THE GOSPELS.

THE term GOSPEL is the designation given to the writings of the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which comprise an authentic account of the incarnation, ministry, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. It must not be supposed, however, that these writers have related all the circumstances in the life of the Redeemer, nor that they have recorded all the discourses and instructions he delivered. Their object has been to preserve a record of the most important of these-and of such a character as should disclose the nature and divine origin of the Christian system. This is declared by John: " Many other things there are which Jesus did, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name." Some things related by one Evangelist, are omitted by another, or are related with some varying circumstances, as best suited the object for which they were severally writing. The value of this diversity is considerable, for, as Olshausen has observed,† by that which was omitted in one Gospel being supplied in another, we get a fuller statement of the person of the * See vol. i., pp. 47–54. +"Bib. Comment." on Gospels.

*

Redeemer. In him was revealed that which far exceeded the comprehension of any single human individual, and hence it required many minds, which, as it were, mirror-like, received the rays that proceeded from him, the Sun of his own spiritual world, and again presented the same image in various forms of refraction. Conceptions of so diversified a character of our Lord, in his divine-human ministry, are contained in these four Gospels, that, combined, they form a complete picture of Christ. The ancient Church regarded the Gospel-collection as a unity; and called it evangelion, or evangelicon, as containing the glad tidings of the Saviour's appearance in the world, and as giving an account of his life, ministry, and sufferings. Another thing to be observed is, that the writers of the Gospels have not confined themselves to chronological order, the arrangement of events being not always those of time, but of various associations, such as similarity in the facts themselves, vicinity of place, etc. A want of attention to this circumstance will induce confusion in reading the evangelical histories.* Finally, it does not appear to have been any part of the design of the Evangelists to preserve the very words made use of on any occasion, but rather to give the sense and meaning of what was spoken. A remarkable proof of this we have in Matt. x. 9, compared with Mark vi. 8. In the former passage, Jesus is introduced speaking to his apostles thus: Provide . . neither shoes, nor yet staves;" but in the latter, which exhibits the repetition of these instructions, he commanded them that

* For some valuable observations on this subject, the reader is referred to Cook's "Inquiry into the Books of the New Testament," p. 210, etc.

they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only words, in fact, contradictory to the former, though in sense perfectly the same. Such of the apostles as were possessed of staves might take them; but those who were without them were not to provide them. So, also, the words addressed from heaven at the baptism of Christ, as given in Matt. iii. 17: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," which differ from the words in Mark i. 11," Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" yet being the same in sense, they are truly recorded. Many other passages might be cited; but these will suffice for our purpose, as well as to give a satisfactory solution of the difficulties that present themselves on comparing the quotations in the New Testament with the passages in the Old, whence they are taken; for if the meaning of the passage be truly given, the quotation is justly made.*

That the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear, we have the concurring and decisive testimony of the ancient Fathers of the Christian church.† We just observe that (1) a passage from Polycarp (who, as Irenæus informs us, was made bishop of Smyrna by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen the Lord), is cited by Victor Caperanus, in which we find the names of the four gospels, as we at present have them, and the beginning of their several histories ; (2) that Justin Martyr, who, according to Eusebius,

See Macknight's "Prelim. Observation," Obs. i. The reader may find some judicious remarks on the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, in Cook's "Inquiry," p. 284, etc.; or in the "Critica Biblica," vol. ii., p. 155, etc.

The reader is referred to Professor Stowe's "Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament," for the proofs of this.

lived not long after the apostles, shows that these books were then well known by the name of "Gospels," and were read by Christians in their assemblies every Lord's-day. We also learn from him that they were read by Jews, and might be read by heathens; and that we may not doubt that by the "memoirs of the Apostles, which " he says, "we call gospels," he meant these four, received then in the Church, he cites passages out of each, declaring that they contained the words of Christ. (3) Irenæus, in the same century, not only cites them all by name, but declares that there were neither more nor fewer received by the Church, and that they were of such authority, that though the heretics of his time complained of their obscurity, depraved them, and endeavoured to lessen their authority, yet they durst not wholly disown them, nor deny them to be the writings of those whose names they bore. He further cites passages from every chapter of Matthew and Luke, from fourteen chapters of Mark, and from twenty chapters of John. (4) Clemens of Alexandria, having cited a passage from "the gospel according to the Egyptians," informs his readers that "it was not to be found in the four gospels delivered by the Church." (5) Tatian, who flourished in the same century, and before Irenæus, wrote "a chain," or "harmony of the Gospels," which he named, "The Gospel gathered out of the Four Gospels." (6) Inasmuch as these gospels were "written," says Irenæus, "by the will of God, to be the pillars and foundation of the Christian faith," the immediate successors of the apostles, who, says Eusebius, did great miracles by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and performed the work of evangelists in preaching Christ to those who had not yet heard

the word, made it their business, when they had laid the foundation of that faith among them, to “deliver to them the writings of the holy gospels."

This will be

The existence of other gospels, bearing the names of apostles, in the early ages of Christianity, materially tends to confirm the tradition of the Church, concerning those four we now receive. evident from the fact, that we find no mention of any of these suppositious gospels till long after the general reception of the four gospels by the whole Church of Christ, as the writings of those apostles and evangelists whose names they bear, and which were read from the beginning, as Justin Martyr testifies, in all assemblies of Christians on the Lord's-day; and so must have been early translated into those languages in which alone they could be understood by some churches, viz., the Syriac and the Latin.

While the attentive reader will notice in the several gospels the differences we have adverted to, he will also notice certain verbal agreements equally striking, which has suggested an idea that they were copied from each other, or were drawn from a common written source. But the similarity that exists between them is disturbed by too many remarkable deviations to admit of either hypothesis. The discussion of this subject, however—the origin of the first three gospels-does not fall within our limits, and, besides, it would be useless to the bulk of our readers. There are many phenomena in the literary history of the Scriptures which it is beyond the capacity of mortals to comprehend;-it is foolish and absurd to attempt the explication, in many instances, of their literal difficulties-especially where we are unable to afford even the appearance of accounting for them, except from mere hypothesis and