Abiathar, ii. 16. Boanerges, the emphatic surname of the Apostles James and John, signifying "sons of thunder,” iii. 17. Our Lord's anger and grief at the obduracy of the Jews, iii. 5. The expression of his unbelieving friends, he is beside himself, iii. 21. The beautiful parable of the spontaneous growth of the seed, iv. 26-29. The number of the herd of swine, 2000, v. 13. CHRIST'S expression, Talitha kumi, "Damsel arise," v. 41, and Epphatha, "Be opened," vii. 34. The 5000 fed on the green grass," characterizing the spring of the year, vi. 39. This circumstance is noticed by his successor, John. The distribution of the two fishes as well as the loaves of bread, vi. 41. This also is noticed by John. The first cock crowing, during Peter's denial of CHRIST, xiv. 68. The addition of Salome to Matthew's party of women who went to visit the holy sepulchre, xv. 40. CHRIST's resurrection about sun rise, xvi. 2. The vision of the second angel at the holy sepulchre, xvi. 5. The silence of the women respecting his message to Peter, xvi. 7, 8. Christ's appearance after his resurrection to Mary Magdalen first, xvi. 9. His appearance under another form to the disciples in the way to Emmaus, xvi. 12. The disbelief of their report by the rest, and OUR LORD's censure, xvi. 13, 14. His commission to the Apostles to preach and work miracles, xvi. 15-18. Their discharge of the commission, xvi. 20. All these important facts and circumstances were judiciously added to the conciser accounts of his predecessors, Matthew and Luke. Whereas had Luke followed him, it is not credible that he would have omitted them all, since we see that John noticed those of Mark that coincided with his scheme, or came within the range of his Gospel.

Hence we seem to be fully warranted by the internal evidence, to conclude that Mark wrote after Luke, and not before. Indeed, the hypothesis, that Luke was the first Evangelist of all, and wrote even before Matthew, has been patronized by Busching, in the preface to his German Harmony of the four Gospels, Hamburgh, 1766, 8vo. p. 109-119. As we learn from Marsh's Dissertation, p. 6. It was also the opinion of the learned Basnage, Beza, Macknight, &c. and Lardner cites it rather with approbation. "For any thing that I know, St. Luke's Gospel may have been written first," Vol. II. p. 65, and so does Michaelis, Introd. Vol. III. p. 243.

To this internal evidence in favour of the priority of Luke's

Gospel to Mark's at least, we may add some early testimonies of considerable weight.

1. The learned Clemens Alexandrinus, A.D. 194, explicitly asserts, that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written. Lardner, II. p. 194. This gives the precedence to Luke before Mark. Tertullian, A.D. 200, enumerates the Evangelists, Matthew and John, Luke and Mark, ibid. p. 282. And the same order is followed by Dionysius Alexandrinus, A.D. 274*. And Lardner remarks that " this was very probably the order of many codes or volumes of the four Gospels," ibid. p. 101. And that intelligent adversary of Christian faith, the Emperor Julian, the Apostate, A.D. 361, expressly cites the Evangelists Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, in order. Lardner, VIII. p. 400.

And if to these ancient authorities we add the modern of Basnage, Büsching, Griesbach, and Marsh, founded on the internal evidence, and of Lardner and Michaelis, founded on the testimonies, the proposed order will be found much better supported than the received.

We can also rationally account for the introduction of the present canonical order. From the time the notion prevailed that Mark's Gospel was merely an abridgement of Matthew's, as it did in the days of Augustine, A.D. 395, who speaking of Matthew, says, “ Marcus eum subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus, et breviator ejus, videtur;" De consensu Evangelistarum, Lib. I. cap. 4, it was natural to change the order of his Gospel, and place it next to Matthew's, with which it was supposed to have the closest connection.

66

This, however, was an unfair representation of Mark, for though he was an abridger," he was by no means a footman," or servile copier, as the foregoing analysis abundantly proves. He selected most judiciously, and sometimes enlarged, as we have seen, the most important parts of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, adapted to his peculiar plan; which was "to give a succinct history of OUR LORD'S ministry, commencing from the preaching of the Baptist, Mark i. 1, 2, to his ascension, xvi. 19, and concluding with the preaching of the Apostles every where, throughout the world, ver. 20, thus comprising, in

This is also in general the order of the ancient Latin manuscripts. Marsh's Notes, Vol. III. p. 156.

a short compass, the substance of Matthew's, and also of Luke's Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles.

3. Hence also, we can satisfactorily account for his omission of certain portions of their Gospels entirely: such as the introductions of both; the Sermon on the Mount, which had been given collectively, or in detail, by both, &c. precisely on the same principle, that John coming after him, omits considerably more than Mark, so as to form nearly a distinct Gospel, which may be considered as a supplement to the rest, only inserting so much common matter as was necessary to connect his Gospel with theirs, and to give a short, but masterly outline of the chronology of the whole; which had been so vague and undetermined before; by recording the four passovers that included our Lord's public ministry. Respecting the omission of the Evangelists in general, Augustine has the following judicious remark: "The Evangelists mutually bear witness to each other, even in some things which they themselves do not relate, but yet shew that they knew them to have been related [by others *"] Indeed, that the omissions of the Evangelists were designed, not less than their correspondences, incontestibly appears from critical comparison of their Gospels: both concurring to promote heir common design, which was to collect, in their admirable memoirs of CHRIST, (as their Gospels were originally termed,) the most authentic and important materials from the common mass of original or traditional evidence, well known to them all, and to condense, or rather concentrate them into the smallest compass possible, for the edification of the Church of CHRIST; with a simplicity of style and manner peculiar to themselves; adapted to all ranks, from the highest to the lowest; and "they were written" for the highest and noblest of all purposes, to instruct the world how to attain everlasting happiness in the mansions of bliss; "that mankind might believe," upon reasonable evidence," that JESUS is the CHRIST, the SON OF GOD; and that believing, they might have life in his name," John xx. 31.

These observations on Mark's Gospel, some may think

* Meminerimus quemadmodum Evangelista invicem attestantur de quibusdam etiam quæ ipsi non dicunt, et tamen dicta noverunt. Index Augustin. No. 515. See the Omissions of John, ably considered by Michaelis, Introduct. Vol. III. p. 305–310, as a presumptive proof that the facts he has left unnoticed, which are recorded by the other Evangelists, are true, otherwise he would have corrected them in his later Gospel.

rather drawn out to a length greater than a mere matter of curiosity required. But they have a further and a higher object, to raise to its proper level the character of this Evangelist, from that of an humble compiler, to that of an original historian. And also to lower the undue preference of Luke's Gospel above the rest, which it has been the fashion of the Unitarian school, Wakefield, Evanson, &c. to represent as the only genuine Gospel: reviving an ancient error of the Manicheans, and other early heretics. Thus Marcion received Luke's Gospel only, and curtailed even that. See Lardner, II. p. 261, III. p. 502, 514, 515.

The authenticity, indeed, of all the canonical Gospels, is vouched by the high estimation in which they have ever been held in the Christian Church, since the days of the Apostles, and by the concessions of early Heretics. Their general integrity, purity, or freedom from corruption also, either by alteration, mutilation, or interpolation, is supported by a cloud of witnesses; 1. By the wide dissemination of the Greek copies, through the whole Church of God under heaven, in the language of Origen. 2. By the ancient versions, made into all languages, the Italic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, &c. All these, however they may differ in minuter points, various readings, &c. yet retain all the essential members and compartments of the originals, entire and unadulterated. For instance, the two introductions of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, are found in all the unmutilated* Greek manuscripts extant; and in all the

Some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, in uncials, or capital letters, the Alexandrine, &c. are imperfect, and want the two introductory chapters of Matthew. But fortunately, a manuscript, equal at least, if not superior in antiquity, to the Alexandrine, was discovered some years ago, in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, by the Rev. Dr. Barret, containing a fragment of Matthew's Gospel, beginning with the 17th verse of the 1st chapter, ουν αἱ γενεα ... Αβρααμ έως Δᾶδ, and containing the greater part of the 2nd chapter. A fac-simile engraving of the whole, reaching (with lacunæ) to Matt. xxvi. 71, was published at the University press, 1801, quarto, by the learned Doctor; furnishing some valuable various readings, not to be found elsewhere.

The Rev. Dr. Bell, Prebendary of Westminster, in his able Arguments, &c. prefixed to the second edition of Enquiries into the divine Missions of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, 1795, 8vo. has fully and satisfactorily proved the authenticity of these chapters: 1. From the internal evidence; or their essential connexion with the sequel, in the plans of both Gospels. 2. From the references thereto of the early Fathers, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, &c. 3. From the objections of the first heretics and infidels, the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Marcion, Julian the apostate, Porphyry, &c. And 4. From the absurdity of interpolation by enemies, and impossibility of interpolation by friends, without detection, during the life-time of the Evangelists and Apostles; and a fortiori afterwards, when copies and versions were multiplied.

versions without exception. They have, therefore, withstood the attacks of Manicheans, Socinians, Unitarians, &c. wishing to expunge them, as militating against their favourite tenets; and they will continue to do so, until the end of time, with encreasing evidence. Attacks upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures, have only contributed to strengthen it, by calling forth able vindications of the orthodox, from the earliest days.

The sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures to satisfy, in every respect, the most scrupulous enquirers into the validity of their evidence, by an appeal to the primitive Churches every where founded by the Apostles, is thus stated by the eloquent Ter

tullian.

"Come now, ye who may wish to exercise your curiosity profitably in the business of your salvation, traverse the apostolical Churches, where the very chairs of the Apostles still preside, where their own authentic Scriptures are recited, resounding the voice, and representing the countenance of each. Is Achaia nearest to you? consult the Corinthians: if you are not far from Macedonia, consult the Philippians, consult the Thessalonians: if you can go to Asia, consult the Ephesians: if you are adjacent to Italy, consult the Romans; where also their authority is ready [to be vouched] to us." See the original passage, Lardner, II. p. 268.

TIME.

Still more various are the opinions of critics respecting the time of the composition of each Gospel; as may be seen in Jones, Lardner, Michaelis, Owen, Marsh, &c. We here shall confine ourselves to the earliest and the fullest testimony of the venerable Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, A.D. 178, both respecting the time and order of the Evangelists.

"Matthew then, (says he,) published also a Scripture of the Gospel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect; while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel, and establishing the Church at Rome. And after their decease, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also delivered to us in writing, the things preached by Peter. And Luke, the follower of

* The original expression, ipsæ authenticæ literæ eorum, does not signify "authentic letters," or epistles, in the hand-writing of the Apostles; but rather well attested copies of the Scriptures of the New Testament. Tertullian uses Literæ Divinæ, Literæ nostræ, in this sense, as remarked by Lardner.