deduced therefrom in opposition to the apostolic origin of Matthew. The reason why Mark describes the outward relations of our Lord's life in so vivid and graphic a manner is, that it was his special design to portray Christ's performance of the outward functions of his office. Hence, all which related to that, he details very carefully; while whatever did not pertain thereto he either entirely omits, as, e. g., the history of the childhood of Jesus, or communicates very briefly, as, e. g., many of our Lord's larger discourses. Matthew, on the contrary, makes it his chief object to communicate our Lord's discourses. He commonly makes use of events only as points of support for the discourses; to which he, like John, directs special attention. If it be considered, moreover, that the graphic nature of style is, in great part, owing to peculiar talent, such as is not bestowed alike on all men, and such as was by no means requisite in every one of the apostles, there remains not a shadow of reason, why the want of vivacity, which is certainly exhibited in Matthew's Gospel, should become a motive for denying its genuineness. In truth, moreover, there is no period at which a forgery of the Gospel in Matthew's name is even conceivable. For it is demonstrable from the book itself that it must have been composed a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence about sixty-six years after the birth of Christ. Now we find Matthew in use in the church before the close of the same century, at a time when John the Evangelist had but just died, and many disciples of the apostles were living and labouring in all parts of the world. How was it possible, in such circumstances, to introduce a work forged in the name of Matthew into so general currency, that not the very slightest opposition should ever have been raised against it?

From what has been said it will have been inferred that the genuineness of Mark is not at all disputed. His graphic, lively manner has even been made to afford occasion for assailing the genuineness of Matthew. Nor, in truth, was there in ancient times the least opposition to Mark's Gospel. It was known to Papias of Hierapolis, i.e., as early as the close of the first century, and there is an unbroken chain of evidence in its favour since that time. It is true, Mark's work was, in all probability, written at Rome, at that time the capital of the known world, and therefore a fixed and sure tradition as to the author of the work might be formed at once, and would easily diffuse itself

everywhere abroad. Still, however, there is one thing which appears very remarkable in regard to the rapid diffusion and reception of Mark, viz., that it was a production whose author was not an apostle. John Mark, frequently called Mark only, was the son of a certain Mary who had a house in Jerusalem, (Acts xii. 12). Mark himself, as we are told in the Acts (xii. 25; xiii. 5; xv. 36 seq.), at first accompanied the apostle Paul in his travels for the dissemination of Christianity. He afterwards attached himself to his kinsman Barnabas. At a later period, however, we find him again in Paul's company (2 Tim. iv. 11). According to the fathers, he was also, for a considerable time, closely connected with Peter, and was interpreter to the latter when he preached among the Greeks. He invariably, however, occupied a dependent situation, and on this account it is impossible that his name alone should have procured his Gospel an introduction into the church. But, as has been already mentioned, Mark did not write without apostolic authority. On the contrary, he was under the direction of the apostle Peter. This is stated by the entire series of church-fathers during the second and third centuries, with perfect unanimity in the main; and the statement is corroborated by the case of Luke, which was exactly similar. On this account, the Gospel of Mark was considered as originating with Peter, and such individuals as were particularly attached to this apostle used Mark in preference to all others. Unfortunately, however, we have no minute accounts as to this matter, and hence do not know whether these individuals corrupted the Gospel of Mark, as the Jewish Christians did that of Matthew, or not. It is possible, however, that the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians was a corruption of Mark, though the fragments we have of it are not sufficient to enable us to form a certain opinion on this point.

As to Luke, we have more clear and certain evidence in this respect. We know that that sect which carried the sentiments. of Paul to an erroneous extreme, the Marcionites, used only the Gospel of Luke, although Marcion was very well acquainted with the other Gospels, and regarded them as genuine. They had, however, altered Luke in conformity with their opinions, and thus formed, as it were, a new Gospel out of it, which, notwithstanding, still retained much resemblance to the original. The reason why the Marcionites selected Luke was, that this Gospel was written under the direction of the apostle Paul, who

d

alone, in their opinion, was a genuine apostle of our Lord. Luke, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, had travelled about with the apostle Paul for a long time, and, in particular, had also accompanied him to Rome. This is clear from the final chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Connecting this fact with the conclusion of the work, it is perfectly evident when the Evangelist finished it. According to the last chapter, Paul was two years in confinement at Rome. Here Luke breaks off, without mentioning the issue of his trial. Had this been concluded, should we not, of course, have had an account of the emperor's decision respecting the great apostle of the Gentiles? It can be made very probable, by circumstances deduced from another quarter, that Paul was liberated from his first imprisonment at Rome, and did not suffer as a martyr till he had been a second time placed in bonds. Luke, however, abruptly breaks off in the midst of his narrative. Now, as the Acts of the Apostles are only the second part of Luke's work, the Gospel being the first (compare Luke i. 1 with Acts i. 1), the latter cannot have been written subsequently; and probably, when Paul's death was apprehended, Luke wrote down the accounts he had received from him or through him, in order to secure them to posterity. Then the apostle, who was still living, attested the purity and accuracy of the work, and from Rome, the great central point of the religious, as well as the political world, it speedily made its way into the churches, in every province of the vast Roman empire. Thus, it was not Luke's name which procured for this Gospel its currency in the church, but the authority of the apostle Paul. Without this, the work of Luke, with its two divisions, the Gospel and the Acts, would have been the less likely to obtain general credit, because it purports to be a mere private production, addressed to a certain Theophilus. It is, indeed, very probable, that this Theophilus was a man of note, who was either already a member of the church, or at least well-disposed towards it; but still he was only a private man, whose name could have no weight with the whole church. He had, probably, already perused divers accounts concerning Christ, and the formation of the primitive churches, which, however, were not duly authentic and certain; and for this reason, Luke determined to compose for his use an authoritative history of the important events in our Lord's life, and of the foundation of the churches. (Comp. Luke i. 1-4.) Under these circumstances,

it is not astonishing that, in the primitive church, there was no opposition either to Luke's Gospel, or his Acts of the Apostles.' The many and close relations of the writer, together with the apostolic authority in his behalf, were such evidence in favour of the work, that not a single valid suspicion could arise respecting its genuineness.

Lastly, The circumstances in regard to the Gospel of John are particularly calculated to place its genuineness beyond dispute; for John the Evangelist lived much longer than any of the other apostles. So far as we know, none of the others were alive after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Roman emperor, in the year 70 A.D. John, however, survived it nearly thirty years, dying about the close of the first century, under the reign of the emperor Domitian.. Hence, many Christians who had heard of our Lord's farewell words to him (John xxi. 22, 23), believed that John would not die, an idea which the Evangelist himself declares erroneous. This beloved disciple of our Lord, during the latter part of his life, as we know from testimonies on which perfect reliance may be placed, lived at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, where the apostle Paul had founded a flourishing church. The importance of this church, about the year 64 or 75 A.D., is evinced by Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; and subsequently it was very much enlarged. It was in this subsequent period that John wrote his Gospel. This is clear, first, from a comparison of the Gospel with the Revelation. This last work was written by John at an earlier period, before the destruction of Jerusalem. John's style in this prophetic composition is not so thoroughly easy as we find it at a later period in the Gospel, which he must have written after longer intercourse with native Greeks. Again, John plainly had the three other Gospels before him when he wrote; for he omits all which they had described with sufficient minuteness, e.g. the institution of the holy supper, and only relates that which was new respecting the life of his Lord and Master. Hence, these must have been already composed, and also so generally diffused, that John could presume them universally known in the church. Moreover, the persons to whom John's work has special reference, viz. cer

1 So far as the Acts of the Apostles speaks of the circumstances of Paul, it has a perfect correspondence with Paul's Epistles, as the latter have with the former. See this fact more fully developed in the fourth chapter of this treatise.

tain Gnostics, did not attain importance till Jerusalem was destroyed, and most of the apostles had left this world. Now, if we duly consider all these circumstances, it will be even more incredible in regard to John's Gospel than any other, that it should have been forged in his name. From his being the sole surviving apostle, innumerable eyes were upon him and his movements. He lived and laboured in one of the chief cities of the known world, in which was a large church, and the vicinity of which was wholly peopled with Christians. We have an epistle of Pliny, a distinguished Roman officer of that region, written only a few years after the death of John the Evangelist, in which he describes the vast increase of the Christians in Asia Minor, and lays before the emperor Trajan (the successor of the emperor in whose reign John's death took place) measures for preventing the further extension of their tenets. Now, how was it possible that in this state of things a work could be forged in John's name; or, supposing even that one might have been (though history says nothing of any such imposition under the name of John),1 how is it conceivable that no opposition should have been made thereto, when many thousands were acquainted with John, and must have known exactly what he wrote, and what he did not? Of such opposition, however, there is nowhere the slightest trace. Not merely all teachers of the orthodox church, in all parts of the wide Roman empire, but also all heretics of the most various sects, make use of the work as a sacred valuable legacy bequeathed to the church by the beloved disciple; and the few heretics who make no use of it, as e. g. Marcion, still evince acquaintance with it, and regard it as a genuine work of John's, but are impudent enough to deny that John himself had a correct knowledge of the Gospel, because he was too much of a Jew. Whether, as was the case with the other Gospels, John's also was corrupted by the heretics, who felt that they were specially aimed at in it, is uncertain. The Gnostics, with the exception of Marcion (who, however, as has been already mentioned, is only improperly reckoned among the Gnostics), made most frequent use of John, as in their opinion specially favouring their spiritual ideas. We do not learn, however,

1 There does exist in MS., it is true, a second apocalypse under John's name; but this production appears to belong to a much later period. There is also an apostolic history of older date, in which, however, John is only mentioned along with others; it is not ascribed to him.