all (12.); and to withstand all sinful affections (13, 14.); warnings against false teachers, who are commonly known by their actions (15--22.); the wisdom of adding practice to knowledge, and the insignificancy of the latter without the former. (23-29.) SECT. 3. A narrative of several miracles performed by Christ, and of the call of Matthew. (viii. ix.) SECT. 4. Christ's charge to his twelve apostles, whom he sent forth to preach to the Jews. (x. xi. 1.) SECT. 5. relates the manner in which the discourses and actions of Jesus Christ were received by various descriptions of men, and the effect produced by his discourses and miracles. (xi. 2.—xvi. 1-12.) SECT. 6. contains the discourses and actions of Christ, immediately concerning his disciples. (xvi. 13.—xx. 1—16.) PART IV. contains the transactions relative to the passion and resurrection of Christ. (xx. 17.-xxviii.) SECT. 1. The discourses and miracle of Christ in his way to Jerusalem. (xx. 17—34.) SECT. 2. The transactions at Jerusalem until his passion. i. On Palm-Sunday (as we now call it,) or the first day of Passion-week, Christ makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he expels the moneychangers, and other traders out of the temple. (xxi. 1—17.) ii. On Monday, or the second day of Passion-week.-The barren fig-tree withered. (xxi. 18-22.) iii. On Tuesday, or the third day of Passion-week. (a) In the temple. The chief priests and elders confuted, 1. By a question concerning John's baptism. (xxi. 23-27.)-2. By the parables of the two sons 23-32.), and of the labourers of the vineyard (33-44.); for which they seek to lay hands on him. (45, 46.) The parable of the marriage-feast (xxii. 1— 14.) Christ confutes the Pharisees and Sadducees by showing, 1. The lawfulness of paying tribute. (xxii. 15-22.)-Proving the resurrection (23-33.) -3. The great commandment (34-40.), and silences the Pharisees (41-46), against whom he denounces eight woes for their hypocrisy (xxîii. 1—–36.); his lamentation over Jerusalem. (37-39.) (b) Out of the temple. - Christ's prophetic discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (xxiv.); the parables of the ten virgins and of the talents, and the last judgment. (xxv.) iv. On Wednesday, or the fourth day of Passion-week, Christ forewarns his disciples of his approaching crucifixion: the chief priests consult to apprehend him. (3-5.) A woman anoints Christ at Bethany. (xxvi. 6-13.) § v. On Thursday, or the fifth day of Passion-week. - Judas covenants to betray him (14—16.); the passover prepared. (17—19.) § vi. On the Passover-day, - that is, from Thursday evening to Friday evening of Passion-week. (a) In the evening Christ eats the Passover (xxvi. 20-25.), and institutes the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. (26--29.) (b) Towards night Jesus, 1. Foretels the cowardice of the apostles. (xxvi. 33-35.)-2. Is in an agony. (36-46.)-3. Is apprehended, reproves Peter and the multitude, and is forsaken by all. (47-56.) (c) During the night, 1. Christ is led to Caiaphas, falsely accused, condemned, and derided. (57-68.)-2. Peter's denial of Christ and repentance. (69-75.) (d) On Friday morning.-1. Jesus being delivered to Pilate, Judas commits suicide. (xxvii. 1-10.5-2. Transactions before Pilate (11-26.)—3. Christ is mocked and led forth, (27-32.) e) Transactions of the third hour.. The vinegar and gall; the crucifixion; Christ's garments divided; the inscription on the cross; the two robbers; blasphemies of the Jews. (xxvii. 33—44.) (f) From the sixth to the ninth hour. The darkness over the land; Christ's last agony and death; its concomitant events. (xxvii. 45-56.) (g) Between the ninth hour and sunset, Christ is interred by Joseph of Arimathea. (xxvii..57-61.) SECT. 3. The transactions on the Sabbath of the Passover-week, (that is, from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday in Passionweek). The sepulchre of Christ secured. (xxvii. 62-66.) SECT. 4. Transactions after Christ's resurrection, chiefly on Easterday. §i. Christ's resurrection testified, first, to the women by an angel (xxviii. 1— 8.), and afterwards by Christ himself. (9, 10.) ii. The resurrection denied by his adversaries (xxvii. 11—15.), but proved to the apostles. (16–20.) VIII. Except Saint John, the evangelist Matthew enjoyed the best opportunity for writing a regular and connected narrative of the life of Christ, according to the order of time and the exact series of his transactions. His style is every where plain and perspicuous, and he is eminently distinguished for the clearness and particularity with which he has related many of our Saviour's discourses and moral instructions. "Of these, his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his master to the cavils of his adversaries." He is the only evangelist who has given us an account of our Lord's description of the process of the general judgment; and his relation of that momentous event is awfully impressive. SECTION III. ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT MARK. I. Author.-II. Genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel.-III. Probable date. -IV. Occasion and scope.-V. In what language written. VI. Synopsis of its contents.-VII. Examination of the question whether Saint Mark transcribed or abridged the Gospel of Saint Matthew. VIII. Observations on his style. I. THIS evangelist was not an apostle or companion of Jesus Christ during his ministry, though Epiphanius and several other fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy disciples. All that we learn from the New Testament concerning him is, that he was "sister'sson to Barnabas" (Col. iv. 10.), and the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the Apostles and first Christians often assembled. (Acts xii. 12.) His Hebrew name was John, and Michaelis thinks that he adopted the surname of Mark when he left Judæa to preach the Gospel in foreign countries, a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who frequently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which they visited than that by which they had been distinguished in their own country. From Peter's styling him his son (1 Pet. v. 13.), this evangelist is supposed to have been con 1 Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 20. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. p. 176. Bishop Cleaver has an excellent Discourse on the Style of Saint Matthew's Gospel in his Sermons on Select Subjects, pp. 189-205. verted by Saint Peter; and on his deliverance (A. D. 44, recorded in Acts xii. 12.), Mark went from Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas, and soon after accompanied them to other countries as their minister (Acts xiii. 5.); but, declining to attend them through their whole progress, he returned to Jerusalem, and kept up an intercourse with Peter and the other apostles. Afterwards, however, when Paul and Barnabas settled at Antioch on the termination of their journey, we find Mark with them, and disposed to accompany them in their future journeys. At this time he went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts xv. 37-39.); and subsequently accompanied Timothy to Rome, at the express desire of Saint Paul (2 Tim. iv. 11.), during his confinement in that city, whence Mark sent his salutations to Philemon (24.), and to the church at Colosse. (Col. iv. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found Saint Peter, with whom he returned to that city, in which he is supposed to have written and published his Gospel. Such are the outlines of this evangelist's history, as furnished to us by the New Testament. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome,1 we learn that Mark, after he had written his Gospel, went to Egypt, and having planted a church at Alexandria, Jerome states that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other writers, affirm that Saint Mark suffered martyrdom; but this fact is not mentioned by Eusebius or any other antient writer, and is contradicted by Jerome, whose expressions seem to imply that he died a natural death. 2 4 II. That St. Mark was the author of the Gospel which bears his name, is proved by the unanimous testimony of antient Christians, particularly Papias, by several antient writers of the first century consulted by Eusebius, by Justin Martyr, Tatian,5 Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ammonius, Origen,10 and by all the fathers of the third and following centuries. Though not cited by name, this Gospel appears to have been alluded to by Clement of Rome in the first century;12 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, Mark wrote after Saint Luke; but Papias, on the information of John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles, expressly states that it was the second in order; and with him agree Irenæus and other writers. 1 See the passages of these writers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. -84; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 176, 177. 2 A. D. 116. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 109. 112.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 338, 339. 3 Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 33. 4 A. D. 140. 5 A. D. 172. 6 A. D. 178. 7 A. D. 194. 8 A. D. 200. 9 A. D. 220. 10 A. D. 230. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 120.; 4to. vol. i. p. 344. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 138. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 354. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 158, 159.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 365, 366. pp. 82 11 See the later testimonies in Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 87-90.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 179, 180. 12 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 31.; 4to. vol. i. 294. III. Although the genuineness and authenticity of Saint Mark's Gospel are thus satisfactorily ascertained, considerable uncertainty prevails as to the time when it was composed. It is allowed by all the antient authors that Saint Mark wrote it at Rome; and many of them assert that he was no more than an amanuensis or interpreter to Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him, though others affirm that he wrote it after Saint Peter's death. Hence a variety of dates has been assigned between the years 56 and 65; so that it becomes difficult to determine the precise year when it was written. But as it is evident from the evangelist's own narrative (Mark xvi. 20.), that he did not write until after the apostles had dispersed themselves among the Gentiles, and had preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following; and as it does not appear that all the apostles quitted Judæa earlier than the year 501 (though several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great success), perhaps we shall approximate nearest to the real date, if we place it between the years 60 and 63. IV. Saint Peter having publicly preached the Christian religion at Rome, many who were present entreated Mark, as he had for a long time been that apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, when Mark had finished his Gospel he delivered it to the persons who made this request. Such is the unanimous testimony of antient writers, which is further confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself. Thus the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in every part of it, where any thing is related or might be related of him; his weaknesses and fall being fully exposed to view, while the things which redound to his honour are either slightly touched or wholly concealed. And with regard to Christ, scarcely any action that was done, or word spoken by him, is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and with such minuteness of circumstance as shows that the person who dictated the Gospel had been an eye-witness of the transactions recorded in it.3 From the Hebraisms discoverable in the style of this Gospel, we should readily conclude that its author was by birth and education a Jew: but the numerous Latinisms it contains not only show that it was composed by a person who had lived among the Latins, but also that it was written beyond the confines of Judæa. That this Gospel was designed principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there were some Jewish converts in the Church at Rome), is further evident from the explanations introduced by the evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for Hebrew Chris 173. 1 See Dr. Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. 7. where this subject is amply discussed. Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 65-77.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 167— 2 Clemens Alexandr. apud Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 14. Jerome, de Viris Illustribus, cap. viii. Tertulliani Opera, p. 505. edit. Rigaltii. 3 See several instances of this adduced in Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 151 -163. 4 Several of these Latinisms are specified in Vol. II. p. 30. tians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, the appellation "river," is added to the name. (Mark i. 5.) Again, as the Romans could not understand the Jewish phrase of "defiled or common hands," the evangelist adds the parenthetical explanation of "that is, unwashen." (vii. 2.) When he uses the word corban, he subjoins the interpretation, "that is, a gift" (vii. 11.); and instead of the word mammon, he uses the common term xgnara, "riches." Again, the word Gehenna, which in our version is translated hell (ix. 43.), originally signified the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed to Moloch, and where a continual fire was afterwards maintained to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the evangelist adds the words "unquenchable fire" by way of explanation. These particularities corroborate the historical evidence above cited, that Saint Mark designed his Gospel for the use of Gentile Christians.1 Lastly, the manner in which Saint Mark relates the life of our Saviour is an additional evidence that he wrote for Gentile Christians. His narrative is clear, exact, and concise, and his exordium is singular; for while the other evangelists style our Saviour the "Son of Man," Saint Mark announces him at once as the Son of God (i. 1.), an august title, the more likely to engage the attention of the Romans; omitting the genealogy of Christ, his miraculous conception, the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, and other particulars, which could not be essentially important in the eyes of foreigners. V. That this evangelist wrote his Gospel in Greek is attested by the uninterrupted voice of antiquity; nor was this point ever disputed until the cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, anxious to exalt the language in which the Latin Vulgate version was executed, affirmed that Saint Mark wrote in Latin. This assertion, however, not only contradicts historical evidence, but (as Michaelis has well observed) is in itself almost incredible: for, as the Latin Church, from the very earliest ages of Christianity, was in a very flourishing state, and as the Latin language was diffused over the whole Roman empire, the Latin original of Saint Mark's Gospel, if it had ever existed, could not have been neglected in such a manner as that no copy of it should descend to posterity. The only semblance of testimony, that has been produced in support of this opinion, is the subscription annexed to the old Syriac version, that Saint Mark wrote in the Romish, that is, in the Latin language, and that in the Philoxenian version, which explains Romish by Frankish. But subscriptions of this kind are of no authority whatever: for their authors are unknown, and some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides, as the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immediately from the Greek, no appeal can be made to a Syriac subscription in regard to the language in which St. Mark wrote at Rome. The advocates for the Latin original of this Gospel have appealed to a Latin manu 1 Dr. Campbell's Pref. to Mark, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83. 2 Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 225. See also Jones on the Canon of the New Test. vol. iii. pp. 67-69. |