sentences of Matthew's Gospel found in the Apostolical Fathers an argument for its authenticity, the many passages of it transferred into the two other Gospels, which are not only earlier, but inspired compositions, carry with them much higher authority, and their own credit is not diminished in consequence; because by enlarging on his account, as they frequently do in relating the same thing, they shew that they might have written their Gospels, if they had thought fit, without reading his. This supposition has the advantage over that of a common document, that it will likewise explain what that altogether overlooks, the supplemental arrangement of facts. This arrangement has been thoroughly examined by Greswell; and he observes, that it would be a moral impossibility that Mark, compiling an independent Gospel from any document, though the same might have been used by Matthew, should be found in the choice and collocation of his facts to be thus entirely accommodated to him, or that Luke, doing the same, should be thus critically accommodated to either; the use of common materials could account for no instance of agreement of matter which was not absolute.

I will now consider each Gospel separately, and preface my remarks with a celebrated passage of Irenæus, iii. 1. the earliest in which the four are mentioned together. "Now Matthew among the Hebrews published a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching, and founding the Church at Rome. After their departure, (meaning probably out of life,) Mark himself, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also delivered to us in writing what had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leant upon his breast, himself also residing at Ephesus, set forth a Gospel." The date, however, of none can be ascertained. can be ascertained. There is the greatest difference of opinion concerning the first, which is placed by some as early as A. D. 37, and by others as late as A. D. 64. The Evangelist's remarks, that Aceldama is so called unto this day, and that the Jews then believed the

report spread by the guard concerning the Saviour's body, suit better the supposition of a later date, as well as this passage of Irenæus, unless we adopt what appears to me to be the erroneous translation of Townson, who thinks with Wall, that Irenæus is speaking in a general way, not minding any chronological matter.

The language in which Matthew wrote has been no less a subject of discussion. The ancients unanimously declare that it was Hebrew, and Erasmus is the first who argued against their testimony. He has been followed principally by Protestant critics, and Campbell supposes their judgment to have been biassed by party feelings. The Council of Trent having decided in favour of the Vulgate, the then received translation of the Scriptures, the Protestants, who appealed to the original text as the standard, were aware, that the Romanists would retort, that in the instance of Matthew's Gospel, they must depart from their own principles; and he concludes, that to silence this objection, they maintained that this Evangelist wrote in Greek. Modern critics reconcile the two opinions by the supposition, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in both languages, the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for a Hebrew original, and the internal evidence for the Greek. This determination of the discussion is not unreasonable. Josephus, we know, wrote his history first in Hebrew, and then in Greek. Eusebius informs us, that Matthew, when about to leave his country, wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; and we can easily conceive that he was willing to translate it at a subsequent period, for the benefit of Gentile converts. The disappearance of the Hebrew text is explained, by its being so interpolated and corrupted by the Ebionites, as to lose its authority, and also by the increasing disuse of the language after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew was a Galilean, a publican, that is a tax-gatherer, who collected the customs upon the imports and exports at Capernaum. While employed in his profession, Jesus invites him to become his disciple. Mark and Luke, in the parallel passages, call him Levi; Matthew, therefore, was

probably a name which he assumed according to a practice common, it should seem, in his age, with Jews, who had much intercourse with Gentiles. Thus we find John, Barnabas's relation, called Mark, and Saul called Paul. Of Matthew's subsequent history we are ignorant; Socrates, an historian of the fifth century, relates, that he preached the Gospel and suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia; but from an earlier account he appears to have died a natural death, but when or where is unknown. When he has occasion to speak of himself, it is with humility. He leaves to the other Evangelists to record the feast he made for our Lord, and that he left all to follow him; and when he enumerates the twelve Apostles, whose preeminence to the other disciples he suppresses, he places himself after Thomas, contrary to the order in Mark and Luke. As one of that chosen band of confidential followers, he needed no prototype, either in Hebrew or Greek, but was an original author, and none could be better qualified; for after his call, he constantly attended upon his Master, and was an eye-witness of every fact which he records, except two, which, as he himself tells us, he gives on the authority of the more favoured three.

We have the strongest internal evidence of what the ancients assert, that his Gospel was composed by a Jew, for the use of his countrymen; for every circumstance that has a tendency to conciliate them is pointed out, and none is introduced that would obstruct its reception by them. He begins, therefore, with a genealogy; and those passages in the prophets which foretel the birth of the Messiah, or describe his actions, are carefully noticed, because the fulfilment of prophecy was the most convincing argument that could be addressed to the Jews. As his object was not a circumstantial biography, he writes not in the order of events, but of things, and his Gospel resembles in this respect the Memorabilia of Xenophon.

Matthew is distinguished for the clearness with which he narrates parables and moral discourses. Of these, the sermon on the mount, and his illustrations of the nature of the

C

kingdom of heaven, are examples. The matter peculiar to him is, his history of our Saviour's infancy; John's reluctance to baptize him; the observation, that Galilee was to be the chief theatre of his miracles, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prediction; his first circuit of Galilee; the sermon on the mount; the miracles of the two blind and one dumb man; Peter's walking on the lake; the miraculous payment of the tribute money; the parable of the labourers in the vineyard; and of the two sons; the account of Judas's death; Pilate's washing his hands; his wife's dream; the dead rising out of their graves after the resurrection; and the history of the guard at the tomb.

We read in the New Testament, that Mark was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the Apostles often assembled, (Acts xii. 12.) and that she was sister to Barnabas, (Col. iv. 10.) His Hebrew name was John, and he probably assumed that of Mark, when he left Judæa as a missionary. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas upon their first mission to the Gentiles, but left them abruptly in Pamphylia, and returned home. He afterwards went to Cyprus with Barnabas, (Acts xv. 37.) and subsequently came with Timothy to Rome, (2 Epist. iv. 11.) at the express desire of St. Paul, whence he sent his salutation to Philemon, (ver. 24.) and to the church at Colosse, (iv. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found St. Peter, and returned with him to Rome; he is said to have afterwards founded the church at Alexandria, and to have died there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. We also read of a Mark, whom Peter calls his son, (1 Epist. v. 13.) probably because his convert, and he is generally supposed to be the same. Epiphanius, without referring to earlier writers, calls him, one of the Seventy. In his account of our Lord's apprehension in the garden he introduces the fact, which does not seem to have any connection with it, of a young man who followed him, when his disciples had forsaken him, but who afterwards fled, leaving his linen garment in the hands of the soldiers who attempted to seize him. Townson conjectures,

that this was the Evangelist himself. It best explains the introduction of the incident, and if it could be verified, would make him, in part at least, an original witness: but this is not material, since his Gospel may be considered as that of Peter. Papias, our earliest authority, A. D. 110, informs us, that Mark, being Peter's interpreter, wrote whatever he remembered, but not in the order of time; because he was not himself a follower of our Lord. The reason does not seem to be a valid one, and the fact is by most not reckoned true. Jerome tells us, that, being requested by the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard Peter relate, who approved it, and delivered it to be read in the Church; but this is inconsistent with the passage of Irenæus cited already, if we take the exodus or departure of Peter to mean his death, as it does in his own second Epistle. Chrysostom speaks of its being written in Egypt, but the general consent of antiquity, even of the Egyptian writers, decides in favour of Rome; and it may be remarked in corroboration, that mentioning Simon the Cyrenian, (xv. 21.) he adds, that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a fact, which would be interesting only where they were known; and we learn from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, (xv. 1.) that they were members of the church there. Internal evidence confirms the tradition, that Mark wrote under the direction of St. Peter; for scarcely any action or conversation is mentioned by him, at which Peter was not present; the weaknesses and fall of that apostle are brought into full view, while whatever redounds to his honour is slightly touched, or wholly omitted; less is said of his speedy repentance and bitter tears, than by Matthew and Luke; the benedictions and promises made to him are left out; and it hath an introduction of only fifteen verses before it comes to his call.

From the Hebraisms of his style, which is the least classical of any of the inspired authors, we conclude that he was a Jew, and from his Latinisms, that he lived among the Romans. Cardinal Baronius maintains that he wrote in Latin, and that