us and Tertullian, and by Paul himself. It was in the Greek language.

THE GOSPEL OR RECOLLECTIONS OF PETER, was a book well known, and of high authority among the ancient Christians. Even after the introduction of the four gospels afterward made canonical, the Gospel of Peter maintained so firm a footing that it became necessary to suppress it in some of the churches. It was retained and used by the Nazarenes, long afterward.

It is cited by Justin Martyr, and referred to by Tertullian and Origen. The statement of Eusebius, that no one of the ecclesiastical writers had appealed to testimony taken from it, and that no one of them had condescended to make any mention of it, is untrue. The passage in Justin Martyr is mistranslated in the Ante-Nicene collection, and the passage in Tertullian is mistranslated by Jones.

The statement contained in this gospel, that Joseph had children by a former wife, was generally received by the fathers, for several centuries. The Gospel of Peter is highly spoken of by Dr. Mill, Mr. Whiston, and other eminent writers. Credner, a German writer of high authority, thinks it was used by Justin Martyr, A. D. 150-160.

THE ORACLES, OR SAYINGS OF CHRIST, in the Aramaic language, we know but little about. It has been generally conceded, on the authority of Eusebius, that Papias (A. D. 125), had such a book, and that he wrote commentaries upon it.

DOCTRINES.-There is no evidence that any of these gospels taught the miraculous conception,

or the material resurrection of Christ, or contained any account of his miracles, or any reference to any book containing such accounts or teaching either of those doctrines.

It will be seen as we proceed, that the three gospels which have been considered, were the germs of the three synoptic gospels, respectively. That is, the Gospel of Paul was the germ of the Gospel according to Luke; the Gospel of Peter, of the Gospel according to Mark; and the Oracles, of the Gospel according to Matthew.

They cannot, however, in any sense, be considered the same. The synoptic gospels were undoubtedly written long afterward, and contained, in many respects, very different material. Moreover, the Gospel of Paul appears to have passed through the Gospel of Marcion before reaching the author of Luke, and the Oracles through the Gospel of the Hebrews before reaching the author of Matthew.

CHAPTER II.

APOSTOLIC AGE-A. D. 30 TO A. D. 80.
(CONTINUED.)

JOHN THE BAPTIST-JESUS CHRIST-PAUL-PETER JOHNTHE JAMESES THE JUDASES-THE OTHER APOSTLESEPISTLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT-THE APOCALYPSE.

The first character in Christian history is John the Baptist.

What was his connection with Jesus, and what were his relations to the origin of the Christian religion?

Josephus, while he gives an account of John the Baptist baptizing and making converts, says nothing of his announcing the approach of a coming Messiah.'

The author of Luke commences his account of John the Baptist by saying that he appeared in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being Governor of Judea and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip Tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, Lysanias Tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests. (Luke 3. 1, 2.)

In the 23d verse of the same chapter, after relating the baptism of Jesus, he states that he began to be about thirty years of age.

(1) Antiquities, bk. 18, ch. 5, 2.

If by this language the author of Luke meant to say that Jesus was not then past thirty, did he not make a mistake of at least three years? Tiberius commenced reigning A. D. 14, and the fifteenth year of his reign would be A. D. 29, or when Jesus was thirty-three years of age, as he was four years old at the commencement of the Christian era.

We do not, however, look upon this as a very serious discrepancy, and think Dr. Lardner over-estimated the question when he spoke of it as one of "very great difficulty." The word "hosei, "about," used by the gospel historian, relieves him from any very exact criticism.

So of another objection; the statement that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests; it being notorious that the Jews never had but one high priest at a time. This has been partially explained by showing that Josephus, in one place, spoke of one as a high priest, who had held, but did not at the time referred to, hold that office. The language here is somewhat more definite, and appears more plainly to intimate that two did actually hold the position the same year.

This would indicate that this portion of the book was written long afterward, by one not acquainted with Jewish customs. Dr. Lardner says, "It would be extremely unreasonable to impute to St. Luke so great a mistake as the supposing there were properly two high priests among the Jews at the same time." The most effectual way of relieving him from the imputation is, not to charge upon him the authorship of a work which bears so many marks of having been written long after his day.

If the passage in Josephus concerning Christ were genuine, then the failure to connect him with John the Baptist, would be utterly incomprehensible. But since it is the general verdict of scholars that the paragraph in the 3d chapter of the 18th book of the Antiquities, wherein it is stated that Jesus was the Christ, etc., is an interpolated forgery, the matter appears very differently. It is easy to see that Josephus, retaining all his Jewish prejudices and antipathies, might have intentionally passed over the proclamation of the coming Messiah.

Pursuing the biography of John, as given in the gospel history, the next incident presents a difficulty of a more serious character.

It is stated that Herod the Tetrarch shut up John in prison, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. (Luke, 3. 19, 20; Mark, 6. 17-20; Matthew, 14. 3-5.) This Philip could be no other than Philip the Tetrarch of Trachonitis, menmentioned in Luke 3. 1. He was the brother, or rather half-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and Herod had no other brother Philip. They were both sons of Herod the Great.

But according to Josephus, Philip could not have been the former husband of Herodias. It was another Herod, half-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, having the same father, but not the same mother. The father of this Herod was Herod the Great, while his mother was Mariamne, daughter of Simon the high priest.'

Josephus could not well be mistaken in this mat(1) Antiq., bk 18, ch. 5, sec. 1, and same, sec. 4.