It is rather an independent work, though closely allied to the Hebrew gospel of the apostle. Since this same work is universally regarded as an apostolic production, written by Matthew, there is no more simple and effectual mode of solving all the characteristics of the gospel of Matthew, than to suppose that Matthew himself, when he had composed the Hebrew gospel, executed likewise a free translation or new composition of it in the Greek language. It makes no essential difference, if we suppose that a friend of Matthew wrote the Greek work under his direction and authority; but Matthew's authority must necessarily be supposed to have been the means of the diffusion of the gospel, as otherwise it is inexplicable that there does not appear the faintest trace of any opposition to it.

No definite objection can be made against our supposition that Matthew wrote a Greek gospel besides his Hebrew one. A single circumstance may appear strange; viz. that Papias the ancient bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia whom we have before mentioned, who was conversant with persons that had themselves seen and heard our Lord, states that every one endeavored to translate the Hebrew gospel of Matthew as well as he was able. Thus, according to this passage, the universally received Greek transformation of the Hebrew gospel was not commonly known in Phrygia; so that persons who did not very well understand Hebrew did as well as they could with the Hebrew gospel. But the circumstance that in the immediate vicinity of Papias the Greek Matthew was not yet current is no proof at all that it was not yet in existence. For, as Matthew's work was already diffused throughout the church in the Hebrew language, and the Greek Matthew corresponded with the Hebrew in every essential point, it was very natural that the Greek gospel should be circulated in a more dilatory manner, and by some accident it was particularly tardy in reaching Phrygia. however, in the west generally, very few understood Hebrew, when the Greek Matthew was once procured, that only was circulated, and thus the Hebrew gospel was completely lost in Europe. In Palestine alone, as the Hebrew was better understood, it continued in use, though it was encumbered with divers foreign additions by the Jewish Christians.

As,

Thus, the genuineness of the gospel of Matthew is fully confirmed on historical grounds, aside from its position in the collection of the gospels. Recent investigators have raised doubts in regard to its genuineness from internal considerations. They VOL. IX. No. 25.

29

say, in particular, that if the statements of Matthew in the character of eye-witness (for he was one of the twelve apostles), be compared with the descriptions of Mark who does not write as an eye-witness, it will be evident that the advantage is on the side of the latter. Every thing which Mark narrates is represented in so graphic a manner that it is plain he derived his accounts from eye-witnesses; while the narrative of Matthew, whom we are to regard as himself an eye-witness in respect to most of his relations, is dry and without the least vivacity. This remark is perfectly correct. Comparison of a few passages will at once show how much more minute and graphic are Mark's descriptions than those of Matthew. This is particularly the case as to the accounts of cures. In these Mark frequently describes the circumstances of the sick person, before and after the cure, in so lively a manner as to make us imagine the scene really before us; while Matthew, on the contrary, describes the occurrence only in very general terms. Let a comparison be made in this view between the following accounts given by Matthew and Mark of the same occurrences.

MATT. 8: 28-34.

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out saying," etc.

MARK 5: 1-19.

"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. (This is another reading for Gergesenes.) And, when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains because that he had been often bound, with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the felters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But, when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice and said," etc.

Respecting their cure Matthew | Respecting his cure Mark says merely says (v. 32): "And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out they went into the herd of swine, and behold, the whole herd of swine," etc.

(v. 13 and onward): "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine," etc. "And they (that were in the city and in the country) went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid."

MARK 5: 21-43.

25. "And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, when she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment."

Moreover, the whole account contained in verses 29-33 is in Mark only.

6:14-29.

The whole narrative is given in Mark with much more minuteness and vivacity.

Such a difference in the style of narration runs throughout Matthew and Mark; and it cannot well be denied that at first view there is something surprising in it. But careful examination of the object of the two gospels plainly shows whence this manner of narration in Matthew and Mark takes it rise, and thus does away with all the inferences which have been 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 on all men, and such as was not required by 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 be made 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 was hardly dead, and many disciples of the apostles were living and laboring 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 just been said it will have been thought probable that the genuineness of Mark is not at all disputed. Indeed 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, as early as the close of the first century, and there is an unbroken chain of evidence in its favor, since that time. 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 every where 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 12: 12.) Mark

himself, as we are told in the Acts, (12: 25. 13: 5. 15: 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. 4: 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 Ægyptians, 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 sentiment 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, whom alone they would admit to have been 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 history of the apostles. Connecting this fact with the close of the work, it is perfectly evident