had ever seen it; and from the earliest times it seems to have existed in the Greek language. But this fact is perfectly consistent with the supposition now made; for the desolation of Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish Christians, having taken place within a few years after the publication of Matthew's gospel, the copies of the original Hebrew would be confined to the Jewish converts; and as other Christians had copies in the Greek, of equal authenticity with the Hebrew, no inquiries would be made after the latter. These Jewish Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in a short time, and a large part of them became erroneous in their faith; and though they retained the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, they altered and corrupted it to suit their own heretical opinions. There is reason to believe, that the gospel of the Nazarenes, was the identical gospel of Matthew, which in process of time was greatly mutilated and corrupted by the Ebionites. Of this gospel much is said by the Fathers, and, in the proper place, we shall give some account of it.*

The only remaining objection of any weight against the ancient opinion, is, that the gospel according to Matthew, as we now have it, has no appearance of being a translation, but has the air and style of an original. But if the hypothesis, suggested above be adopted, this objection also will vanish; for according to this the Greek is an original, as well as the Hebrew, it having been written by Matthew himself, or by some disciple under his direction. But whether the Greek of Matthew was written by himself or not, it is certain that it was not later than the apostolic age, and received the approbation of apostles * See Note E.

or apostolic men, which is sufficient to establish its authenticity."

*

* The learned world have been nearly equally divided on the question, whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Greek. In favour of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellarmine, Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Dupin, Calmet, Michaelis, and others. In favour of the Greek origin of this gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less respectable. Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, Paræus, Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre, Basnage, Wetstein, Rumpæus, Whitby, Edelman, Hoffman, Moldenhawer, Viser, Harles, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, Hey, Hales, Hewlett, and others.

The two opinions were supported by a weight of argument and authority so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and a few others, have adopted a middle course, viz. the opinion stated above, that there were two originals; by which theory all difficulties are removed. The only objection is the want of evidence. Horne and Townsend have adopted this opinion. See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. Part ii. c. ii. Sec. ii. p. 267.

་

SECTION V.

GOSPEL OF MARK-ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED-ASCRIBED TO THE DICTATION OF PETER BY ALL THE FATHERS.

THE author of the second gospel, as they stand in the Canon, was Mark; the same who is mentioned in the first Epistle of Peter, (v. 13;) but whether he was the same as John Mark, of Jerusalem, who travelled for a while with Paul and Barnabas, has been doubted by Grotius, Cave, Dupin and Tillemont; but the common opinion is in its favour, and the objections to it are not of much weight: and as there is no clear evidence, that there were two persons of this name mentioned in Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of Mark, as having reference to the same person.

Paul was offended at him because he declined accompanying him and Barnabas on the whole tour which they made, to preach the gospel; for, when they came to Perga, Mark departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem. And when Paul and Barnabas were about to undertake a second journey together, the latter insisted on taking Mark as their minister, but Paul would by no means consent to it, because he had forsaken them on their first mission. This difference of opinion gave rise to a sharp altercation, which terminated in the separation of these venerable colleagues.

Mark now, travelled with Barnabas, but, probably, soon afterwards attached himself to Peter, with whom he seems to have continued until the death of that apostle.

But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled to Mark, and to have valued his assistance in the work of the ministry; for, in his second Epistle to Timothy, he writes, "Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable unto me for the ministry." 2 Tim. iv. 11. He also mentions him in his Epistle to Philemon. Phil. 24.

When this gospel was composed, has not been particularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, which could not be much earlier than A. D. 62 or 63. It is stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren at Rome to put down in writing the substance of Peter's preaching; and on this account, this gospel among the primitive Christians was as familiarly known by the name of the gospel of Peter as of Mark. This circumstance has led some to assert, that Mark wrote his gospel in Latin, as this was the language of Rome; but in those days almost all the Romans understood Greek. And the Jewish converts, who composed a large portion of the first churches, understood Greek much better than Latin. But there is no need to argue this point. There is no ancient author who testifies that Mark wrote in Latin. The testimony is uniform that he wrote in Greek.

Baronius is almost the only learned man who has advocated the Latin origin of the gospel of Mark, and he has nothing to produce in favour of this opinion from antiquity, except the subscription to the Syriac,

Arabic and Persic versions of the New Testament, where, at the end of Mark's gospel, it is said, "He spoke and preached in Latin at Rome;" but this does not say that he wrote his gospel in Latin. But these subscriptions are of very little authority in matters of this kind. No one knows when, or by whom they were placed there; and, although three versions are mentioned, they make up no more than one witness, for, probably all the others borrowed this inscription from the Syriac.

AUGUSTINE called Mark "the abridger of Matthew;" and it must be confessed, that he often uses the same words, and tells more concisely what the other had related more copiously; yet, there is satisfactory evidence, that Mark's gospel is an original work. It contains many things which are not in the gospel of Matthew, and some mentioned by that Evangelist are here related with additional circumstances.

All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, but some think at Alexandria: the former opinion, however, was received with almost universal consent. See the testimony of Irenæus before cited. To which may be added what he says in another place, that, "Mark begins with the prophetic spirit which came down from above to men, saying, the beginning of the gospel of Christ."

Some of the testimonies of the Fathers respecting this gospel will now be given.

EUSEBIUS out of PAPIAS, and a lost work of CLEMENT of Alexandria, relates, "That when Peter in the reign of Claudius, had come to Rome, and had defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied