this Gospel was writ[ii.] That the mode of expression, above objected to, was cus- Lardner, and the majority of biblical critics, assign it to the others referring it to the year 53, while Jones, Michaelis, tomary with classic authors in the apostolic age, is evident from year 63 or 64, which date appears to be the true one, and the following passage of Plutarch, who was born not more than corresponds with the internal characters of time exhibited ten years after Jesus Christ. He tells us that, when the city of in the Gospel itself. But it is not so easy to ascertain the Rome was built, Romulus divided the younger part of the inhabit-place where it was written. Jerome says, that Luke, the ants into battalions. Each corps consisted of three thousand third evangelist, published his Gospel in the countries of foot, and three hundred horse; and (the historian adds) Exλ Achaia and Boeotia; Gregory Nazianzen also says, that δε ΛΕΓΕΩΝ, τω λογάδας είναι τους μαχίμους παντων, that is, It was Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. called a LEGION, because the most warlike persons were "select- that about the time when Paul left Rome, Luke departed to Grotius states, ed." A few sentences afterwards, we meet with the following Achaia, where he wrote the books we now have. Dr. Cave Latin words in Greek characters, viz. ПATPIKIOTZ (Patricios) termination of Paul's captivity, but Drs. Mill and Grabe, PATRICIANS ; ΣΕΝΑΤΟΣ (Senatus), the SENΑΤΕ ; ΠΑΤΡΩΝΑΣ was of opinion that they were written at Rome before the (Patronos), PATRONS; KAIENTAX (Clientes), CLIENTS; and and Wetstein, affirm that this Gospel was published at Alexin a subsequent page of the same historian, we meet with the andria in Egypt, in opposition to the pseudo-Gospel circu word KEAEPEZ (Celeres), CELERES. Again, in Dion Cassius, these various opinions at considerable length, and concludes we meet with the following sentence: Tev 2p KEAEPION that, upon the whole, there is no good reason for supposing among the Egyptians. Dr. Lardner has examined agyar su, for I am chief, or commander of the Celeres. Whether that Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, or that he preached these are Latin words in Greek characters or not, the common sense of the reader must determine. The word AETEON is not when he left Paul, he went into Greece, and there composed so barbarous, but that it has been acknowledged by the two or finished and published his Gospel, and the Acts of the at all in Egypt: on the contrary, it is more probable that Lexicographers, Hesychius and Suidas.' Apostles.9 We have, therefore, every reasonable evidence that can be desired for the genuineness of this passage of Luke's Gospel. therefore that he used some apochryphal Gospel, which had much matter in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same." (Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 159.) Dr. Loeffler has very fully examined the question in his Dissertation, entitled Marcionem Paulli Epistolas et Luce Evangelium adulterasse dubitatur. Frankfort on the Oder, 1788. The conclusions of his minute investigation are, (1.) That the Gospel used by Marcion was anonymous: (2) Marcion rejected all our four Gospels, and maintained the authenticity of his own in opposition to thein: (3.) His followers afterwards maintained, that Christ himself and Paul were the authors of it: (4.) Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, had no reason for regarding Marcion's Gospel as an altered edition of Luke's, and their assertion is a mere conjecture resting upon none but frivolous and absurd allegations: (5) The difference of Marcion's Gospel from Luke's is inconsistent with the supposition: (6.) There are no just grounds for believing that Marcion had any pressing motives to induce him to adopt a garbled copy of Luke; and the motives assigned by the fathers are inconsistent and self-destructive.-Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14. Epiphanius has given a long account of Marcion's alterations, &c. of the New Testament. See Dr. Lardner's Works, Svo. vol. ix. pp. 369-393.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 610-624. See the passage at length in Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 256-288.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 419, 420. Much stress has been laid upon the apparent discrepancy between the genealogies of Jesus Christ in Luke iii. and Matt. i., and also on the supposed chronological difficulty in our Saviour's age; but as these seeming contradictions have already been satisfactorily explained in the first volume of this work, it is not necessary to repeat those solutions in this place. See also Dr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 27. et seq.; Archbp. Laurence's Critical Reflections on the misrepresentations contained in the modern Socinian Version, pp. 51-73.; and Dr. Hales on Faith in the Trinity, vol. i. pp. 88-110. Plutarchi Vitæ, in Romulo, tom. i. pp. 51, 52. edit. Bryani. Plutarchi Vitæ, vol. i. p. 71. In the same page also occurs the word KANITOAION (Capitolium), the CAPITOL. • Dion Cassius, lib. iv. cited by Mr. Rennell (to whom we are principally indebted for the observations above stated), in his Animadversions on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 52. See their Lexicons, in voce; their elucidations of this word are cited by Schleusner, in his Lexicon in Nov Test. voce Asyv. lated converts, is affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian V. That Luke wrote his Gospel for the benefit of Gentile to one of his Gentile converts. This, indeed, appears to antiquity, and it may also be inferred from his dedicating it have been its peculiar design; for writing to those who were far remote from the scene of action, and ignorant of Jewish affairs, it was requisite that he should descend to many par ticulars, and touch on various points, which would have been unnecessary, had he written exclusively for Jews. Baptist (i. 5-80.), as introductory to that of Christ; and account he begins his history with the birth of John the On this in the course of it he notices several particulars, mentioned by Matthew. (ii. 1-9, &c.) Hence, also, he is particularly careful in specifying various circumstances of facts that were highly conducive to the information of strangers; but which it could not have been necessary to recite to the Jews, who could easily supply them from their own knowledge. On this account, likewise, he gives the genealogy of Christ son of David, from whom the Scriptures taught the Jews not as Matthew had done, by showing that Jesus was the that the Messiah was to spring; but he traces Christ's lineage up to Adam, agreeably to the mode of tracing geneperson whose lineage was given to the founder of his race alogies in use among the Gentiles, by ascending from the (iii. 23-38.); and thus shows that Jesus is the seed of the woman, who was promised for the redemption of the whole world. Further, as the Gentiles had but little knowledge Christ was born, and when John began to announce the of Jewish transactions, Luke has marked the æras when • Griesbachii et Schulzii Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 470. Rosenmüller, Kuinöel, Lipsia, 1764. and Bloomfield on Luke xxii. 43, 44. Pritii, Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 19, 20. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 130-136.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 199–202. |