The conclusion is, that the author of the Gospel of John, was ignorant of the birthplace of John the apostle.

This gospel differs from all three of the synoptics, in relating several events which occurred when John the apostle was not present; while, strangely enough, other transactions in which, according to the synoptics, the apostle John was present, are not related in the Gospel of John at all; particularly the transfiguration, which, according to all the synoptics, took place in the presence of Peter, James and John.

That John had neglected to testify, where his testimony would naturally be expected, was noticed, very anciently, by Faustus, the Manichæan, in his controversy with Augustine. Speaking of the passage, "Think not that I am come," etc. (Matt. 5. 17), he says:

"Who testifies that Jesus said this? Matthew. Where did he say it? On the mountain. Who were present? Peter, Andrew, James and John. Others, but not Matthew himself. He had not as yet chosen Matthew. But one of these four, John, wrote a gospel. Well, then, he relates this somewhere? No, not at all. How is it, then, that John, who was on the mountain, does not testify? And that this was written by Matthew, who became a follower of Jesus some time after he descended from the mountain? It is therefore very doubtful whether Jesus said this; because a proper witness is silent, while an improper witness testifies."--[Augustinus contra Faustum, lib. 17, ch. 1.

The writer of this gospel quotes the Old Testament prophecies, almost as loosely, and with as little regard to their applicability, as the author of Matthew. Psalms, 41. 9, quoted in John 13.

18, did not refer to Christ, nor to Judas. So of John 17. 12.

So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers. Westcott says, "The earliest account of the origin of the gospel, is already legendary.

Dr. Davidson, author of the article on the canon in the new edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, says, its Johannine authorship must be abandoned, and its existence prior to A. D. 140, cannot be maintained. Both Irenæus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus flourished about A. D. 145.

Again, there is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A. D. 177-8,) being laid. In the 21st chapter is a detailed account of an appearance of Jesus, after his resurrection, to seven of his disciples, at the Sea of Tiberias, something not heard of in the synoptic gospels, and which bears the impress of an original narrative, suggested by scenes in Christ's ministry. After they had dined, Jesus is made to say to Peter, "Feed my sheep; " an injunction which was afterward repeated.

In Matthew only, is Peter made the rock on

(1.) Introduction, p. 255.

(2.) Davidson on the Canon, p. 99. In his Int. to N. T., the limit is 150,

which the Church was to be built, and in John only, is he enjoined to feed the sheep of Christ. There is reason to believe that both gospels were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome.

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

The Gospel of Matthew presents at once phenomena of the most varied and inexplicable character. While many of its narratives and of its records. of the sayings of Christ, from their brevity and simplicity, are recognized as among the oldest traditions, and as having been taken from near the fountain head, the gospel itself bears, in other places, internal evidence of a comparatively late origin.

The persistent statements of Jerome, supported by Epiphanius, that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the Hebrew form of the Gospel of Matthew, statements not at all borne out by the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which they have given, still further complicate a question, in other respects sufficiently difficult.

Many writers, not willing to discard altogether

the assertions of Jerome and Epiphanius, have supposed our Matthew to be a translation from a more correct version of the Hebrew gospel, than that quoted by those fathers; and that the differences between those quotations and the Greek Matthew, are to be accounted for, partly by the difference in the Hebrew versions, and partly by the freedom of translation. Among these, Bishop Marsh is one of the most eminent.

Others, giving but little credit to these fathers, whom in other matters, they have found so unreliable, and resting the case upon internal evidence, have pronounced the Gospel of Matthew an original Greek production. This view is strongly maintained by Jones and other modern critics.

THE MANUSCRIPTS OF LUKE COMPARED WITH
MATTHEW.

There is a partial parallel, in the third chapter of Matthew, to the first part of manuscript No. 7; [Luke 3, 1 to 22.] Omitting the genealogies, which are entirely different, the parallel is resumed, and more closely followed, in the history of the temptation; [Luke, 4. 1 to 13; Matthew, 4. 1 to 11.]

MS. No. 8, Luke, 4. 16 to 30, has no parallel in Matthew.

No. 9, Luke, 4. 31 to 44, which had a complete parallel in Mark, finds only a partial parallel in Matthew, commencing with verse 38, of Luke, [Matt. 8. 14], and giving an account of the healing of Simon's wife's mother, and other sick people.

We early find evidence of that tendency to amplification and exaggeration which is characteristic of the author of this gospel. Although, in accordance with the accounts in the other synoptics, he states, in verse 16, that "when the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed