THE
GOSPEL NARRATIVES:
THEIR
ORIGIN, PECULIARITIES, AND TRANSMISSION.
BY HENRY A. MILES.
NINTH THOUSAND.
BOSTON:
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION,
21. BROMFIELD STREET~
1858.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, by
WM. CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
CAMDBRIDGE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
METCALF AND COMPANY,
PRINTERS IO THE UNIVERSITY.




PREF ACE.
WHAT was the origin of our four Gospel Narratives?  If the authors of these wrote independently, how can we account for their verbal coincidences?  If they copied from one another, how
can we account for their discrepancies?  Under
what circumstances did each writer perform  his
work?  How  far did his situation and character
and purpose give shape to his composition?  How
have these Gospels been transmitted down to our
times? - Such are the chief questions which it is
the object of this book to answer.  It is believed
that instruction on these points should form a part
of a Christian education.  They constitute a branch
of the evidences of Christianity on which all historical belief must rest, but to which, for the most
part, no general attention is paid.  How many of
the flippant objections of infidelity would lose all
their power to unsettle faith, if some knowledge




4            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
on this subject were widely diffused!  Perhaps it
has been neglected through the want of a small
book, that may briefly and clearly present the information now found only in professional, and, to
most readers, inaccessible treatises.  This want it
is here proposed to supply. While the author has
had reference to the higher classes in our Sunday
schools, for whose use he hopes this work may
serve as a manual, he has also had his eye upon
other readers, and has sought to make a book suitable for family and parish libraries. He has studied
accuracy in drawing his materials from the most
approved sources, and has been ambitious of earning for himself only the negative merits of lucid
arrangement and perspicuous statement.




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER                                            PAGE
I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION.......   7
II. THE EVANGELISTS NOT COPYISTS....         11
III. THEIR LIFE IN JERUSALEM........    13
IV. THEIR WRITTEN NARRATIVES SHAPED BY THEIR
PREVIOUS ORAL ONES.........  18
V. APPLICATION OF THIS VIEW TO THE FACTS OF THE
NARRATIVE.........                21
VI. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF MATTHEW.....    25
VII. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW......  30
VIII. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF MARK.....  38
IX. THE GOSPEL OF MARK......  44
X. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF LUKE.....   51
XI. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.........  56
XII. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF JOHN......  65
XIII. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.........   77
XIV. VIEW OF THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.              90
XV. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE GOSPELS DOWN TO OUR
TIMES........                       98
XVI. THE EVIDENCE THAT THE GOSPELS HAVE BEEN
TRANSMITTED WITHOUT CORRUPTION             110
VOL. xxII. - NO. 254.        1 *








T HE GOSPEL NARIRATIVES.
CHAPTER I.
STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION.
THE word Gosupel, meaning good news, properly denotes
the revelations which the history of Christ contains. These
revelations are the "glad tidings which shall be to all people." But in process of time that word has been applied to
the history itself, and denotes a book describing the birth,
life, words, sufferings, and death of the Son of God.
We have four distinct books of this kind, written evidently
by four different men. We believe them to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not long after the
ascension of Christ. Matthew and John were his personal
followers; Mark received his materials from Peter, another
follower of Christ; while Luke, as he tells us in his preface,
set in order the things which had been delivered to him by
those who from the beginning had been eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word.  Thus they did not undertake to
write without being well informed of the events which they
have related. Hence the confidence with which they appealed to the sources of their knowledge: —" That which




8              THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we
have seen with our eyes, declare we unto you."
Did they all four write together? Did any of them copy
what another had written? Did they all write independently, each with no knowledge of the others' compositions?
Here are several theories suggested; which of them do the
facts of history compel us to take?
As regards the Gospel of John, we cannot be at much
loss to decide. When he composed his narrative, he had
undoubtedly seen what Matthew, Mark, and Luke had previously written. This is evident from the whole character
of his work. Thus he for the most part records only what
Jesus said and did in Judea, as the other Evangelists confined themselves chiefly to what Jesus said and did in Galilee. What they fully related he omits, their omissions he
supplies, and some slight errors of theirs he corrects. He
alludes to our Saviour's baptism, and to the last Supper,
though he has not described those events, evidently supposing that they would be well known by means of the other
Gospels; and in the end of his history he says, -" Many
other signs truly did Jesus, which are not written in this
book." He knew many of them were written in the books
of the other Evangelists. His tacit appeal to their writings
must be understood as an approval of what they had previously published.
But now what shall we say of the other three Gospels?
When we compare them with one another, we find two
facts, which at first we hardly know how to reconcile with
any theory as to their origin. We find that in some places
they agree with one another, not merely in describing the
same thing, but in describing it word for word alike; while
in other places they not only use different words in describing the same thing, but give quite different accounts.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.               9
Examples need not be adduced of what must be so familiar to every one who has compared the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke together. Open them where we will, we
occasionally find, in descriptions of the same occurrence,
whole verses which in all three of the writers are word for
word alike, and which seem as if they must have been copied one from the other. But we do not read far before we
find that there are also great differences between them, not
merely in arrangement and quotation, but in the statement
of facts. These differences seldom relate to very material
facts. Merely to show their character, one or two examples
may be adduced.
There was a dispute among the disciples on the question,
who of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus rebuked their folly by setting a little child before them,
and saying, " Except ye be'converted and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Now Matthew says that the disciples referred this dispute to
Jesus. "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,
saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? "Matt. xviii. 1.
But an exactly opposite account is given in Mark, who
says that Christ inquired for the subject of their dispute, and
that the disciples declined to name it. "And being in the
house, he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among
yourselves by the way? But they held their peace; for by
the way they had disputed among themselves who should be
the greatest." — Mark ix. 33, 34.
How clearly marked is the difference between these two
statements! Yet we do not find it difficult to reconcile them.
We know that Peter, James, and John, the sons of Zebedee,
claimed to be greatest among the disciples, and on their way
to Capernaum they probably advanced their claims, which




10             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
led to the dispute. Other disciples, without claiming the
first rank, might think it unjust to be treated as inferiors;
and Matthew, who was a humble publican, was probably of
this party.  He doubtless brought the matter in dispute
before Christ. The Saviour reserved the discussion until
they had entered the house, and then made the inquiry recorded by Mark.  Peter, James, and John made no answer,
for they would expect reproof. Both statements are thus
reconciled by supposing that Matthew related the part to
which he was knowing, and that Mark, who derived his materials from Peter, related the part to which he was knowing, but. that neither related the whole. There is no real
contradiction between them. But there is a seeming contradiction. Taken simply by themselves, it would appear,
that, if Matthew's account were true, Mark's must be false.
If it was not for what we incidentally learn, in some other
part of the Gospel, of the ambitious claim of Peter, James,
and John, it would not be easy to make any consistent
agreement between them.
We may take another case. The account of Peter's denying his Lord is recorded by all four Evangelists. Both
Matthew-and Mark give us to understand that the second
denial was made to one of the waiting maids in the highpriest's palace. Matthew xxvii. 71. Mark xiv. 69. But
Luke's account is, that the second denial was made to a
man. Luke xxii. 58.  This is one of the places which
John's Gospel corrects and explains. He tells us that the
second denial was made to a great number of servants and
officers, who were standing with Peter by the fire in the
high-priest's palace.  John xviii. 25.  This makes the
other accounts appear true. But had it not been for this
explanation, we should not know which statement to believe.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              11
Now the question that arises is this: How shall we explain the many verbal coincidences, and, at the same time,
the many marked discrepances, which are found in the
first three Gospel histories? Shall we say that their authors wrote in concert, or that one saw the work of his
predecessor and copied it? This will explain the resemblances. But how shall we then account for the differences?
Shall we then take the other view, and conclude that they
are perfectly independent historians, writing without the
slightest knowledge of each other's works?  This will
account for the differences. But what shall we then say of
their resemblances?
CHAPTER II.
THE EVANGELISTS NOT COPYISTS.
WE should considerably relieve the difficulty before us,
if we could prove that the first three Evangelists did not
copy one from the other. And this is the impression which
must be left strongly on the mind when we compare their
narratives together. They arrange events in different order. They assign different occasions to the same discourse
or parable. We should not have looked for this, either if
they had written together, or if one had copied from the
other. It is not easy to believe that one writer copied the
other merely that he might make some small additions of
original matter, for such additions in any one Gospel are too
inconsiderable to render such a supposition credible. Then
there is no trace of any other Gospel in that one, whichever




12             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
it be, that you assume to be a copy. Verbal coincidences
nowhere lie together in masses.  Identity in the use of
words nowhere extends unbroken through long passages.
The same word or phrase occurs only here and there, in
separated and scattered places.
Moreover, the Evangelists had no motive to copy from
one another. As preachers of Christianity, they were all
well acquainted with the transactions which it was their purpose to record. Each one, therefore, was competent to
draw up his own independent account. Besides, each one's
account appears to be his own, — his own style, his own
associations, his own arrangement. It is of still more importance to observe, that each one's knowledge of every
event appears to be his own independent knowledge. To
a description of almost all the prominent events of our
Saviour's life, each Evangelist has contributed something.
One noticed one circumstance, another a second, another a
third, so that, as in the case already adduced of the denial
of Peter, we have not a full description until we put all their
works together. When we come to examine each Gospel
by itself, we shall see still further evidence to show that
these histories were written independently, at different times,
in different places, and for different purposes. The discrepancies between them are just such as we might expect from
three independent historians.
No contemporaneous and independent histories are precisely alike. Inspiration would not secure the Evangelists
from discrepancies common to all other writers, because inspiration does not mean omniscience. Even if we found
inexplicable contradictions between the Gospels, it would by
no means follow that the history they give is false. The
only just inference would be, that their authors were not
nlfallible. Between different histories of England, for ex.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              13
ample, there are most mysterious contradictions as to striking and prominent events. But no one concludes that these
histories are all fabulous, and that these events never transpired. So, also, in the examination of witnesses, and in the
common rumors of our neighbourhood and town, we never
suffer the fact of many contradictory accounts of any al.
leged event to preclude all belief. We involuntarily have a
stronger faith that something has happened. We question
only the perfect accuracy of narrators. This is all we could
reasonably doubt, did we find inexplicable contradictions in
the Gospels. But such contradictions are not here found to
perplex the fair inquirer. He finds only such discrepancies
in the relation of minor events as must alwavs mark independent accounts. When one individual paints a city
from the east side, and another one from the west, both
must, indeed, represent the highest and most prominent
steeples and buildings; but in other respects the two sketches
may and must be very different from each other. And yet
each may give a faithful representation.
CHAPTER III.
THEIR LIFE IN JERUSALEM.
BEFORE we can see the cause of the verbal coincidences
in the Gospels, we must give attention to some historical
facts.
After our Lord's resurrection, he showed himself to his
disciples, on various occasions, for the space of forty days.
Just before his ascension, he directed them to come together
VOL. Xx —Ti   NO. 254,




14             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
at Jerusalem, after he should leave them, and there for a
while to tarry. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4. There was
deep wisdom in this direction. Jerusalem was in the near
neighbourhood of the wonderful scenes of the crucifixion, the
resurrection, and the ascension, and the Saviour would have
his disciples bear witness to these facts on the very spot of
their occurrence.  It was the most public witness they could
bear, before all the inhabitants of that city, and before all
the people fromr all parts of Judea, who came up at the great
national festivals. It was right that the disciples should
challenge the most open and public investigation.  Nothing
had been done in a corner, and every thing which had been
told to them in private, they were to proclaim upon the
house-top. Their constant and bold preaching in such a
place as Jerusalem would be a proof that they were not
ashamed of their religion, although its founder had been
crucified as a vile criminal. It would be an expression of
their belief, that their great cause did not die with their
leader, while a mnore central place for the propagation of
the truth could not be selected. Here were Parthians and
Medes, Cretes and Arabians, strangers from Egypt and
Rome. Converts made among these would spread the reo
ligion all over the world.  So important was it that the dis-.
ciples should keep together at Jerusalem, as commanded
by their Master.
And they did keep together there.  We are told in the
Acts of the Apostles, i. 12, that from the scene of their Savw
iour's ascension they returned at once unto Jerusalem, and
went up into an upper room, where they abode together.
While they dwelt here, all the events transpired which are
recorded in the first seven chapters of the Acts,- the election of an Apostle to take the place of Judas, the gift of
tongues on the day of Pentecost, the cure of the lame man




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              15
at the gate of the temple, the imprisonment and release of
John, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, and the martyrdom of Stephen. We do not know exactly how long a
space of time these events covered. It could not have been
less than several years. During these, the disciples were
continually repeating in each other's hearing the story of
Christ's life and words.
Now let us try to enter into their situation. Their Head
and Master, to whom they had looked for counsel, and on
whom they had leaned for support, had been taken from
them. They were left like a little band of brothers who
have suddenly lost their father. They were in the heart of
a great city, in which they felt alone, for among its busy
throngs they at first found but little sympathy, being either
pitied as deluded men or despised as deceivers. If we had
not been told that they dwelt together, how naturally should
we have presumed this, and that they continually conferred
with one another, and endeavoured to comfort, sustain, and
animate each other's hearts! And in these frequent interviews, what would so much occupy their thoughts, and be
the constant topic of their conversation, as the wonderful
events of their Master's life, and the impressive instructions
that he gave them? Doubtless, at their first interview their
remembrances of these were very much alike in their minds.
The more accurately they could recall the very words that
Christ used, the more coincident would these remembrances
be. Nor would it be difficult for them to recall his precise
words. In those days the art of writing was not common in
the class to which the Apostles belonged. The memory on
this account received a greater cultivation. Much longer
histories than either of our Gospels were very often treasured up in the memory alone. To tasks of memory, it is not
unlikely the disciples themselves had been accustomed, when




16             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Jews. The Rabbis required their pupils to repeat what was
taught them, and in this way an immense mass of traditionary accounts was handed down from one generation to an
other.
Then what strong motives had the Apostles to make them
remember both the words of their absent Teacher, and the
wonderful events of his life! All their interests and hopes
were bound up in these things. Gratitude and reverence,
their loneliness and danger, their duty to their Master's cause,
and the uncertainty that hung over their prospects, - every
thino would send their minds back to that one f6untain of
light and hope, the life and words of Christ. The sick healed, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the insane, restored, the
very dead raised, and those touching parables they had heard,
of the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and
Lazarus, - how was it possible that they could forget these?
Their recollections of them must have been their spring of
action by day, and their meditation by night. This was
their Comforter. The spirit of truth was with them, and
brought all things to their remembrance.
Now there was one cause constantly at work to make
them  express their remembrances alike. They were constantly teaching in one another's hearing. Few and feeble
as they were, they soon had converts. A large number
was added to them on the day of Pentecost. Soon the fame
of their wonderful works spread abroad. The sick were
brought in beds, and laid in the streets where the Apostles
lived. Believers were added to the Church daily. We can
easily conceive what an intense curiosity all these would feel
to learn the precise words and actions of Jesus. It was now
the business of the Apostles to gratify this curiosity. Their
discourses must have consisted, in great part, of simple narratives concerning the life of Jesus. It was a matter of ne



THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.               17
cessity that they should be continually speaking about him,
describing his miracles to establish his authority, the minor
events of his life to illustrate his character, and his parables
and discourses to set forth his doctrine. Thus month after
month, and year after year, they were repeating the same
narrative which we find recorded in the Gospels. As they
did this continually, in each other's hearing, to different persons who wished to hear precisely the same things, how
obvious is it that they would soon acquire a similar style of
narration. At each repetition, the narrative would assume
more and more a common form in each of their minds. iWe
can name three peculiarities which their method of telling
the story of Christ would naturally acquire.
1. There would be the greatest verbal coincidence in their
repetitions of the words of Jesus. Because, if they remembered his words correctly, the accounts of them must be
identically the same. Naturally attaching a peculiar sacredness to the precise words which he used, they would take
the greatest care to recall them correctly, and for this purpose they would help and correct one another's remem.
brances.
2. There would be less verbal coincidence in the narrative parts of their story, those, namely, in which they described events without repeating the words of Jesus.  Here
each disciple would adopt a method somewhat peculiar to
himself, though naturally there would be some verbal resemblance in the use of particular phrases and connecting sentences.
3. In the matter of order and arrangement there would be
the least resemblance of all. They would probably select
their topics with reference to the previous knowledge or
particular curiosity of their hearers. Each one, therefore,
would group particular parables, miracles, and discourses of
2*




18             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
our Lord together in his own way. Where nothing was to
be gained by chronology, there would be no regard and no
pretence to it, and thus would be formed a diversity of associations in regard to time and the sequence of events.
HIere, then, the Apostles lived together, and told the same
story, over and over again, to the converts who were added
daily to the Church. Matthew and John were here, for
their names are given in the list found in Acts i. 13. Luke
was undoubtedly here, for he was an early convert, and in
his preface to his Gospel he tells us that. he obtained his
knowledge from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, that is to say, from the
Apostles. And Mark was here, for his mother's house was
one of the places where the Apostles used to meet. Acts
xii. 12.
CHAPTER IV.
THEIR WRITTEN NARRATIVES SHAPED BY THEIR PREVIOUS
ORAL ONES.
AT length the day came when they could no longer live
together in Jerusalem. Their bold preaching, and their
convincing miracles, made so many converts as to attract
the attention of the priests and rulers. Then followed days
of persecution, when they were all driven from the city, and
were scattered abroad. But persecution always strengthens
what it would suppress. The effect of banishing thousands
of converts from Jerusalem was to give increased life and
power to the new religion. Its friends were now sent into




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              19
all the principal cities and villages round about, who became
so many preachers, made more ardent by persecution.
They found that the fame of their banishment had everywhere gone before them, and people were everywhere asking what the new doctrine was. Hence bodies of believers
were soon gathered in Samaria, at Damascus, Antioch,
Cesarea, Cyprus, Corinth, and the wrath of man was made
to praise God.
In these places, the first desire of all converts was to hear
those who had been personal followers of the Saviour.
Hence the Apostles were pressed to tell what they knew,
and to testify to what they had seen. But soon it appeared
that the call came from more places than they could visit,
and from more converts than they could personally address.
To supply the want of their attendance in person, several of
them wrote out what they had so often preached, and copies
of their narrations were sent to instruct and comfort believers. Thus Matthew, about the year 65, wrote out a short
record of the Saviour's life and words, for the use of the
churches in Judea. At that time Mark was with Peter in
Rome, and there he put his short Gospel history into writing. Luke, before either of these accounts were written, as
is probable, sent his history to his Gentile friend Theophilus;
and John, long after the others had published their narratives, contributed the additions and corrections which are
found in his Gospel, for the benefit of the church at Ephe.
suS.
Thus each writer had his own independent object to accomplish, and wrote in his own independent manner. Still,
each one gave his account in writing very much in the
same way they had so long been accustomed to give it in
preaching, when they lived together in Jerusalem. And to
men so little practised in writing as the Apostles were, and




20             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
intent only upon telling the simple truth in the shortest and
most direct manner, could any thing be more natural than
the course they took? May we not feel increased confidence in the truth and honesty of these men, when we see
that in banishment, amid persecution, and no longer sustained by each other's sympathy and support, they persisted
in publishing the same narrative they had formerly preached
in Jerusalem?  Nor should we fail to admire the good
providence of God, which, out of the persecution which
separated the disciples from their home and from one another, and sent them forth to a perilous life to be soon terminated by a martyr's death, created a necessity of making at
once, when all was well remembered and well known, a
clear record of words and events so intensely interesting to
our dearest wants and hopes.
But those single-minded writers little knew to what a work
they had seated themselves.  They only thought of enlightening their personal friends, or at most, of comforting
a few feeble churches, scattered through Judea. They little
thought that the roll, which seemed to them so brief, fragmentary, and perishable, would float over the whole world,
and down to all time. The thing which, had it ever been
thought of, must have seemed impossible with man, has
been possible with God.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              21
CHAPTER V.
--
APPLICATION OF THIS VIEW TO THE FACTS OF THE
NARRATIVE.
THE question with which we are next concerned is this,
- Will the view above given account for all the facts in the
case? Will it explain both the resemblances and the discrepancies found in the Gospels? If this explanation be
the true one, it will shed not only a consistent, but a clear,
convincing, and interesting light upon the Evangelical narrative. We will proceed, then, to apply it to the facts in
the case.
We have seen that the Apostles, in giving their accounts
of Jesus, would be anxious first of all to repeat his words
exactly; and that between their statements of what he said,
if their statements are worthy of reliance, there must be
very great resemblances. We have seen, also, that in the
mere narrative parts of their histories each writer would be
free to use his own words, and that here the resemblances
would be less. Now how stands the fact?
We will take first the Gospel of Matthew.  Of the whole
book, only one sixth part consists of passages verbally coincident with one or both of the other two Gospels. Of this
small part, seven eighths occur in the recital of the words
of others, mostly the words of Jesus, while only about one
eighth is found in mere narration.
We next look to the Gospel of Mark. The proportion of
coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel is
about one sixth. Of this not one fifth occurs in the narrative.




22             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Luke has still less agreement of expression with the other
Evangelists. The passages in which it is found amount only
to about a tenth of his Gospel,' and not one twentieth part of
this in the narrative.
But then we should not expect the aggregate of verbal
resemblances to be as great in the narrative part of the Gospels as it is in that where the words of others are professedly quoted, because the narrative part is not one half of the
whole Gospels. The narrative part occupies but one fourth
of Matthew's Gospel, one half of Mark's Gospel, and one
third of Luke's. " It may be easily computed, therefore,
that the proportion of verbal coincidence found in the narrative part of each Gospel, compared with what exists in the
other part, is about in the following ratios: in Matthew as
one to somewhat more than two, in Mark as one to four, and
in Luke as one to ten."
These definite proportions were obtained by the careful
investigations of Andrews Norton of Cambridge, to whose
learned work on the Genuineness of the Gospels the reader
is referred, Vol. I., Appendix, p. ci. How important they
are to support the view before presented, that our present
written Gospels grew out of previous spoken ones, must be
obvious at once. If the Evangelists had copied from one
another's writings, we should have looked for just as many
coincidences in the narrative part of their Gospels as in the
other part. If, on the other hand, they were not familiar
with each other's mode of narration, we should not have
expected in the narrative part any coincidences at all.
We may add another consideration.  In the narrative
parts of the Gospels, the coincidences are of a kind which
we should expect to find. Those who learn, from each
other's frequent repetition, the form of narrating any events,
seldom repeat long portions word for word alike. They




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              23
coincide only in the general mould of thought, and in the
use of peculiar phrases and connecting sentences. We have
before taken notice of the fact, that in the Gospels verbal
coincidences nowhere lie together in masses. They occur,
a few words here, and a few words there, in peculiar phrases
and colloquial expressions. " And Jesus answered them and
said," " And after this it came to pass," "Verily, verily,
I say unto you ";- these and like expressions give an appearance of similarity between the narrative portions of different Gospels; and it is just such sentences as these which,
when we often hear and tell the same story, we are most
prone to catch and repeat from one another's lips.
And, lastly, that our first three Gospels took their form
and character from the narratives which the Apostles used
to give, when they lived and taught together in Jerusalem,
is rendered still further probable by the little regard which
their writers pay to chronological arrangement. It was before remarked, that in their oral teachings they would be
likely to neglect the order of time, and to group together
particular parables, or discourses, or miracles, with reference
to the state of information or curiosity of their hearers. Now,
in our written Gospels we find this disregard to the natural
sequence of events, and this grouping of different things together. There is frequently a particular class of miracles,
or a particular series of instructions, evidently cast by each
writer in the same general style of description; but each is
made up without the slightest mark of any regard to the
order of time. They bear traces of having been distinct
narratives by themselves. They are connected together by
associations peculiar to each Evangelist.  Hence, to make
out a satisfactory Gospel chronology is one of the most difficult things in Biblical study. What we lose in this respect,
we more than gain in the greater assurances we have of the




24             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
perfect artlessness and careless simplicity of an honest pur
pose, in which the histories of Christ were written.
Indeed, how much do we owe to the fact, that these histories were written in this way and by these men! The
very circumstance that they were unlearned men made them
better qualified to be scribes of the truth. They have given
us nothing butfacts, - not a word of comment, or inference,
or even note of admiration.  A learned man of their times
would have been pretty sure to thrust in something of his
own into his pages; and how suspicious, how out of keeping
with the simple and sublime words of Jesus, would it have
appeared! Who does not see that the charm and power of
the Gospel narrative would have been lost, if it had been
handed over to the verbose periods and oratorical descriptions of such a writer as Josephus? The Evangelists have
given us nothing but facts. When we read their words, we
feel that we are in the presence of facts, whose solemn
reality moved their deepest natures, and overawed all merely personal feelings. And it is this air of simple, sincere,
straightforward, and solemn reality, everywhere spread over
their writings, that gives them their power. The Christian
feels them to be true. The skeptic himself feels them to be
true. The French infidel, Diderot, was one day caught
learning his little daughter to read the Gospels. When reminded of his inconsistency, he replied, " After all, there is
no history like this." And there is not. The learning of
the schools, and the wisdom of ages, have not given us a
work like theirs, who sought only to place us in their position, that we might ourselves hear Him who spake as never
man spake. Thus hath God chosen the foolish things of
the world to confound the wise, and the weak things of the
world to confound the things that are mighty.




THIE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             25
CHAPTER VI.
NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF IMATTHEW.
MATTHEW, called also Levi, was a Galilean, of the Jewish
religion, and an inhabitant of Capernaum. His business was
that of a publican, that is, a tax-gatherer; and he discharged
the duties pertaining to that office at the lake of Galilee. It
was an humble station, and among the Jews a despised one.
Those who filled it were appointed by the Romans, to whom
the Jews were now subject, and for whose use these taxes
were collected. To pay tribute to them was not only a
constant acknowledgment and badge of subjection and servitude, but to the Jews it was something more galling still.
It wounded their religious as well as their patriotic pride.
It was a thought of unmitigated bitterness, that the people
of God should be held under the hated yoke of idolaters.
The office itself being thus detestable, those who held and
exercised it were universally scorned.
There were two orders, however, among the publicans, —
the receivers-general, and their deputies. The former were
usually selected from the higher classes of society, and
were sometimes men of distinction. One of this order is
named by Luke, xix. 2, who is called chief among the publicans, and a rich man. But the deputies were reckoned
ignoble and contemptible even by the Gentiles themselves,
and were, in fact, for the most part, rapacious and unmerciful men. Some one asked Theocritus which was the most
cruel of all beasts. He answered, "Among the beasts of
the wilderness, the bear and the lion; among the beasts of
the city, the publican and the parasite."  Members of this
VOL. XXII. - NO. 254.       3




26             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
order are frequently classed in the Scriptures with sinners
"Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a sinner," is
a phrase which expresses strongly the universal ban which
was suspended over them. We are told, that, though a
publican might be a Jew, he was hardly recognized as such
by his countrymen. He was not allowed to enter the temple, nor to give testimony in courts of justice; and the very
gifts which his devotion might prompt him to render were
rejected from the altar of Jehovah as unclean and abominable.
Of this abhorred class, Matthew was a member. The
duties of his office were discharged a little out of Capernaum, and by the shore of the lake of Galilee. Here his
situation was such, that he soon learned whatever occurred
in the adjoining country, to which the lake was a central
place of business and resort. The fame of Jesus was not
long in coming to his ears. Of his baptism on the banks of
Jordan, of his sermon on the mount near Capernaum, and
of the miracles which immediately followed, he had doubtless heard; and it is reasonable to suppose that he had
resolved, that, as soon as a convenient opportunity allowed,
he would unite himself with one whom  so many things
pointed out as the long-expected Messiah.
An opportunity was soon presented.' Jesus, in going
from Capernaum to some of the cities and villages on
the shore of the lake, had occasion to pass by the place
where the taxes were received, called in the Gospels the
receipt of custom, and here, either having before heard of
Matthew, or now receiving from his own lips a statement of
his faith and wishes, the Saviour invites him to become his
pupil and personal attendant. And Matthew arose, and left
all, and followed him. We can but little imagine what his
feelings must have been in that most eventful moment of his
life. We can, however, most clearly see that this great




TIE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             27
step was taken from no worldly or selfish motive. For what
was that Jesus to whom Matthew had now joined himself?
He was without friends, without wealth, without home, without even a place where to lay his head. Matthew must
have known that scorn and persecution would be the inevitable lot of all who should uphold the claims of the carpenter's son of Nazareth to be the long-expected Messiah, and
that, in a worldly point of view, to relinquish for this lot his
safe and doubtless lucrative publican's office, hateful though
that was, would be but a poor exchange. There could have
been, therefore, but one motive in Matthew's heart to lead
to the great step in his life which he now proposed to take,
and that motive was a sincere purpose to follow Him, however despised among men, who spake in his Father's name.
Had it not been for that feeling in his heart, those few
words, even from the Saviour's lips, "Follow thou me,"
would have fallen unheeded upon his ears. And so all invitations that now come to us, however affectionate and
urgent they may be, will seem only like idle words, if we
do not keep alive a tender feeling to which these may make
appeal.
From this time forth Matthew abandons entirely his for
mer business, and follows Jesus.  He makes the act of
doing this public; for on the day succeeding his call he
prepares a supper at his house, to which he invites his new
Master, and many publicans, his former associates. It was
at this supper that many hypocritical Pharisees, passing by,
exclaimed, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and
sinners? "-  Matthew  ix. 11.  They thought it was a
strange and scandalous thing that one who set up as the
Messiah of Israel, and the purifier of its ordinances, should
take a publican to be a pupil, and should break bread —
that greatest token of familiarity -with other publicans and




28             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
sinners. And it was here that our Saviour made that evermemorable reply, Matthew ix. 12, which has been well paraphrased in the following words: —" The religion which I
came to teach embraces in its pure mercy the whole family
of man; it draws no impassable line between the privileged
and the profane; it leaves none to despair of Heaven's favor
and acceptance; — if ye are perfect, if ye are whole, my
errand is not to you; go; go to your temple, and perform
your rites; but when there, study the meaning of that Scripture,'I  will have mercy and not sacrifice.' As for these,
they are sick; they need a physician, and I must heal them;
ye yourselves say that they are sinners, and why shall I not
call them to repentance, and save them?"
Matthew says that all this was done "in the house"
(Matt. ix. 10), without once intimating to whose house he
referred. We learn from  the other Gospels (Mark ii. 15,
Luke v. 29), that it was in his own house that this feast was
made and this conversation held. The humble publican
had no desire to speak of himself, and it is remarkable that
in his whole narrative he makes not the slightest allusion to
himself, and even his name is but once mentioned. He records his own name in his catalogue of disciples (Matt. x. 2)
and here he puts himself down as the eighth in the list, styling himself 6 Matthew the publican." Even in this we have
an intimation of his character. Here was a proof of his
humility and good-sense. Long after he had abandoned
that despised calling, and had become a distinguished and
honored man, he had no disposition to forget the station he
had once held, nor was he ashamed to make it known. He
cared not for the contempt which the confession might bring
upon him. "6 He had the wisdom to perceive that there was
no rank or occupation in life, however low, which could
change the nature of true worth, or really disgrace an honest and virtuous man.9"




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              29
In all our Saviour's journeys, in all the scenes of his miracles, trials, sufferings, and death, we know not what particular part Matthew bore. We only know that he was a perpetual eyewitness and constant pupil. In that little band
of disciples he seems never to have put himself forward, and
never to have committed errors like those which brouight remorse to the hearts of some of his brethren. He is never
represented as taking part in conversations between the
Saviour and his disciples, but maintains throughout the
character of an humble, docile, and attentive learner.
The next notice we have of Matthew is after his Master
had finished the great work of his mission, when the disciples, according to the last request of their Saviour, came
together at Jerusalem. Matthew's name is expressly mentioned. Acts i. 13. Here he lived and taught, with his
brethren, repeating to thousands of converts the same story
of the life and words of Christ. In the persecutions that
followed, when all the disciples were driven from Jerusalem,
and were scattered abroad, it is not known to what place
Matthew fled. Wherever he was, we may be sure he was
employed, as were the other disciples, in preaching the glad
news of the kingdom from city to city, and from house to
house. In this work many years were diligently, but quietly, passed. Our next notice of him is about thirty years
after the ascension of Christ, when we hear of him as having
returned to the city of Jerusalem. It was here that he probably wrote out the Gospel which has always borne his name.
After this, it is said that he travelled as a missionary into
Parthia and Ethiopia, and that at Naddaber, a town in the
latter country, he suffered a violent death rather than renounce his faith and hope in the Gospel of Christ. Thus, in
the glorious company of the Apostles while living, he joined
the noble army of the martyrs when dead.
e  




30             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
CHAPTER VII.
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
FROM Matthew's life our attention is now to be directed
to Matthew's Gospel. It was written, as has been said, at
Jerusalem, and for the use of the churches in Judea. As a
composition, it perfectly corresponds to what we have seen
to be the character of its author.  We see at once, upon
reading this narrative, that the writer must have been a Jew,
familiar with the opinions, ceremonies, and customs of his
countrymen, conversant with the Old Testament writings,
and habituated to their idiom. We see equally clearly, that
he must have been a man of plain sense, of little or no
learning, that he wrote seriously and from conviction, that
he describes as an eyewitness, and without ever entertaining
the most distant thought of setting off his narrative, or of introducing himself in it. As a composition intended to be
read by the Jews, it is noticeable at once that this Gospel
has less of those descriptions of places and customs, and
definitions of Jewish words and phrases, which we shall find
in the other Gospels that were written to be sent to Gentiles.
By Matthew's readers all these things would be familiarly
known. Such descriptions, for example, as are found in
Mark vii. 3, or in John ii. 18, would be wholly uncalled for
in Matthew's Gospel, and accordingly they are not found
therein. The very word Jew or Jews, which occurs frequently in the other Gospels, is not used in Matthew. This
proper noun, so likely to be employed by one writing at a
distance from that people, would naturally be exchanged for
some equivalent word by a writer in Judea; and accordingly




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              31
Matthew uses the words multitude, people, &c., in its stead.
Moreover, in the selection of materials for this Gospel, there
is a manifest choice of every circumstance which might conciliate the faith of the Jews. Thus, there was no opinion
relating to the Messiah with which that people were more
strongly impressed than this, that he must be of the race of
Abraham and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore,
with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy
of Jesus. He shows that he was of the seed of Abraham,
and of the house of David. The Jews would have listened
to no one's claims to be the Christ until this point had been
proved. So, also, that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem of Judea was another circumstance in which the
learned Jews of those times were agreed. Micah v. 2.
Matt. ii. 4. His birth in that city, with some memorable
circumstances attending it, Matthew took the first opportunity to record. So; also, those passages in the prophets, or
other sacred writers, which either foretell any thing that
should occur to the Messiah, or admit an allusive application
to him, are never passed over in silence by this Apostle.
To the Jews, convinced of the inspiration of their sacred
writings, the fulfilment of prophecy was always a great topic
of argument. To the Gentiles, on the other hand, who
knew nothing of the Old Testament predictions, this argument would be of but little force. Accordingly, in the other
Gospels, designed, as we shall see, to be sent among the
Gentiles, this argument is hardly ever adduced. But so
great a weapon as this in controversy with the Jews, Matthew has frequently employed, and has hardly suffered an
opportunity for its use to be neglected.
A few instances of this reference to the Old Testament
may be named. In the minds of their readers it would have
added but little to the effect of Mark's or Luke's account of




32             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Christ's parables to have added, "All these things spake
Jesus, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will
utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." But Matthew gives this reference to the
Old Testament (Matt. xiii. 35), and it was greatly to his
purpose to do it, because the Jews thought these words predicted the manner in which their Messiah would teach.
Both Mark and Luke have recorded the fact, that before
Christ entered upon his ministry he dwelt at Nazareth. But
to their Gentile readers this fact furnished no proof that he
was the Messiah. To the Jews, on the other hand, this was
a proof; for they were familiar with a prophecy which said,
" He shall be called a Nazarene."  To that prophecy, Matthew, in recording the place where Jesus dwelt, has not
failed to refer (Matt. ii. 23), and he alone has referred to it.
All the Evangelists write of the great number of the sick,
of the lame, the dead, the possessed, whom Jesus restored
with a word. That he wrought miracles was a proof of
his divine mission to all alike, Gentiles and Jews; but that
he wrought this particular class of miracles was a good argument in the mouth of Matthew alone, for his readers alone
knew of the prophecy, "' Himself took our infirmities, and
bare our sicklnesses,'" and this prophecy Matthew alone records. Matt. viii. 17.
At the crucifixion of Christ his garments were divided
among the soldiers by lot. This all the Evangelists have
related.  It is Matthew alone who has added, "' That it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They
parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did
they cast lots." Matt. xxvii. 35.
The more the peculiarities of each Gospel are studied,
the more shall we be convinced that each of the writers




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              33
drew up his own independent account.  They could not
have copied one from the other. Nor did their living and
teaching together for so long a time destroy their individuality, and make one servilely repeat the other. When they
sat down to write out their narratives, each one wrote freely,
from his own independent remembrances, and with reference to the independent object which he had in view. And
the adaptation of each Gospel to the particular object for
which it was written is a proof of the great care which each
bestowed upon its composition. Written with the utmost
freedom and simplicity, still the Gospels were not written
hastily nor carelessly. Their writers' hearts were too much
in their work to permit that. Matthew no doubt felt tenderly for his brethren in the Jewish faith. The above are
but a few instances where he betrays his affectionate solicitude to notice every circumstance that would operate to persuade them to admit the claims of Jesus to be their Christ.
But this did not lead him into an error of another kind.
HIe was liable to the temptation of withholding altogether
disagreeable truths, or, at least, of apologizing for them and
softening them down. There is not the slightest trace of
any yielding to this. When he comes to record facts disagreeable to the Jews, he does it with the utmost plainness
and fearlessness. Thus, take the case of those terrible
dooms which Jesus with such awful solemnity pronounced
against the Scribes and Pharisees, the cities of Chorazin and
Bethsaida, and even the Holy City, Jerusalem itself. Luke,
writing to his Gentile friend Theophilus, very briefly repeats
them as a part of the words of Christ; while Mark, thinking, doubtless, that they were intended for the Jews alone,
and that they formed no part of that Gospel which was to be
preached to all nations, has omitted them altogether. There
may have been another reason which influenced this latter




34             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Evangelist.  At Rome, where Mark wrote, there was a
disposition already too prevalent to insult and oppress the
Jews, which Mark's repetition of these fearful denunciations
might have needlessly increased. But Matthew has given
them, every one of them, at length, and with the utmost
distinctness and solemnity. Those awful decrees, uttered
for Jewish ears, and intended for their warning, we all see
that it was in Matthew's Gospel that they properly belonged,
and there we find they are. It was not for the plain and
fearless publican to shrink from making them known. It
would have been no proof of a true affection to his brethren
to have smoothed these things over. Their case required
great plainness of speech, that they might be prepared for
events, which, by all his confidence in Christ, he knew would
come, and which, in fact, did come only a few years after
he had written his Gospel. To be able to utter, with calmness and decision, truths which we know will provoke scorn
and opposition, is one great mark of moral courage; and
this virtue we must ascribe to Matthew.
Another peculiarity of this Gospel is, that it is the only one
which was written in the very language which the Saviour
used. The other Gospels were written in Greek, which was
then a kind of universal language, as the French is now.
Mark, Luke, and John, writing in this language, placed their
histories within the reach of a much larger number of read.
ers than if they had made use of any other tongue. Bu:
Matthew wrote for the Jews alone, and he wrote in their
own language, the Hebrew. They understood the Greek,
but this was the language that they loved. In the life of
Paul, we read that on one occasion, when surrounded by a
riotous multitude, they were stilled at once, and listened to
him readily, when they perceived that he addressed them
in the Hebrew tongue. And this is the language which the




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              35
Saviour used. We are reminded of this several times, by
an occasional retention, in each of the Gospels, of a few
original Hebrew words. Thus, when Jesus raised to life a
young woman, he approached the bed where she lay, and
said, Talitta cumi, which is to say, Damsel, I say unto thee
arise. Mark v. 41. Again, when a man was brought to
him who had an impediment in his speech, Jesus took up
clay and touched his tongue, and, looking up to heaven, he
said, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. Mark vii. 34.
It at first seems unaccountable why the Evangelists should
retain here the precise words of Christ. " They are not
singular words. They are among the simplest, and admit
without the least difficulty of being translated. Nay, they
are translated in the very next breath. How shall we account for this curious feature in the narrative? It admits"
- as it has been ingeniously suggested by Mr. tiurness, in
his Remarks on the Four Gospels, from which this quotation
is made — " of an explanation which is wonderfully natural.
Imagine the utterance of these simple words to have been
instantly followed by the effects which they are said to have
produced, namely, the restoration of the girl to life in the
one case, and the recovery of the powers of hearing and
speech in the deaf and dumb man in the other, and we perceive what stupendous power must have instantaneously
passed, in the minds of those present, into those brief articulate sounds that issued from the lips of Jesus, and the utterance of which seemed naturally enough to be the cause of
the astonishing effects produced. What peculiar, supernatural, and untranslatable significance must these words
have instantly been thought to possess, which wrought or
appeared to work so mightily!  In the minds of the bystanders, those few sounds were instantly divorced, as by a
stroke of lightning, from all familiar associations. Their




36              THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
ordinary import was lost in the new, instant, and unheard-of
power which their utterance revealed.  They no longer had
any satisfactory correspondence with the articulations of any
other language.  No other forms of speech were felt to
convey the same miraculous meaning, to possess the like
force "; and when, years after, the Apostles sat down to
recall and record those scenes, with what power of inexpressible associations did these very words press into their
minds! What an impress of nature and reality do these
mystic words impart to the narrative!
These remarks apply also to the Saviour's exclamation on
the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani? that is to say, My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matt. xxvii.
46.  No other words from mortal lips could express the associations which in the Apostles' minds were for ever linked
to these words.
The Gospel of Matthew possesses peculiar interest, because it was at first drawn up entirely in the language which
that Teacher uttered, who could attach such wonderful power to his words. It is true that the Gospel in that language
has been lost. The most ancient form in which we now
possess it is a translation into Greek, made soon after the
original was composed. But there is no reason to doubt its
exact faithfulness to the original. It was at once received
by those who, reading familiarly both languages, would detect the slightest variation between the original and the
translation. Though, then, we may be allowed to regret
that we cannot look on the very words which this Apostle
used in narrating the life and words of his Master, yet our
faith need not be in the least disturbed by the loss, while
there remains for us this translation of his history, so manifestly ancient, complete, and true.
One other circumstance, which gives peculiar value to the




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              37
Gospel of Matthew, may be named, and this is the remarkably clear and forcible style in which it is composed. Those
who have much studied the peculiarities of the Evangelical
narratives tell us that they could at once detect a paragraph
of Matthew's history, if it were inserted in either of the
other narratives. But it does not need any rare critical ex
amination to appreciate the style of this writer. Let any
one compare together Luke's and Matthew's record of the
sermon on the mount, for example, and it will be at once
seen how much superior in conciseness and energy is the
latter. How observable especially is this in the manner in
which each gives the beatitudes!  Matt. v. 3 - 12, cornpared with Luke vi. 20 - 23.
The same simplicity and power of expression are found
in the account Matthew gives of Christ's charge to his Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his
replies to the cavils of his adversaries. It is for this reason
that Matthew's Gospel has always been most highly esteemed, and has always been placed first in manuscript and
printed collections.
We never feel more profoundly that our Gospel histories
are true, than when we thus make a comparison, one with
the other, to learn the object and peculiarities of each. The
external evidence of their genuineness, that of manuscripts,
and history, and tradition, is important; but there are marks
in the Gospels themselves of honesty and truth, which, if
only reflected upon, are far more convincing and satisfactory. There is a certain way of telling a story which be
longs only to truth. and which, when perceived, carries with
it all power of determining the understanding and touching
the heart. But this way is perceived only by him who has
sympathies with the truth, a free, open, and generous heart,
that will discern it and bid it welcome.  That famous
VOL. XXI. - NO. 253.        4




38             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
aphorism of the Fathers, that all Scripture must be interpreted by the same spirit in which it was written, covers a
great principle. We see it illustrated every day. To the
coarse and uncultivated, what a mystery are the pleasures
of a refined taste! to the selfish, how unintelligible are the
impulses of generosity! how can the depraved and earthly
conceive of the joys of devotion! One great reason why
we are affected no more by the perusal of our Gospel histories is, that we have so little of that single-minded and alldevoted spirit in which they were written. Their authors
had become like little children, in meekness, simplicity, reverence, and faith. Just in the proportion that we receive
these virtues in our hearts shall we see in their writings signatures of honesty, sincerity, and reality, which we cannot
resist, and which will draw us to Him in whom all treasures
of wisdom are hid.
CHAPTER  VIII.
NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF MARK.
IN the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, at the
twelfth verse, we read these words: — " And Peter came to
the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was
Mark; where many were gathered together, praying." This
is the first notice of Mark which we find in the Scriptures.
We are here introduced to him in connection with an interesting incident in the life of that Apostle, with whom Mark
afterwards long lived, and from whom he received the materials of the narrative which bears his name. Let us see
what that incident was.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.               39
The family and friends of Mary had been filled with grief
and fear, and they had come together to obtain the comfort
and strength of prayer. The Apostle Peter, whom they
had long known, honored, and loved, had been arrested by
order of Herod, and had been thrown into prison, with the
intention that he should soon be given up to be destroyed by
the Jews. On the very night before he was to have been
brought forth, he was found sleeping between two soldiers,
- such is the tranquillity of an upright heart even in extreme
danger. The account of his deliverance is given in Acts
xii. 7; and we will observe to what place Peter, when freed,
immediately directed his steps. He repaired at once to the
house where a group of friends were offering their prayers
to God for his release.
It is a circumstance which gives a great air of truth and
reality to our Gospel histories, not only that individual characters are so well preserved, - such as the affectionate temper of John, the impetuous spirit of Peter, - but that we are
occasionally presented with little groups of relatives and
friends, who in those days, when all were exposed to persecution, would be so naturally drawn together. Thus the
family of Lazarus, with his sisters Mary and Martha and
their friends, forms one group, which with singular distinctness is presented before us. Then the women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome the wife of
Zebedee, who attended the crucifixion, prepared spices to
embalm the body, and were so early at the tomb after the
ascension of Christ, form another group that was brought
naturally and frequently together. Peter's house at Capernaum was a place where another like group of believers
used to assemble, and there they had been sometimes favored with the presence and teachings of Christ.
Just such a place of assembling was this house of Mark's




40             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
mother, to which the released Apostle now approached.
During his long residence in Jerusalem  he had often been
there, to instruct this family and their friends; and when
they had heard of his arrest, they naturally came together,
to sympathize with his fate, and to pray for his deliverance.
And their prayer had been heard. So well was Peter known
by them, that, when he stood at the door and knocked, his
voice was at once recognized, and, as soon as their astonishment permitted them to attend to his words, he declared
unto them how the Lord had brought him out of prison.
This, then, was the home of Mark, an inhabitant of Jerusalem, born and educated a Jew. He was not one of the
twelve, nor a personal companion of Christ. At what time
he embraced the new religion is not known, probably not
until after the ascension of Christ. He was converted by
Peter, who calls him his son (1 Peter v. 13), —a title which
in those times was commonly given by the minister to every
one who through him had been converted to the Christian
faith. Doubtless this laid the foundation for that intimacy
which we shall see always existed between the Apostle and
his pupil.
Soon after Peter's release from prison, Mark determines
to accompany Barnabas, who was his mother's brother, and
Saul, in their journeys to preach the Gospel. It was at this
time that he first took the surname of Mark, having been
known before by the name of John. It was a practice with
the Jews to assume names more familiar to the nations they
visited than those by which they were known in their own
country. Antioch was the first place to which Saul and
Barnabas repaired, and from thence they were sent by the
churches to Paphos, in the isle of Cyprus, and to Perga, in
Pamphylia. Here Mark leaves these Apostles, and returns
to his mother's house at Jerusalem. For what reason this




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             41
step was taken, we have not been informed. It gave offence
to Paul; for a few years after this, when he and Barnabas
proposed another journey to visit and confirm the churches,
and the latter was determined to take his nephew Mark with
him, Paul, as we read in Acts xv. 38, " thought not good to
take him with them, who departed from them at Pamphylia,
and went not with them to the work. And the contention
was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one
from the other," Barnabas taking Mark and sailing to Cyprus,
while Paul, with Silas for a companion, departed through
Syria and Cilicia.
How instructive is this account of the sharp contention, or
paroxysm, as it is in the original, between these two distin.
guished disciples! We can imagine many reasons which
induced Mark to return to his widowed mother at Jerusalem,
reasons in themselves strong and satisfactory, which his
mother's brother, Barnabas, would appreciate, but which, at
the same time, might seem insufficient to one like Paul. He
feared that Mark, if again employed, might desert them
again; Barnabas, it.is probable, knew that the causes which
before called Mark home would not again exist; how natural, then, that this dispute, with men of such temperament
as Paul and Barnabas, should wax warm, and lead to their
separation! It proves that they were men, —just such men
as we see now; and that their inspiration left them free to
consult their own judgments, and to follow their own wills.
It proves something more important still. The Gospel history, which they told from place to place, was no contrivance
of theirs, which, as soon as they were vexed with one another
and had separated, one of them would expose and renounce.
When men plot some scheme of private interest or ambition,
to impose upon the credulity of mankind under the cover of
zeal for the public good, any contention or separation proves
4 *




42             TLIE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
fatal to their undertaking, reveals their secret, and betrays
their wicked design. Nothing like this occurred here, because nothing of a secret or private nature entered into the
views of these men. When in their anger they separate,
they go everywhere telling the same story, and teaching the
same truths; and thus we gain new evidence of the truth of
the Gospel history even from the imperfections of its first
teachers. Nor is this all. They not only prove it to be
true historically, but they prove the influence its truth had
upon their own hearts. Barnabas and Paul were men, and
they separated in anger; but they were Christians, too, and
they cherished no resentment. Paul had the magnanimity
to retract his opinion, and to acknowledge his mistake in
regard to the character of Mark. Not long after this dispute, we find that Paul had Mark with him as an esteemed
fellow-laborer, and when again they were separated, the
Apostle sends express word to Timothy, " Bring Mark with
thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry." — 2 Timothy iv. 11. Differences of opinion will often rise among
men, and good men are not exempt from the weakness of
advocating their own views with excess of positiveness and
warmth. To cherish no resentment, to review one's opinion,
and to acknowledge an error or mistake,- this is the Christian part, which the Apostles not only enjoined upon others,
but acted themselves.
We must return to the life of Mark. His stay at Cyprus
was not long. Barnabas, it is said, was soon stoned to death
by the Jews residing on that corrupt and licentious island,
and thus added another name to the great number of those
who counted not their lives dear unto them for the sake of
the Gospel of Christ. Mark, thus deprived of his companion
and guide, sought out at once the Apostle Peter, the long
and intimate friend of his family, his spiritual father, who




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              43
better than any one else could further teach him the words
of light and life. That Apostle, as is supposed, then dwelt
at Antioch.  Mark joins him there, and from this time remains with him, his constant attendant and assistant, we
know not exactly how long, but probably for eight or ten
years. The churches which Peter had especially under his
care were those in Antioch, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia; and as the Christian history speaks of Mark as a fellowtraveller with Peter, they doubtless visited together these
congregations of believers. After this we hear of Mark in
Rome, for his name is affectionately mentioned at the conclusion of the epistles written from that city by Paul. Col.
iv. 10. 2 Timothy iv. 11. Philemon 24.
It is the unanimous testimony of ancient writers, that Mark
was entreated by the Christians of Rome to commit to writing what he had learned from Peter of the life and words of
Christ. This was the occasion of the composition of his
Gospel. When it was written, Mark travelled to Alexandria
in Egypt, where he was the first to preach the new religion,
and where he established a church. Here he soon died, and
was buried.
Thus was secured another independent record of the life
of Christ, from materials furnished by an eyewitness, and
one of the most distinguished followers of the Saviour.
Had it not been written then and there by Mark, Peter's
independent and important testimony would not have been
written at all. For this Apostle himself lived but a short
time after Mark had been separated from  him.  In the
eighth year of the cruel reign of Nero, both Peter and Paul
were crucified, and thus they placed to the testimony they
gave the seal of their blood. It is said, that, out of a feeling of humble respect for his Master, Peter requested to be
crucified with his head downwards, G' If so, it is an affect



44             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
ing conclusion of his eventful life, and another striking ex
hibition of the ardent character which adhered to him to the
last. He conceived it too great an honor that such an one
as he should meet his death erect, and looking upwards, like
his beloved and venerated Lord; and so, with his head in
the dust, he closed his labors, his failings, his victories, his
sufferings, and his life."
These occasional notices of Peter's life seem to have been
called for in connection with that of Mark, because the Gospel of Mark comes to us on the authority of Peter. For this
reason, it has sometimes been called the Petrine Gospel;
but, as it was written by his companion and pupil, the title
which it has always borne in our Bibles is evidently the
proper one.
CHAPTER IX.
THE GOSPEL OF MARK.
FRoM all we know of Mark, it is very evident that both
he and his family occupied a humble position in society. In
all his journeys with Barnabas and Paul, and with Peter, he
is named only as their minister, —as high a station, doubtless, as he desired, or for which his education qualified him.
Now with all this his Gospel remarkably corresponds. Its
language is more like the language of an uneducated man
than that of any other writing which the New Testament
contains. It is less copious, more harsh, more abounding in
expressions that are unusual and barbarous to the tongue.
He describes clearly; we have no difficulty in understanding




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             45
his meaning; but every thing is narrated with great brevity,
and with a baldness and awkwardness of expression which
will be seen on comparing his narrative with that of Matthew
or Luke.
Another peculiarity of this Gospel is, that, although written in Greek, and written, too, by one who in every chapter
proves himself a Jew, we still find Roman, that is Latin,
names and words, which occur in no other Gospel, and
which sound oddly in the midst of words of a different
tongue. Thus the other Evangelists, in writing of the title
centurion, captain of a hundred men, make use of the common Greek word that denoted that office. Mark, on the
other hand (xv. 19), designates it by the word by which it
was always called among the Romans. The mere English
reader will not perceive the difference, which is seen at once
in the original. So, in Mark xii. 42, the value of the sum
which the poor widow cast into the treasury is expressed by
naming a Roman coin. Again, in Mark vii. 4, which contains an account of the Jewish ceremony of washing hands
before meat, to the vessel made use of for this purpose Mark
gives not the common name applied to it by the Jews, but
one more familiarly known by the Romans. If in using
these words Mark had no design to make himself better understood by those for whose benefit he was writing, we all
know how unconsciously just such words as the above, if
they have been recently used, will at once occur to the
memory of the speaker or writer, even though using for the
moment a different tongue.
A more remarkable peculiarity of this Gospel may be
found in the frequent explanations of places and customs
which Mark introduces, in order to be better understood by his
readers at Rome. Thus, when he has occasion to mention
the Jordan (Mark i. 5), he prefixes the explanation the river,




46             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
an explanation needed only in a distant country. The word
translated hell in our New Testaments is literally the name
of a place near Jerusalem, the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed by fire to Moloch; a place well
known to the inhabitants of Judea, but of which the Romans
were ignorant. Accordingly, Mark, when he mentions it,
adds, thefJre that never shall be quenched. Mark ix. 43, 45.
The Jews applied the word corban to property which any
man set apart to the exclusive service of God. Ungrateful
and impious children, who had aged and infirm parents,
would make corban of their property, and thus avoid their
support. The Saviour reproved them for thus making null
the commandments of God through their tradition. In giving
an account of this, Mark uses the word corban, but he fails
not to define it, — a gift to the Lord of that by which thou
mightest have been profited by me, - without which explanation to his readers, this reproof of the Saviour would be
entirely misunderstood. Mark vii. 11. In the second verse
of that same chapter, the phrase "defiled hands') would
probably have suggested to Roman ears some offence more
heinous than neglect of a superstitious washing, had not
Mark taken pains so to define it. Two remarkable verses
follow, in these words: —" For the Pharisees, and all the
Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the
tradition of the elders.  And when they come from the
market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other
things there be which they have received to hold, as the
washing of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and of tables."
That Mark was writing for the benefit of other than Jewish readers must be obvious from this example alone. But
there is another remark to be made in respect to the foregoing quotation. So much of mere comment and explanation




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              47
from the writer is nowhere else to be found in the Gospels.
This single fact is a proof how little these writers ever speak
in their own names. They always retire behind the facts
they record, anxious that you should look at these alone. It
is this circumstance which makes this long comment of Mark
noticeable; and at first we may wonder why he should have
put it forward. But when we read on a little farther, what
do we find? That Mark immediately gives the long sermon
of Christ, in which he shows that there is but one thing that
can truly defile a man, namely, his own evil heart. A moment's study of the passage leads us to see that the whole
force of this sermon depends upon a knowledge of this Jewish custom, which was the text and explanation of the discourse. The Saviour's doctrine would not have been comprehended, if the contrast which he draws between ceremonial washing and inward purity had not been preserved.
This instance, requiring him to step so far aside from his
usual way of narration, is a striking one of Mark's great
care to adapt his Gospel to the comprehension of those for
whose benefit it was composed.
We see the same care, also, in the selection of the materials for his Gospel.  Mark, doubtless, had knowledge,
through the Apostle Peter, of all the important events in the
life of Christ. But many facts which we find in Matthew
are wholly omitted in Mark. The reason is, he knew they
would be of less consequence to his readers at Rome. Of
this character were the genealogy of Christ, notices of his
parents, the time and circumstances of his birth, of the very
place of which - the little town of Bethlehem - probably
the most of these at Rome had never heard. All these particulars Mark properly passes by. For the same reason is
another fact, before noticed, that Mark gives us in a few
words the discourses against the Scribes and Pharisees.




48             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
There is one other observation respecting Mark's Gospel,
which suggests a peculiarly interesting light in which to survey it. If it was composed of materials furnished to Mark
by Peter, we shall naturally expect to find Peter in it, that is
to say, traces of his independent knowledge and of his peculiar character.
Such traces are found. We shall be able to notice only
a few of the many particulars upon which the testimony of
Peter in this Gospel throws a new and important light. The
conduct of our Saviour, when he was told that his mother
and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him
appears singular and unnatural in Matthew's account of it.
Matt. xii. 48. The Saviour gave no attention to their request, and does not appear to have noticed them. In Mark,
a circumstance unrecorded by the other writers is added,
which explains and justifies the course which Jesus took.
We are here told, that " his kinsmen went out to lay hold on
him; for they said, He is beside himself."  Mark iii. 21.
Jesus, therefore, knew what they wanted of him, and would
not permit their false view to interrupt him.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, that, as Jesus was
going to be crucified, the soldiers compelled one Simon, a
Cyrenean, to bear the cross. In Mark's Gospel alone we
read that this Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus.
Mark xv. 21. Why should Mark have added this fact?
Because, as we incidentally learn from the Epistle to the
Romans, Rufus was then living in Rome. Romans xvi. 13.
That the Saviour's cross was borne by the father of one then
living in that city was a fact interesting to Mark's readers,
and to his alone. It is probable that Peter, in narrating the
crucifixion of his Master to his Roman hearers, often referred
to this Rufus, then living among them, as one who could
testify that his own father was a witness and an unwilling




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              49
abetter of that awful scene. A man, conscious that every
word he uttered could be confirmed, would naturally make
such an appeal as this to a present witness; and here is an
instance of a coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistles, which must have been undesigned, and which, as we
should acknowledge were we legally examining these documents, casts a convincing light on the question of their
authenticity.
We find, also, in this Gospel, traces of Peter's peculiar
character. This Apostle was one of the most distinguished
companions of Christ, who was at times both commended
and severely reproved by his Master. In giving an account
to Mark of the life and words of Jesus, Peter must often
speak of himself, and a man will betray his character by the
manner in which he does this. What accounts, then, of
Peter do we find in this Gospel of Mark? Precisely the
same accounts that we find in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke. It is the same Peter in all; the same bold, over-confident, impulsive, denying, yet quickly repentant and deeply
affectionate disciple. The facts stand in all their bald simplicity in this Gospel, just as they stand in the others. Peter
puts in not one word of explanation, not one whisper of
apology or palliation. In relation to that event which was
so full of unmitigated grief and remorse, the denial of his Master, it is Peter's own account of it that makes us most deeply
feel its folly and its guilt. The circumstances that preceded
it, the prediction of Jesus that Peter would forsake him, and
the solemn assurance of the Apostle that he would not, are
related with more distinctness and impressiveness in Mark's
Gospel than in either of the others. The reason how natural! Those were words which sunk deep into Peter's heart,
which he never forgot, and which, though they told such an
awful tale against him, it was not for him to suppress.
VOL. XXII. — NO. 254.       5




50             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Generous and devoted disciple! With all the weaknesses
and sins into which he was betrayed, who of us does not love
him?'How can we lay up any thing against any human
being, however erring and sinful, who, only by a look of
reproval, is made to go out and weep bitterly?
While, then, Peter keeps not back an account of that bitter rebuke, does it appear that he was equally forward to
make mention of the praise which he received from his
Master's lips?  Here, too, we have an indication of character both beautiful and delicate. You remember those emphatic words of Jesus, pronouncing Peter blessed, declaring
him to be the rock of the church, and to possess the keys
of heaven. You remember it was supposed that these words
conferred some preeminence upon Peter, and that therefore
they created offence in the little band of equal disciples.
You will find these words in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt.
xvi. 17- 19. They are not found in the Gospel of Mark.
The occasion on which they were uttered is named, and
other conversation which was then held is narrated. Mark
viii. 27-29. The words of praise are not repeated; and
yet could Peter have forgotten them?
Thus, in reading our four Gospel histories, there is hardly
any thing with which we may be more deeply impressed,
than with the fact that their writers must have been themselves influenced by the doctrines which they taught. These
doctrines, the veriest infidel allows, are adapted to make
men love honesty, sincerity, and truth. So far, then, as we
see that they had effect upon those who taught them, so far
must we also see the moral impossibility that these men
could all the while be engaged in a dark work of forgeries
and lies. Who is credulous enough to believe that?  By
all that their Master taught them they were made humble,
forgetful of themselves, indifferent to the world's favor or




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              51
reproach, in love only with the truth; they were holy men,
and could not speak otherwise than as they were moved by
the spirit of sincerity and truth.
CHAPTER X.
NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF LUKE.
THESE are but few, and for the most part unsatisfactory.
The author of two important books, the Gospel and the Acts
of the Apostles, Luke had the self-forgetfulness so characteristic of the first disciples, who did not deem any thing relating to their own history worthy the slightest notice in connection with Him whose life and words they were called to
record. Luke has never, in either of his histories, mentioned
himself by name. In giving an account of Paul's labors and
travels, whose companion and assistant Luke was, he yet
says no more of the part which he acted than such expressions as these imply: —" we journeyed," " we sailed," " we
abode." Paul, in his epistles, makes occasional allusion to
Luke by name, and from these sources, and from what we
learn from credible historians, almost contemporaneous, we
gather the materials for the following sketch.
He was born in Antioch, about fifteen years before the
birth of Christ. Of the converts made to the new religion in
the age of the Apostles, he was the oldest of whom we have
any account. Antioch was at this time one of the most
celebrated cities of the East, the capital of Syria, and the
residence of the Roman governors. Here all religions were
tolerated, and the population was composed of Greeks, Ro



52             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
mans, Macedonians, and Jews. Luke was born, it is probable, of Gentile parents. Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 14), implies that he was not of the circumcision,
as he gives his name after the names of those whose Jewish
descent is expressly affirmed.  See Col. iv. 7- 11.  He
doubtless received a Gentile education, and was trained up
to the profession of a physician. He was, therefore, a man
of some learning. Those who followed this profession received more instruction than most men, both in their particular art and in general literature. They obtained, besides,
that practical knowledge which may be acquired by an extensive intercourse with society. These qualifications were
not of a low order, it is likely, in a city so learned as that
of Luke's birthplace, where the Greek language in its purity
had long prevailed, and letters had long been cultivated, and
where people of the first distinction resided. At what time
Luke was made a convert to the Jewish religion is not
known. It is probable he became such early in life, as
throughout his Gospel and the Acts he shows the utmost
familiarity with its doctrines and ceremonies, with the language of its sacred books, and with places and customs of
Judea.
Here, then, at Antioch, Luke lived, as is supposed, until
he was about fifty years of age, discharging the duties of
his profession, and enjoying his religion as a proselyte Jew.
Meantime all the events had been transpiring, in the neighbouring province of Judea, of which we read in the Gospels,
— the birth of the Saviour, his baptism, his ministry, his
wonderful works, his arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection,
and ascension; and how worthy of our notice is it that God
should now raise up, in this enlightened city of Antioch,
another historian of all these facts, in the person of such a
man as Luke, — a man of age and attainments, whose character was well formed and was probably well known!




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              53
Of the time and manner in which Luke first became acquainted with the Gospel, we have not been informed. We
know clearly only what he has told us in the preface to his
Gospel, that he was not an eyewitness of the events of the
Saviour's life, but obtained a knowledge of them from those
who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; and also
what we learn from the Acts, that, soon after Paul's conversion, Luke joined that Apostle, as his companion and
assistant. It seems probable that Luke was converted to
the Christian faith on the day of Pentecost. This was an
oocasion, when, as a Jewish believer, he would naturally be
present at Jerusalem; and what more probable than that he
was one of the great number of devout persons, out of every
nation, who had then come together in that city?  Here,
convinced by the miracles which on that day converted three
thousand to the Christian faith, he made this the subject of
his careful inquiry, and availed himself of all opportunities
to hear the preachers of the new religion.  During the
years they spent in Jerusalem, Luke lived with them, as we
have reason to conclude, and took part himself in their work
of repeating to others the story of the life and words of
Christ. Thus we see the sources of his information, and
how his narrative also became influenced by the style of the
Apostle's oral accounts.
We now pass several years down the course of events.
The Apostles had fulfilled their ministry in Jerusalem, according to His word who told them to tarry for a time in
that city, their number had been greatly enlarged, and that
bold and able advocate, Paul of Tarsus, had been raised up
to their cause. The martyrdom of Stephen and the imprisonment of Peter were soon followed by days of persecution, that separated the Apostles and early preachers from
one another, and sent them everywhere abroad as mission5*




54             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
aries of the new faith. In this dispersion Paul went to Antioch, to which place Luke had before repaired. Here the
acquaintance between the Apostle and Evangelist probably
commenced.  Here Paul established a church, of which
Luke was, doubtless, a prominent member. It was in this
city, also, and at this time, that the disciples were first called
Christians. Acts xi. 26.
Not long after this, we find that Luke has determined to
devote himself to the work of spreading a knowledge of
these glad tidings abroad in the world. What the young
disciple Mark did when he connected himself with Peter,
what Matthew the publican did when the Saviour met him
at the receipt of custom, this the older and more experienced Luke now does, —he leaves all to follow the call of
Christ. So strong was the sense of duty in the hearts of
these men! They broke away from every attachment of
kindred and country and habit and home, that they might
everywhere bear witness to what they knew was for the
healing and salvation of the world. In the case of Luke,
this is particularly remarkable. He had now reached a
period in life when men oftener think of retiring from its
cares, than of turning their feet to a new and perilous pursuit. The fervors of youth had passed away, and all his
tastes and attachments must have confined him, in his declining years, to the city where he was born, and where for
so long a time he had followed the duties of his profession.
But all these he now overcomes, and joins himself, as a
companion and fellow-laborer, to the Apostle Paul.
We have before seen how natural it was that Peter and
Mark should unite together in their labors as missionaries
and preachers of the word. They both sprang from the
same humble station in life, they had for a long time been
previously acquainted with one another, they had sustained




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              55
to each other the relation of teacher and pupil. Equally
natural was it that two such men as Paul and Luke should
unite together as companions and fellow-laborers.  The
former was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and was
learned in the wisdom of the ancients, and in the sacred
books of the Jews; the latter, likewise, from education, profession, and the intercourse of his whole life with intelligent
society, was a man of considerable attainments, accustomed
to close examination and careful thought. Among all the
early converts to the new religion, we know of no other one
like these two men. How natural, then, that they should
labor together, to bear one another's burdens and to help one
another's joys!
Luke was with Paul, more or less, for many years. The
account of their journeys, preachings, and many trials, he
has recorded in the book of the Acts. It is evidence of the
great minuteness and exactness with which he has done this,
that, with a common ancient map before us, we can trace
the course of their voyages, see the islands at which they
touched, and the places where they preached. In all these
perils and labors, what particular part Luke himself bore we
can only conjecture. It is noticeable that Paul does not call
Luke his minister, as he did Mark. Luke was a fellowlaborer, an equal, the beloved physician,- one on whose
wisdom and experience Paul leaned for support. Paul was
younger, more active, a more gifted, and a more remarkable
man, whose education, habits, wonderful conversion, and
bold temperament qualified him to be prominent in action
and address. Such he appears throughout the narrative; it
is of what Paul said, and did, and suffered, that Luke chiefly
speaks. Luke himself was declining in years, from the
habits of his profession he was unused to public harangues,
and although in his modesty he has hardly said a word of




56             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
himself, we know at least this much, that he minutely ob.
served and carefully recorded every thing that came under
his notice, that he was Paul's judicious, confidential counsellor, and steady and supporting friend.
With the imprisonment of Paul at Rome, the history in
the book of Acts concludes. Here, also, terminate Luke's
incidental notices of his own life. The most credible account which has been handed down of the remaining part
of the life of this Evangelist leads us to conclude that he
soon left Rome and settled in Greece. It is said that he
here wrote his Gospel and the Acts, and soon after died, at
the venerable age of eighty-four.
CHAPTER XI.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE.
FRo.i these brief notices of the life of Luke, we are now
to turn to the Gospel which bears his name. We are struck
at once with the manner in which he begins his narrative, it
is so different from that of the other Evangelists. According to the taste of the Greeks and Romans, which he doubtless acquired in his Gentile education, he opens his history
with a preface, from which we learn his intentions in writing, the sources of his knowledge, and the name of the person for whose benefit the work was undertaken. It is a
long, carefully written, and well-balanced sentence, of pure
and well-chosen words. How would it have sounded, had it
been placed at the beginning of the narrative of Matthew or
of Mark! Neither of them appears to have given a thought




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              57
to the selection of language, or to have cared any thing for
style. Luke's preface is appropriate to no place but to that
where it is. Here it is in perfect keeping with the man.
The title " most excellent" was bestowed upon those who
held offices of considerable importance under the Roman
emperors, such offices as superintendents of sacred edifices,
overseers of public revenue, deputy governors in the provinces; and as Luke gives geographical notices of places not
in the neighbourhood of Greece, it is probable that Theophilus resided in that country, and was some distinguished man
converted and instructed by Luke, when he went there to
spend the few last years of his old age. The following are
references, in Luke's Gospel, to descriptions which would
have been unnecessary had he been writing to one well acquainted with Judea: i. 26; iv. 31; viii. 26; xxiii. 51;
xxiv. 13. So, too, in the Acts, we find that places in Judea
and in Asia Minor are named as if they were less known
than those in Greece and those between Greece and Rome,.with which a public officer of Greece would naturally be
acquainted. These facts sufficiently indicate the residence
of Theophilus.
One other thing in this preface deserves our notice, as it
throws light upon the state of feeling which then existed in
regard to the Christian religion. Luke mentions, as onereason why he wrote his Gospel, that many had taken in hand
to give account of the Saviour's life and words. Had these
accounts been entirely trustworthy and satisfactory, his own
labor would have been unnecessary. No doubt these were
brief and contradictory relations. Of course, he does not
refer to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. He would
not so allude to the narratives of three writers, two of whom
had better opportunities of information than himself, while
the other had opportunities equally as good. Besides this,




58             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
John's Gospel was not at this time written, while the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark, if then composed, of which there is
much reason to doubt, were published in countries remote
from Greece, and were not then, it is probable, familiarly
known.
There were, then, other, but imperfect, accounts of Christ's
life and words, known in Greece before Luke prepared his
Gospel. How natural that such accounts should have existed! Thirty years had elapsed since the events of the
Saviour's life transpired in Judea. A knowledge of them
must have been carried to all parts of the world by Jews and
others. What could have been more natural than that brief,
incorrect, and contradictory accounts of events so wonderful
should have been frequently committed to writing, and that
they should awaken much curiosity, and should be sought
after by persons of various descriptions? The fact named
by Luke is of much importance, as it shows that the Christian religion attracted the attention of mankind at the very
time when its pretensions could be easily exposed if they
were false. Our Gospels were not presented to the world
at a time when an absolutely dead indifference prevailed as
to their contents. They had acquired no sanction of age,
nor had opportunities to test their authenticity passed by,
before their merits were discussed. On the contrary, at the
very time they were written, men were asking what might
be depended upon for truth. They were composed and
published for this very purpose, to distinguish and preserve
what was certain and worthy of reliance. And time, that
trieth all things, has consigned to oblivion those accounts of
the many, to which the occurrence of marvellous events
always gives birth, and which were doubtless written in
haste and from mere rumor, while it has safely handed
down to us the carefully written narratives of those who




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              59
embalmed their words in the ever-living spirit of deep sincerity and truth.
Of Luke's Gospel as a book, the most striking peculiarity
is the great research which it betrays, and the surprising
care, precision, and fulness of detail with which it is written.
Luke tells us that he had accurately informed himself of all
things from the beginning (i. 3); and that he had taken
great pains to do this is evident throughout. Indeed, Luke
appears to have been a man who heartily loved dates, and
names, and a statement of facts.  A trait of character like
this rarely belongs to such men as Matthew and Mark; but
how very natural to find it in the old age of a man who had
long followed that profession which, more than any other,
creates habits of observing and recording facts! A quotation of a verse or two from his Gospel will illustrate this
trait of his character. It is found at the beginning of the
third chapter.'" Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and
Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip
being tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests, the word of God came unto
John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." Could any
man take greater pains to insure precision and fix a date?
He wishes to settle the precise time when a certain man
began to preach; he tells his name, the name of his father,
the neighbourhood where he first appeared, who were highpriests at the time, the name of the offices and of the officers
of the three highest civil stations in the country, the name of
the emperor who ruled over all, and the very year of his reign.
The same love of preciseness in recording facts is seen in
the other book of this Evangelist, the Acts of the Apostles.
Thus, on one occasion, he gives account of his accompany



60             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
ing Paul, then a prisoner, on his way to Rome. Acts xxvii.
1. They sail from Tyre under the care of Julius, a centurion, belonging to the band of Augustus; the vessel was
owned at Adramyttium, and Aristarchus, a Macedonian of
Thessalonica, was a fellow-passenger. The day after they
launched, they touched at Sidon, sailed near the island of
Cyprus, over the sea of Cilicia, and landed at Myra, a city
of Lycia. All this is within the compass of five verses.
Look at another extract from his journal. Acts xxviii. 11.
They had been shipwrecked upon the island of Malta.
They were obliged to remain here three months. They
then obtained passage in a ship belonging to Alexandria;
her name was Castor and Pollux; she had wintered at the
isle. They soon landed at Syracuse; here they stopped
three days. They then beat their way against opposing
winds to Rhegium, where they remained one day; then, a
south wind blowing, they passed on towards Rome.
This unusual minuteness in recording so many little facts,
names, and places sprung from no design to accumulate
evidence of the truth of his history; still less was it an
appeal, which, so often made, might have seemed vain and
ostentatious, to hundreds of witnesses of his veracity, who
might have then been found. Luke writes as if he never
once thought that his statements would be called in question.
Every thing is put down naturally, as the record of a very
observing man, whose habit and delight it was to preserve
all connected facts. It is true that every additional circumstance he mentions furnished to his readers a new test of his
credibility, but there is nowhere the slightest indication that
Luke for a moment thought of this. Impressed with the
reality of every thing he relates, he betrays no consciousness that it had ever occurred to him that his narrative could
appear otherwise than as simple and consistent reality to any




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             61
body.  Accordingly, throughout his writings, as indeed
throughout the writings of the other Evangelists, there is a
quiet, unobtrusive confidence in his narrative, which could
have sprung only from the profoundest conviction of its
truth.
To these traits of Luke's character which have now been
noticed, to his spirit of research, and love of minuteness,
and precision in recording facts, we are very largely indebted. They led him to gather up and preserve many interesting particulars, of which the other Evangelists leave us
uninformed. Thus the beautiful hymn of Mary before the
birth of Jesus (Luke i. 46), Zacharias's song of thanksgiving
when he named his son John (Luke i. 67), and the devout
address of good old Simeon in the temple (Luke ii. 29),
are given by Luke alone. We may suppose that these
words were written out in full afterwards by these persons,
as descriptive of what they felt and imperfectly expressed
on the above-named occasions, and that Luke, when in
Judea, obtained copies of them, and inserted them in their
place near the beginning of his Gospel. Had it not been
for his care, they would not have been preserved.
So, also, no one can compare the Gospels together, without at once seeing how many more parables Luke gives
than any of the other Evangelists. Those simple ahd most
beautifully wrought allegories, — that of the rich man and
Lazarus, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican,
the good Samaritan, - are found in Luke alone. Matthew
and Mark did all that the necessities of the occasions that
gave rise to their Gospels required or permitted; the absence of these parables from their narratives does not surprise us. But how well does it comport with all that we
know of the taste and character of Luke, that, in his journeys in Judea and conversations with the Apostles, he should
VOL. XXII. - NO. 254.       6




62             TIME G OSPEL NARRATIVES.
treasure up these parables with minutest care, and that whets
he wrote, in the leisure of his old age, he should take so
much pains to record them in full! Thus it is through him
that these divine lessons have given so much delight and
wisdom to the world.
To the same care of Luke in observing and recording
facts, we owe a knowledge of many other particulars, —
those relating to the birth of John, the occasion of Joseph's
being in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, the vision granted
to the shepherds who watched their flocks by night, the journey of the child Jesus when twelve years old to Jerusalem,
the conversion of Zaccheus the publican, the repulse the
Saviour and his disciples met when about to enter a Samaritan city, the instructive rebuke he then gave to two of his
disciples for their intemperate zeal, the mission of the seventy, and the affecting interview during the walk to Emmaus. All these are recorded in the Gospel of Luke alone.
And yet it is worth our while to observe that this Evangelist, with all his minute attention to facts, sometimes makes
most indefinite allusions to time and place in narrating the
events of successive days in the life of Christ. Thus he
has occasionally phrases like these, —" in a certain city,"
"' at a certain village," "on one of those days," "at that
season," &c., referring to times and places which are more
exactly designated in the Gospel of Matthew. Compare
Luke v. 12 with Matt. viii. 2; also, Luke xv. 1 with Matt.
ix. 10. The obvious conclusion is, that Luke had not seen
Matthew's Gospel. If he had, he would have been glad to
learn the exact time and place from that Evangelist. How
well does this different method of indicating the succession
of events agree with what we have seen to be the origin of
these two Gospels! Luke, who received the history from
the Apostles, as they preached on different occasions, for




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             6S
different purposes, and without regard to chronological order,
was as minute and precise in his facts as he could be, but
was necessarily less exact in some matters of time and
place than Matthew, who knew when and where the events
transpired, because he was an eyewitness of their occurrence.
It has been before remarked, that we see the influence of
Luke's Gentile education in prefixing to his Gospel a formal
preface, so much after the taste of the Roman and Greek
authors. We see the same thing in his marking events by
the reign of the Roman emperor, or of Roman governors,
- such as the birth of John, the birth of Christ, and the
time when the Baptist began his ministry. We see the same
thing, also, in the genealogy which Luke has given. Matthew, writing for Jews, traces the line from Abraham and
David down to Christ, in order to prove that the ancient
prophecies of a Messiah were fulfilled in him. But it was
no part of Luke's object to prove this, because the Gentile
Theophilus knew nothing of these prophecies. Accordingly,
he gives a genealogy after the Gentile manner, ascending
from the person whose lineage is given, upward to the founder of his family. Thus he entirely reverses the order of
Matthew. These genealogies have been a great cause of
perplexity to all commentators. On comparing them together, we find that there are discrepancies between them.
We cannot doubt that they were copied from family records,
in keeping of which the Jews have ever been scrupulously
exact, and that, whatever errors may have crept into their
frequent transcription since, they were originally correct.
Else they would have been attacked, as they were not, by
early Jewish and infidel opponents. The more common
way of explaining these discrepancies is by supposing that
several intermediate names have been dropped from the list




64             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
of Matthew; and that, when Luke says that Joseph was the
son of Heli (iii. 23), he means an adopted son, a son-in-law.
Then Luke gives the pedigree of Mary's line, as Matthew
gives that of Joseph's.
The influence of Luke's education is seen again throughout his Gospel in his style, structure of sentences, and use
of words. His sentences are longer, more involved, and
elaborated. He has a more copious use of words; and although he sometimes adopts harsh Hebrew expressions, bor.
rowed, no doubt, from his intercourse first with the Jews
and then with the Apostles, yet his language generally is
pronounced to be the purest Greek which the New Testament contains, and shows that he had been trained to a correct knowledge and careful use of that tongue. Traces
have been found in his writings, it is thought, of his medical
profession. Thus in Luke iv. 38 he distinguishes a fever
by words employed by old medical writers, while in Acts
xiii. 11 he uses a technical word for blindness.
In Luke's Gospel, therefore, we do not see so much of
one kind of simplicity,- simplicity of language, - as we
see in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In a man of
Luke's education and life this could not exist. But we see
just as much of another kind of simplicity, - simplicity of
design, simplicity of heart. He had the same object before
him that the other Evangelists had, - to record the life and
words of Christ; and as with them, so with him, this great
object engrossed all attention. He himself is as nobody.
He introduces nothing as coming from himself, no opinions,
no conjectures, no reasonings, no inferences, no surprise, no
admiration. In the language in which he had been educated, and with the minute accuracy of taste and habit, he
gives nothing but the naked facts.
These facts he transmitted to his friend Theophilus, that




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              65
he might know the certainty of the things in which he had
been instructed. This Gospel was God's message to him.
None the less is it God's message to us, that, by studying its
words, pondering its truths, obeying its instructions, and
imbibing its spirit, we also may know the certainty of these
things. And their certainty we may know. We cannot,
indeed, go to the places which this Evangelist so minutely
describes, nor inquire of the men with whom he journeyed.
These are tests of his credibility which in their very nature
are not perpetual, though by these his words were once
tried, and they have abided. But there are other tests than
these outward ones of the senses, by which we may determine, and by which alone, after all, we can determine, what
is true and right and good. We have the test of our reason
and conscience and heart. Let us bring the Gospel message home to a personal trial and proof. We shall then
have the witness in ourselves. For our guide in life, our
help in weakness, our comfort in sorrow, our support in
death, it is God's precious gift to us, and that by which the
secrets of all hearts shall at last be judged.
CHAPTER XII.
NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF JOHN.
WE come now to the life of one whose character is distinguished at once from that of all the other followers of
Christ, and betrays itself in almost every verse of his writings. Mild and affectionate, faithful and confiding, a double
portion of the Saviour's spirit seems to have rested upon
6*




66             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
him; and hence what a peculiar tie connected the Teacher
and the pupil together! Jesus was loved by John with a
love which only John's deep heart could offer him, while
John was the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Notices of his life are more clear and satisfactory than
those pertaining to the other Evangelists. Matthew, Mark,
and Luke all tell us that John was the son of Zebedee and
Salome, that he lived in Bethsaida, - a little fishing town on
the northern shore of the lake of Galilee, - and was brought
up to his father's business, which was that of a fisherman.
This was the common occupation of those who lived near
that lake; and although it was an humble employment, it
nevertheless appears, from various incidental notices, that
John's father was not destitute of property, nor in a low
condition of life. When called to be a disciple, we read
that John left hired servants in the ship with his father.
Mark i. 20. John appears always to have had a home of
his own, to which he received Mary, the mother of his
Lord, when she was commended to his care. John xix. 27.
By his mother John was related to Christ, and by no distant connection. Salome was a daughter of Joseph, born to
him with other children before his espousal to Mary, the
mother of Jesus. Hence Salome was reckoned our Lord's
sister, and John was his nephew.  This relationship explains several circumstances in this Gospel, and it is important, therefore, that it be borne in mind. It gives us reason
to suspect that John was early acquainted with Jesus. He,
living with his parents at Nazareth, was but a few miles distant from John, following his father's business on the lake.
Being related, no doubt their families sometimes met, and
thus John can hardly be supposed to have been ignorant of
all the wonderful events preceding and following the birth
of Christ, such as the appearance of the angel to his mother,




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              67
the visit of the Magi at Bethlehem, the mysterious and deeply
pondered words said of him when he was presented in the
temple, the divine communications that directed his flight
into Egypt, and his ever memorable visit, when twelve years
old, to Jerusalem. Events in themselves so wonderful, and
so clearly showing that a peculiar providence was watching
over Jesus, and was preparing him for some high work,
must have been well known to near relatives, all of whom
were then looking for the consolation of Israel; and very
naturally did they lead the mind of John to determine upon
the course he pursued. He resolved to improve the first
favorable opportunity that presented to connect himself with
Jesus, that by intercourse with him he might be prepared
for that new order of events which it was so clear God was
soon to establish. That opportunity was near at hand. Jesus had been baptized, and had passed through the scene of
his temptation, and while on his way from Capernaum to
visit the villages of Galilee, he came to the lake, where he
saw the two brothers, James and John, in a ship with their
father, mending their nets. Upon invitation, they left the
ship and followed Jesus. John was the fourth one now
added to the number of disciples, and we are told that he
was the youngest of the twelve.
It is impossible, as has been beautifully said by Dr. Greenwood, in his Lives of the Apostles, that either John or his
brother could have dreamed of the consequences to which
the step they had now taken would lead. " Hitherto it had
been their only care to rise up, day by day, to the contented
exercise of their humble toil, to ply their oars, to spread
their sails, to cast their nets, and to dispose of their freight
in their native village or in the neighbouring towns, for the
support of themselves and their families." The scene just
around them, the peaceful lake, the surrounding hills, their




68             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
own low-roofed dwellings, looking out kindly upon them,
and containing all that they loved, — this was their little
world. Here they lived as their fathers lived before them;
and here, hoping for the long-promised deliverance of their
nation, but for themselves anticipating no changes but the
few vicissitudes of their calling, they expect to live, till they
lie down to sleep with their fathers, as calmly, as unknowing, and as unknown as they. But what a change passes
over their lives from the moment they connect themselves
with Christ! They become witnesses of the most wonderful events, and are in a school that will make them the most
wonderfil men of all recorded time. Soon a power is conferred upon them, and a work is intrusted to them, which
cast into utter insignificance the authority and pomp of
kings. " Home, kindred, country, they forsake. Their
nets may hang and bleach in the sun; their boats may rot
piecemeal on the shore; for the owners of them are far
away, sailing over seas to which that of Genesareth is a
pond; exciting whole cities and countries to wonder and
tumult; answering before kings; imprisoned, persecuted,
tortured"; but everywhere gloriously carrying on a work
as God's instruments, which will hand down their names to
all ages, and in time change the face of thef whole world.
Instruments of God, indeed, they must have been, for how
soon would a work so begun, and carried on by such men,
have come to naught, if it had not been of God.
We have said that these men were in a school. Such,
indeed, was the influence of the great Teacher to which
they were now subjected. Under him they acquired new
principles of action. Gradually did the characters of all the
disciples experience a great change. They were made to
feel that there was a bondage, worse than that of Rome, from
which they were to be delivered; that there was a more




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             69
blessed kingdom than one of outward glory and power,
which Christ came to set up; and that into this they could
be received only by most intimate acquaintance, in heart
and life, with deep spiritual truth. How great a change,
then, in the views and characters of these men, was wrought
by their personal intercourse with the Saviour! Observe
that it was brought about, not by any sudden and supernatural wrench of their natures, but by the natural processes
of enlightening the mind, purifying the affections, and reforming the life. And what a testimony to his power, and
to the power of his religion, was it, that these humble and
untutored fishermen of Galilee had their hearts filled with a
sublime and world-embracing purpose, and were armed with
a spirit by which they went forth to a greater work than man
had ever before conceived, and by which they triumphed
and were glorified.
But of all the disciples there was no one upon whom the
influences of the Saviour's spirit and life seem to have produced so great an effect as upon John. During the early
part of his connection with Christ, this disciple is occasionally presented to us in a light which does not win our love.
The youngest, as before said, of the twelve, with little expe;
rience of life, and having strong feelings easily aroused, no
doubt the title Boanerges, - son of thunder, - which Jesus
early bestowed upon John (see Mark iii. 17), was suggested
by his warm and impetuous temper. This same temper led
him, when indignant at the conduct of the Samaritans, who
refused to receive his Master into their city, to ask if fire
from heaven should not descend and destroy them. Luke
ix. 54. So, also, on another occasion, we have a manifestation of a spirit which we cannot commend. Eager for the
establishment of the new kingdom, then supposed to be one
of temporal power and greatness, it appears that John, with




70             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
his brother James, made a request to Christ, either personally, as we infer from the account in Mark x. 35, or through
their mother, as it would appear from Matthew xx. 20, that
they might be first, and sit one on his right hand and the
other on his left. It seems at first view difficult to believe
that it could have been John, the gentle and affectionate disciple whom Jesus loved, that manifested such a temper as
this. And yet have we not often found that persons, who
possess naturally strong and easily excited feelings, become
the loveliest characters we have ever known, if only those
feelings are governed and balanced by a deep experience
and discipline of religious truth?
In the latter part of his connection with Christ, John's
character appears very different from what it appeared at
first. We find no more instances of his hasty temper.
That was subdued and governed by the mild rebukes and
faithful teachings of his Master. Henceforth he became,
what we everywhere find him to be, gentle, meek, full of
reverence, confiding in his Saviour with a trust that never
once wavered, and penetrated in his whole being with the
spirit of love. How often have we known those who have
natures made up of the richest elements, but who are exposed, through some one weak point, to shipwreck and
ruin! When we see such cases, how much do we feel that
man has need of a power to guide, guard, and preserve, to
bind the conflicting elements within him into one well-developed and well-fortified character! We may still find that
power, where John found it, in communion with Christ.
As we follow the history of this disciple, it is easy for us
to mark the progress of the strong affection that grew up
between him and his Master and Lord. Thus John was
selected by Jesus to be, with Peter and James, a witness of
some of the most important and trying scenes of his life,




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              7]
such as the transfiguration and the agony of the garden.
So, also, at the ever memorable scene of the last supper,
the position which John occupied at the table is a proof of
the love which Jesus felt for him.  He was leaning on his
bosom; that is, as it was the custom to recline at meals, and
John was next to Jesus, his head was brought near his MIaster's breast; and this was a position which was reserved by
him who gave an entertainment for the person whom he
most esteemed. It was while this disciple was thus leaning,
that Peter beckoned to him that he should ask Jesus who it
was that should betray him. John did as he was requested,
and Jesus indicated who the traitor was by giving Judas a
sop. All this seems to have been done in private, and apart
from the knowledge of the other disciples, and proves the
great measure of condescension and confidence which was
exercised by the Master towards this his favorite follower.
John, then, had reason to style himself "6 the disciple whom
Jesus loved " (xx. 2). All the members of that little band
were dear to Jesus, —-dearer than his own life. But for
this one — young, confiding, reflecting his own gentle and
affectionate spirit, with him in his trials and leaning upon
his bosom -he felt a peculiar love. Who can say that our
religion does not encourage particular friendship between
kindred hearts, when we have this beautiful example in its
very Founder before our eyes? And as this friendship was
declared before all, and was acknowledged by all, and allusions to it therefore could give no offence, how gratefully
sensible of its value does John prove himself to have been,
by assuming no other name in his history than the disciple
whom Jesus loved! What other words could add any thing
to these?
The next notice we have of John is at the crucifixion.
He was the only one of all the twelve who had the fortitude




72             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
to go to that scene of suffering and danger. Says the writer
before quoted, in his life of this Apostle, —" How touchingly is it manifested on this awful occasion, that the softest
natures are often the noblest and the most fearless too, and
that those which are apparently the most daring and masculine may yet shrink away in the time of peril and distress!
Who in that hour of darkness,- darkness in the heavens
and in the hearts of men, — who in that hour of abandonment,
when even the Son of God cried out that he was forsaken, -
who of all his followers were with him then, to support him
by their sympathy, and prove to him their love? In the
midst of scoffing soldiers and brutal executioners, under the
lowering sky, and just below the frightful cross, we behold
four weeping females and one disciple, the youngest and the
gentlest of the twelve, braving the horrors of this place of
blood, braving the anger of those in authority and the insults
of those who do their bidding, determined to be near their
Master in his agonies, and ready on the spot and at the moment to share them. And what is it that braces up the
nerves of this feeble company to such a singular pitch of
fortitude and  daring?  The simple but unconquerable
strength of affection; the generous omnipotence of their attachment and gratitude. In the might of their love they
ascend the hill of Calvary, and take their station beneath
the cross, hearing nothing amidst all that tumult but the
promptings of their devoted hearts, seeing nothing but their
dying Lord, remembering nothing but that he was dear to
them, and that he was in misery. 0, how loftily does courage like this rise above that ruder and earthly courage
which rushes to the battle-field, and is crowned with the ap.
plauses of the world! It calls for none of those excitements
and stimulants from without, which goad rough spirits into
madness, but relies on those resources that are within, those




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              73
precious stores and holy powers which are the strength of a
single and faithful breast. That is the courage of the animal; this is of the soul. It is pure; it is divine.  It was
such as moved the complacent regard of the Saviour himself, even in the height of his sufferings. Hanging on the
cross bleeding and exhausted, yet when he saw his mother
and the disciple whom he loved standing by, he was touched
by their constancy; his thoughts were recalled to earth;
the domestic affections rushed into his bosom; and with a
tender care, which provided at once a protection for his parent and a reward for his friend,' he saith unto his mother,
Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple,
Behold thy mother!' Where was there ever so affecting a
bequest as was then made, when love and filial piety tri.
umphed over suffering?  Where was there ever so affecting
an adoption as that which then took place, when attachment
and fidelity triumphed over fear? The last earthly care of
Jesus was accomplished. His mother was confided to the
disciple whom he best loved. The favorite disciple eagerly
accepted the honorable and precious charge, for' from that
hour,' as we are told by himself, he  took her unto his own
home."' John xix. 27.
We next meet with John at the resurrection of Christ.
Informed by Mary Magdalene, who went early to the sepulchre, that the stone had been rolled away, both John and
Peter ran eagerly to the spot, and found the tomb empty.
And here a slight circumstance is mentioned, which shows
that John was more quick than all the other disciples to understand the words of Christ. They knew not the meaning
of the saying that Christ must rise again from the dead. So
unprepared were they for his resurrection, that Peter, when
he saw the body was not there, did not ascribe the fact to its
true cause. But John saw and believed. John xxviii. 8.
VOL. XXII.    NO. 254.      7




74             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVESo
"' It was into the mind of the beloved disciple that the light
first broke. He first believed the glorious truth, that death
was vanquished by the Son of God, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Prince of Life."
Not long after this, when Jesus appeared to his disciples
for the last time before his ascension, he foretold Peter's
violent death; and that disciple, seeing John just behind
him, desired to know what his lot was to be. The answer
of Jesus was, " If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that
to thee? " This answer caused a saying to go abroad that
John should not die. We shall soon see what was the probable meaning of these prophetic words.
When finally the Saviour left the earth, and in obedience
to his words the disciples came together at Jerusalem, John
was there with them. His name is the third in the list given
by Luke in the beginning of the book of Acts. But little is
said of the part which John took in the missionary labors of
the Apostles. We are only told, that once he was imprisoned with Peter, and once went with that disciple to
teach in Samaria. It is at this point that the Scripture account of John closes. All early testimonies agree that he
continued to reside in Judea, constantly taking filial care of
Mary till the time of her death, which occurred about fifteen
years after the ascension of Christ. John does not appear
to have become a preacher to the Gentiles until after the
destruction of Jerusalem. This event occurred in the year
70, and when John was about seventy years of age. It was
this event, as is generally understood, to which Jesus referred, when he intimated that John should tarry until his coming, — his second coming in judgment upon the Jews.
John was the only one of the first disciples who lived to see
the holy city overthrown, her glorious temple destroyed, and
the very ground on which it stood ploughed up by the hands




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             75
of the Gentiles. Prior to this event, Matthew had published
his Gospel in Judea, and had suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia; Mark had published his Gospel at Rome, and had died
in Alexandria in Egypt; the aged Luke had published his
Gospel in Greece, and had there gone down to his grave;
and all the rest of the twelve, Peter, James, Andrew, Philip,
Thomas, and Bartholomew, though meeting for the most
part the death of martyrs, had yet finished their course with
soy. John still survived to bear the testimony of an eyewitness of Jesus to a generation that succeeded these holy
men.
What remains to be said of him may be very briefly told.
He journeyed to Ephesus, in Asia Minor, and presided over
the church in that place. In the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Domitian, about the year 90, John
was banished to the isle of Patmos. Here, as is commonly
supposed, he wrote the book of Revelation. Under the successor of Domitian, John was permitted to return to Ephesus,
where he soon published his Epistles, certainly the first
Epistle, about which there has never been any dispute,
though the genuineness of the other two has been sometimes
called in question. Soon after this John wrote out his Gospel. We have been distinctly informed what was his object
in doing this. It was to correct some errors prevalent at
Ephesus, and to supply what was omitted in the three other
Gospel histories, each of which he had seen. After this,
John lived to attain the age of nearly one hundred years.
His image is presented to us as a man bowed down with
age, the sole living eyewitness of events the most memorable
which the world has ever known, his whole heart and life
imbued with the gentle, heavenly wisdom which he had
learned from the lips of his Divine Friend, and devoting his
failing strength to teaching that peculiar spirit of the Gospel




76             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
on which he so much delighted to dwell, -its spirit of holy
love. The following story of his last days is well authenticated, and is fully recommended by its perfect conformity
with his character. It is said, that, when the infirmities of
age so grew upon him at Ephesus that he was no longer
able to preach to his converts, he used to be led to the
church at every public meeting, that he might say to them
only these few words, " Little children, love one another."
And when they, wearied with the constant repetition of the
same thing, asked him why he persisted in saying this, his
reply was, " Because it is the command of our Lord; and if
we do nothing more, this alone is sufficient."
He peacefully closed his long life, just at the beginning
of the second century after Christ.
Such was the life of that disciple whom Jesus loved. Let
us not fail to mark what encouragement to the humblest
Christian there is in the fact, that the character which Jesus
loved was such a character as this. It was made up, not of
those shining, brilliant qualities which are possessed only by
the few, but of that gentleness, meekness, reverence, faith,
love, which we all may acquire, and by which we, too, may
commend ourselves to the love of our Divine Master and
Friend. So, also, in the fact that it was such a disciple as
John that Jesus most loved, we may find new confirmation
of the pure and holy purpose of Christ's mission.  Had
Jesus been bent upon accomplishing some great outward
change for his own glory and fame, it seems inconceivable that
he should have attached himself to the gentle, humble, retiring spirit of John. Had the fishermen of Galilee contrived
the whole Gospel history, we know that a far different spirit
than this of John was the popular Jewish spirit of those
times; and how surely would they have represented some
one like the bold and ambitious Peter as the favorite disci



THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              77
ple! Or, in whatever age or land we suppose the Gospels
to have been forged, let us ask ourselves, where or when
has such a man as John been one of the world's honored
ones? The spirit which made him the beloved disciple
could have been no other than that which looks beneath all
outward distinctions to what is in man's heart and soul,
which, far more than the noisy gifts that the world has always honored, prizes humility, gentleness, and love, and
which recognizes in manifestations of these the character
that is truly good and great.  Such we know was the
spirit of Christ. The greatness which he loves, and to
which he directs our aim, is the greatness that belongs to
the highest part of our nature, which we share with children
of God, with angels and spirits of the just made perfect.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
As respects the immediate motive which induced John to
write his Gospel, we have the words of two independent
authorities, which, as they come from an age soon succeeding the publication of this Gospel, and from the most distinguished writers of those early times, have ever been regarded as throwing a trustworthy and highly important light upon
this subject. One of these writers has these words:-'" John, desiring to extirpate the errors sown in the minds of
men by Cerinthus and his followers, published his Gospel."
- Irenceus.
This statement, that John had some reference in his Gos7*




78             THE. GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
pel to a peculiar and pernicious philosophy that prevailed in
his time at Ephesus, is confirmed by several other sources.
What this philosophy was, we shall have occasion to see
hereafter. The other writer to whom  we referred has
these words: —" The first three Gospels being now delivered unto all men, and to John himself, he approved of
them, and confirmed the truth of their narrative by his own
testimony." - Eusebius.
We find this statement fully substantiated by an examina
tion of John's Gospel. It bears frequent marks that he had
seen the three preceding histories.  Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, as we all know, have the same facts in common. It
was John's object, on the other hand, to pass by all that they
had related, and to glean up what they had omitted. Accordingly, in his whole Gospel, with the exception of the
events attending the crucifixion, there are but three facts
which he has in common with the other Evangelists.  Two
of these - the feeding of the five thousand (John vi. 5), and
the voyage connected therewith (John vi. 17) —he has repeated, because they were indispensable as introductory to
the discourses that follow. The other is the account of Mary's anointing Jesus (John xii. 3), which John has recorded
fully for a reason to which we shall soon refer. The beginning of miracles in Cana of Galilee, the raising of Lazarus,
the conversation with the woman of Samaria, the washing
of the disciples' feet, and the discourses and prayers uttered
by Jesus just before his crucifixion, - these are instances of
his supplying what the other writers had omitted, all these
being found in John's Gospel alone.
This Gospel presents still another remarkable appearance,
which confirms the historical account, that its author had
seen the three preceding narratives.  He frequently alludes
to facts recorded in those narratives, without giving any




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              79
relation of them himself. Thus he presupposes his readers
to have knowledge of them by means of the other Gospels,
and without this knowledge his own history would be in
many places unintelligible. A few illustrations of this remark may be here named.
Before giving an account of the question that arose between the disciples of John the Baptist and some of the Jews
about purifying, our Evangelist says, " John was not yet
cast into prison." John iii. 24. And yet in the whole of
this Gospel there is nothing said about John's imprisonment.
The Evangelist presupposes his readers acquainted with that
fact from the other Gospels, in which it is distinctly related.
Nor is this all. Why should this fact of John the Baptist
be here inserted at all? Evidently it is not required as an
explanation of the narrative in this Gospel, for this nowhere
implies that the Baptist was now or at any time imprisoned.
It has the appearance, therefore, of a correction of other
accounts, which had fallen into a slight inaccuracy. Such
a correction is really applicable to two of our Gospels.
Matthew says, directly after the temptation, before Jesus is
related to have gone to Capernaum, that John had been cast
into prison. Matt. iv. 12. Mark retained the same statement. Mark i. 14. The Gospel of John represents that
the discussion about purifying took place after our Lord had
left Capernaum, and had made a visit to Jerusalem, and was
on his return to Galilee. John iii. 24 was intended to correct the inaccuracy of Matthew and Mark, who had antedated the imprisonment of the Baptist.
When Jesus washed the disciples' feet, we read (John
xiii. 4), that he took a-towel and girded himself, and poured
water into a basin, the supper being ended, as the words
read with which this beautiful incident in the life of Christ
begins. The supper here referred to was undoubtedly the




80             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
last supper, that supper at which John was present; for he
leaned upon his Master's bosom, and saw all that was done,
and heard all that was said. Yet this Evangelist has given
no account whatever of that event. He found it correctly
described by the other Evangelists, with whose accounts he
presupposes his readers to be familiar, and hence his mere
allusion to it would be at once understood.
In like manner, also, John remotely alludes to Christ's
baptism (John i. 32), although the history of that event is
totally omitted by him. Indeed, we should not be able to
understand to what the language of this passage referred,
did we not possess from another quarter the information
which is here presupposed.
Thus there is a clear and marked agreement between the
historical account, that John had seen the other narratives
before writing his own, and the appearances of his Gospel
itself. He evidently passes by what they related, supplies
what they had omitted, alludes to facts attested by them as
familiarly known, while in some cases he evidently retouches
their narrative in order to correct some slight inaccuracies
into which they had fallen. Beside the instances already
given of such a revisal, two others may be here briefly alluded to. One is the account of the anointing of Jesus.
John xii. 3. This is one of the few facts which John has in
common with the other Evangelists. They have related it
imperfectly.  Matthew  and Mark state that the woman
anointed the head of Jesus; Luke, that she anointed his
feet, and that she wiped them with the hair of her head.
The former state the dissatisfaction of Judas respecting it,
while Luke mentions the reproach of the Pharisee, and the
rebuke he received. Add to all, that these Evangelists do
not agree in assigning the same period for the occurrence
of this event. For this reason, John goes carefully over the




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              81
whole history of the incident. He combines in one clear
narrative the broken and fragmentary accounts given by his
predecessors, while he fixes the time of this anointing to be
just before the betrayal of Christ, by showing that it was one
of the causes which hurried on that event, since Judas, failing of getting money, as he had hoped, by the sale of the
ointment, goes directly and bargains, for thirty pieces of
silver, to give his Master up. The history of the resurrection is another example of John's revisal of the narrative of
the other Evangelists. Matthew's account of this event is
hurried, and both Mark and Luke have neglected to indicate
the exact order in which the occurrences succeeded one
another. John departs from his usual rule of not repeating
what the other Evangelists had already recorded, and rewrites their accotrnt, —tells the whole story over again.
John xx. 1. When we compare his narrative with that of
his predecessors, we shall see that the former is the most
intelligible and complete.
These facts are minute in themselves, and yet how important that they should be known! What evidence do they
give of John's great care that an exact narrative should be
handed down! What stronger confidence may we place in
the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when we know,
that, though written at different times, in different countries,
by different men, and for different classes of readers, they
yet needed such few, and for the most part unessential, corrections! And what an interesting fact is it, that in the
good providence of God all these different histories, before
they were committed to the ever-flowing stream  of time,
were seen by one of the first disciples and constant eyewitnesses of all that they relate, and were by him carefully
examined! Nor is the manner in which he corrected their
mistakes and supplied their deficiencies less worthy of our




82             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
grateful notice. John did not destroy the writings of his
predecessors, and give us a history that rests on his name
alone. He drew up his own more accurate and independent
account, to be placed by the side of their histories, so that
we might see both their text and his commentary, their errors and his corrections. Thus his Gospel sheds light upon
their meaning, and gives new strength to their authority.
John's Gospel has a peculiar interest and value from another source.  His historical scene is different from that of
the other Evangelists. He records for the most part only
what is done in Judea, just around Jerusalem, while the other
writers record for the most part only what is done in Galilee,
around Capernaum and the lake. When they conduct Jesus
to the borders of Judea they there lose sight of him, and
John takes up the narrative and accompanies him in his
course. He, however, does not follow him back into Galilee, but forsakes him on the borders of that country, where
the events of his life had already been related by Matthew,
Mark, and Luke.  How naturally does the explanation of
this fact suggest itself to our minds! As the disciples were
natives of Galilee, what Jesus said and did there would most
interest them, and would be by them most clearly understood.
When after their Saviour's crucifixion they became preachers in Jerusalem, it was of what transpired in Galilee that
they would more frequently speak. Their hearers had
heard of the events that occurred in their own city and
neighbourhood.  For this reason, they would ask about the
scenes that were witnessed in the remote province of Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time and performed the
most of his miracles. We have seen that the Evangelists
afterwards wrote their histories very much as they had orally told them, and hence it is easy to see why their historical
scene was chiefly Galilee. It was John's care, therefore,




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              83
in supplying the deficiencies of his predecessors, to describe
what was said and done in Judea, —a task for which his
long residence in Jerusalem of fifteen years, when he had
the affectionate charge of Mary, the mother of Jesus, peculiarly fitted him. Without John's Gospel, the story of the
Saviour's life would have been but little more than half told;
but with this, the history is made full and complete.
In noticing some of the peculiarities of John's Gospel, we
must not pass by its introduction (John i. 1 - 18), though it
would be wandering from our purpose to dwell upon it long.
Before we can understand this proem, we must know something of that peculiar philosophy to which we referred at
the beginning of this chapter. This philosophy was called
Gnosticism; Ephesus was its seat; and Cerinthus, one of
its leading advocates, was expounding its doctrines in that
city at the very time John was there writing his Gospel. It
is not easy in a few words to describe this philosophy, because it is so foreign to our modes of thought. It may be
sufficient to say, that the Gnostics referred all evil to matter,
which they believed was created, not by God, but by an
inferior divinity, called by them  Demiurgos. The space
between this inferior God and Jehovah was occupied, as
they supposed, by various orders of angels, to which they
applied the names light, life, and one of great distinction
they named the logos, or word, whom they regarded as an
impersonation of the power of God. All these angels emanated from God, as the light of one lamp emanates from
another.  They were employed in creating parts of the
universe. They were not admitted into the presence of the
Supreme, but inhabited a remote place in the heavens, called
fulness. This philosophy was a subtile compound of Pagan,
Jewish, and Christian doctrines, and throughout the early
ages of the Church it threatened to be the most fatal foe to
the simplicity that is in Christ.




84             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Not improperly, therefore, does John, writing in Ephesus,
begin his Gospel with an allusion to this heresy. Every
sentence of this introduction is an affirmation against some
Gnostic tenet. The logos or word was in the beginning, not
created in time; with God, not inhabiting a part of the remote heavens; it was God himself, not a distinct angel; and
it was the same in the beginning as now, not something that
has undergone an emanation. It made all things. Life
and light flow from it, and are not distinct angels. And
then the Evangelist proceeds to show how a witness to the
true light was raised up, and how at length the power of
God became incarnate, and dwelt among us in the glory of
the Only Begotten of the Father.
We have one mode of expression among us not wholly
unlike those used by the Gnostics. We sometimes speak of
nature as something distinct from God.  We say nature
causes the seasons to change, and the flowers to appear. If
we annexed to our use of this word one or two other particulars corresponding to those ancient beliefs, such as these,
that nature is an angelic emanation from God, and made
only a part of the visible universe, and lived remote from
the Supreme, we could confute such a system in no better
words than these: -" In the beginning was nature, and nature was with God, and nature was God. All things were
made by nature. And nature became incarnate, and dwelt
among us the Only Begotten of the Father."
In this introduction we thus see nothing contradictory to
what is so clearly and solemnly affirmed in the eighteenth
verse of this chapter. Taken as a whole, instead of being
obscure, it is of plain, weighty significance, and instead of
being misplaced, it constitutes an appropriate introduction to
the narrative that succeeds.
Thus far we have spoken of causes that give interest and




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.               85
value to the Gospel of John, arising from the circumstances
under which it was composed. It also possesses great interest and value from the peculiar character of its author.
How does his gentle and loving spirit breathe from every
part of it! It has been called " a tale of the affections,"
and it merits this title. In all his descriptions, John appears
to set forth those scenes, and to dwell fondly upon them,
which appeal to the deepest and tenderest emotions, —the
marriage supper at Cana, the conversation with the woman
of Samaria, the raising of Lazarus, the last interviews the
Saviour had with his disciples. So, also, John was preeminent in his comprehension of the entirely spiritual nature of
the new religion. He saw and felt that this religion was an
inward life, a principle in the heart, calming all passions.
calling forth the deepest treasures of love, trust, and joy, and
making the soul one with Jesus and one with God. The
other Evangelists have given us a plain, straightforward
statement of facts. The whole Gospel history passed through
their minds without receiving any coloring from themselves.
It is well for us that it did so. We have before observed
how much we owe to the fact, that these writers were simple, unlettered men, through whom the history of Christ
comes down to us in the naked simplicity of bare facts, without any comment or coloring of their own. But when we
have learned the facts from the other Gospels, what devout
reader of the New Testament does not turn with refreshing
interest to the warm, glowing writings of John? In these
we see the action of Christian truth upon his heart. His
remembrances of Christ's words and deeds clustered around
the two great features of his own character, —love to God
and love to man. And this spirit of love, presiding over
every description and hallowing every scene, gives a subduing and quickening power to his narration.  This is doubtVOL. XXII. -NO. 254.          8




86             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
less the reason why Christians in all ages have felt the greatest interest in the Gospel of John, have read it the most, and
have dwelt with most fondness upon its words of tenderness
and love. The early fathers of the Church used to say that
the other Gospels were the letter, this was the spirit; the
others were flesh, this was soul; the others were earthy,
this was heavenly. But all such comparisons are unjust.
They tend to exalt John's narrative by depressing the works
of his fellow-laborers. They are all of heaven, and of the
spirit that maketh alive.  They are all in remarkable keep
ing with the character of the men that wrote them. They
all have that variety, and were composed under those peculiar circumstances, which may justly give us the greatest
confidence that they contain words of soberness and truth.
We should thank God, then, for them all. They are his
precious gift to us, providentially made in the beginning,
and providentially handed, down to us as the rich legacy of
ages.
Of John's power of description, we may take his account
of the raising of Lazarus as an example. John xi. 18 - 44.
The story is told with few words, with plain words; yet all is
so natural, so graphic, so full of life, that we seem to see the
whole scene before us. It seems, at first view, unaccounta
ble that this surprising event should have been omitted by
the other Evangelists. It was one of the most astonishing
acts of the Saviour's life; it was most publicly done, in the
suburbs of the capital, in open day, in the presence of many
witnesses. It is impossible it should have escaped the memory of any Christian historian of the time. Why, then,
have Matthew, Mark, and Luke passed it by?
How naturally does a circumstance, mentioned incidentally by John, account for their profound silence! We read
that after the miracle many of the chief priests determined




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              87
to kill Lazarus, because his presence among the Jews had led
many of them to believe in Jesus. John xii. 10, 11. Consequently, to publish this miracle while Lazarus and his sisters lived in Jerusalem was only to set up that worthy family
as marks to the malice of the enemies of the Christian name.
During their lifetime, therefore, the Evangelists, it is probable, refrained from descriptions of this event, and habits of
narration may have led to its omission even in distant places,
where, as in the case of Mark and Luke, the full record of it
might have brought no harm. But the reason for omission
here alluded to did not exist in the case of John. He survived Lazarus and his sisters, and when they had died and
were beyond the reach of their foes, he gives a full history
of the miracle.
As another instance of John's power of narration, look to
the long, interview Jesus had with his disciples just before the
crucifixion, as described by this Evangelist, from the beginning of the thirteenth to the close of the seventeenth chapters
of his Gospel. There is no part of the Gospel narrative
more deeply affecting than this, and we shall do well to observe the order of events and the train of reflection, which
will be now stated in the words of another.
"Judas, the betrayer, had left the company to commit his
traitorous act. Now, said Jesus, is the Son of Man glorified.
I am but a little while with you. I leave you the commandment of love which I have exemplified.  He then exhorts
his disciples not to despond at his death. He is going to his
Father to prepare a place for them. He then utters his
farewell; but says he will come again. Then he bids them
rise and go hence.
"While they were seated, the discourse maintained the
tender form of conversation. But after having risen he proceeds to exhort them to united and persevering efforts in




88             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
concurrence with his purposes, and with increased earnestness he admonishes them to love each other and himself, and
to expect, and to endure with a resigned temper, a cruel lot.
Again he promises them the spirit, begins to mention more
frequently his approaching death, and silence now reigns
among the disciples. No one presumes to speak. Once
only they question among themselves what is the meaning
of the words,' A little while and ye shall not see me, and
again a little while and ye shall see me.' He perceives
this, and explains himself. They believe that they now un
derstand him.
"Then the occasion becomes more solemn. The discourse takes a higher tone. Jesus stands at the goal of his
career. His conscience bears him witness that he has accomplished the mission given him by his Father, to bring
truth into the world. With deep emotion he commends his
disciples to his Father's protection, and not only they, but
all who should believe in him. Every thought and feeling
bears marks of belonging to that eventful hour.'" And is not all this in accordance with the character of
Christ? Is it not the farewell of an exalted and noble soul,
which, untroubled by the thought of impending suffering, occupies itself wholly with its lofty purposes, and with the
business of instructing and consoling those whom it leaves
behind? Could the gradation in the conversation possibly
be more natural?  Can there be imagined a more beautiful
rise than is here presented, - first mutual remark, then increasing silence among the listeners, broken only by a low
question, till ultimately the last.whisper dies away, and in
the universal stillness the soul mounts upward to its highest
elevations? "'
* Hug's Introduction, p. 435.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              89
Nothing but reality could have been the type of this.
John wrote what he saw and what he heard, and on no other
supposition can we possibly account for the wonderful record
he has given us. And this same remark applies to all the
Evangelists.  That, in that rude age of the world, they
should have conceived of a character like that of Christ, that
all of them should have presented that one image, so sublime
so godlike, without one thing to mar its perfect naturalness
and consistency, - no, it could not have been, if there had
existed no outward reality to give them the image they describe. And thus, how much easier is it to believe that the
character made the biographers, than that the biographers
made the character! Hence it was the confession of Rousseau, that " the fiction of such a character is a greater miracle than its reality." * Blessed be God that we have been
taught to believe that it is a reality, that it was a living reality in the person of Jesus Christ, and may be now to a
degree reproduced, a living reality, in ourselves! And to
aid us in this great work, let us thank the Father of all
mercies that we have these words written and sent down to
us that we might have life.
* His precise words are, — "L'inventeur en seroit plus 6tonnant que
le h6ros." -Emile, liv. iv.
8 %X




90             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
CHAPTER XIV.
VIEW OF THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.
WE have now looked at each of the Gospels as a separate
and independent work. By combining the four narratives
together, accepting whatever is peculiar to each, and dropping what is obviously mere repetition, we have one complete history of the ministry of Christ. Which Gospel comes
the nearest to exact chronological arrangement, and for this
reason should be selected as the basis of the rest? At first
thought, it may seem as if this question must be answered in
favor of Luke. His habits of exactness, and his declaration
in the preface to his Gospel of his intention to write " in order" (Luke i. 3), appear to support such a claim. But the
original word here translated "in order" has no necessary
reference to the order of time; its meaning is as well expressed by the adverb methodically; while Luke's grouping
parables together which we can hardly suppose to have
been uttered at the same time, and his occasional indefinite
allusions to times which are more carefully designated by
Matthew, have led to the opinion that chronological order is
not so generally marked by the former as by the latter
Evangelist.  In favor of Matthew  it has likewise been
urged, that, being a personal follower of Christ, he had
means of knowing the exact chronology of events which
neither Mark nor Luke possessed; aud though Matthew
shares this advantage with John, yet the purpose of this
Apostle, as we have seen, was to supply what the other writers had omitted, and to make Judea chiefly the scene of
his narrative. John's Gospel, therefore, so far from furnish



THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              91
ing data for a chronology, needs a chronology elsewhere
derived, to show the arrangement of its disconnected portions.
For these reasons, Matthew's Gospel has been preferred
as the basis of a harmony. This point settled, every reader
can easily make a harmony for himself. But little reference
need be had to the Gospel of Mark. Only about twentyfour verses of this Gospel constitute additional matter; all
the rest is found, either in the same words or in substance,
in the other Gospels. Both Luke's Gospel and John's can
be distributed without difficulty, each portion in its proper
place, according to the chronology of Matthew. There is
but one point which will occasion any perplexity. While
the record of Matthew and Luke covers but two passovers
in the ministry of Christ, John, on the other hand, appears
to refer to three. It is believed, however, that this latter
Evangelist does not in fact extend the ministry of Christ
over a longer space of time than Matthew and Luke. The
passover referred to in John vi. 4 is taken to be the same as
that on which Christ was crucified. There is reason to
think that John ante-dated the miracle of the feeding of the
five thousand; and if we place the sixth chapter of his Gospel between those of the eleventh and twelfth, there is
nothing to conflict with the chronology of Matthew. Many
of the best authorities concur in this view of the case.
These hints are sufficient to enable any one to form a
view of the life of Christ as a consistent and connected
whole. Our present purpose is to speak of the moral impression which such a view leaves on the heart. This is
one of the most convincing and satisfactory arguments for
the truth of the whole Gospel history that can be offered.
A plain, unlettered man is as good a judge of this argument,
as is a scholar of the most extensive learning. Perhaps he




92             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
is a better judge, inasmuch as he would be more likely to
fall back upon the simple, natural feelings of his conscience
and heart.
What, then, is the impression which a perusal of the Gos
pel history naturally leaves upon the heart?  It is that this
is an honest book. Ten thousand unlettered and simpleminded persons read it, and they rise up with the impression
that this is an honest book. They feel a regard for it, just
as we all feel regard for a man in whom we discern marks
of honesty, integrity, and truth, so clear and strong that we
place the utmost confidence in him, and would trust him
with any thing we possess. They believe it, just as sometimes in a court of justice a jury believes a witness who delivers his testimony with a simplicity, straight-forwardness,
and sincerity which overwhelm all opposition, and carry
conviction to the heart, even against much evidence on the
other side. And they are right in placing reliance on these
There is a heart knowledge as well as a head knowledge.
We all feel that there is something in the higher manifestations of truth and uprightness which fraud and dishonesty
can never put on. At any rate, the garments of truth do
not sit easy and natural on the shoulders of a lie. A lie is
something exaggerated and bloated; the dress it assumes
will not stretch to cover it all up, and so the lie peeps out.
But there is an ease and naturalness, an openness, an air of
conscious integrity, which belong to truth alone. These
are traits which strike the beholder at once. They speak to
us with a voice of authority. We reverence them. We
confide in them as we confide in nothing else. We find
them our truest and safest guides.
It is not easy to analyze this impression which the Gospel
history makes upon our hearts, and to say what all the elements are of our conviction that this is a true and honest




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              93
account. Consider what your experience has been with
some personal friend. You are satisfied he is an honest
man. You feel that your property and character would be
perfectly safe in his hands. But why you feel so, you
might not be able readily to tell. Your conviction is the result of a thousand little circumstances which you would find
it difficult to name, though hardly any more formal and
tangible evidence could make it stronger than it is. So is it
when we read the records of the life of Jesus. We feel
that they are honest and true; but how shall we describe
the causes which produce that impression, the delicate
touches of reality and truth which we see on every page
and in every verse, the sure tokens of uprightness and sincerity which the heart feels, but of which we give so poor
account when we come to set them down in words?
Some of the reasons, however, why we feel that the Gospel history is honest and true may be named, and on the
more obvious of these we shall now proceed to offer a few
words.
The simplicity and artlessness of manner in which the
Gospel history is told may first be named. Like honest
witnesses in a court of justice, the Evangelists give their tes.
timony with a plainness and straight-forwardness which find
their way at once to the heart. There is no attempt whatever to set the story out, to dress it up, to round it off, to
embellish it, no appearance of trying to make a show, of
hunting after epithets, of straining for effect. Take any
transaction they record, and an account of it cannot be given
in fewer and plainer words than those which they use.
They speak like men who speak from full hearts, who never
once think how they shall speak, who only open their mouths
and the fact speaks itself.
Again, what candid writers are these historians of the life




94             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
of Jesus! They appear to tell the whole truth, even when
it makes against themselves and against the object they had
in view in writing their histories, with just as much fulness
and freedom as they tell any part of it. Thus, on several
occasions, after our Lord had wrought some of his most sur.
prising works, they say, " Many doubted, some disbelieved,
and would no longer walk with him."  This is narrated
without the slightest appearance of reluctance and hesitation.
It cannot be said with propriety that the information is conveyed as a confession. It is given with the utmost freedom,
with the air of men whose only concern it is to give all the
facts in the case. They freely tell us, likewise, of their
own prejudices, mistakes, gross ignorance, and faithlessness
to their Master; and all this with no attempt to conceal their
errors, with no affectation of humility, and with no parade
of frankness. It all comes in as part of the history, in the
same simple, unconscious manner in which the whole record
is made.
Moreover, the narrative is not given by these men as if
they felt that they had a case to make out. There is no attempt whatever to win the favor of their readers, no smoothing the story down so as to make it more acceptable, no fear
lest you should draw wrong inferences, and not the least
anxiety lest they should be disbelieved. Indeed, the bare
possibility that they should be charged with falsehood seems
never to have suggested itself to them. Their only concern
is to tell the facts in the case. When they have done this,
they leave them, with no preface, no argument, no comment,
no exhortation, - without one single word asserting their
veracity, or setting forth the importance and value of their
history.  They are witnesses and historians, and nothing
else. Every thing is told with the air of impartial, almost
of indifferent spectators.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              95
We have before noticed the remarkable self-forgetfulness
of these writers. Excepting a mention of their errors and
mistakes, they never once, from beginning to end, allude to
themselves. They say nothing of their feelings, of the
wonder and awe, of the alternate hopes and fears, which
must have possessed their hearts. You cannot find one single word which has the appearance of having been put in
for the sake of bringing themselves forward. They are not
brought forward. The reader of the Gospels does not feel
that he is in the presence of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
FIe is in the presence of Jesus.  He is a spectator of his
wonderful works. He hears the words of one who spake
as never man spake. And in this presence, the disciples
felt every low, selfish, and personal motive subdued. When
they came to write, they never once thought of themselves.
" Filled with the grand truth of their subject, their own little
feelings are all forgotten, or rather are totally subdued.
The natural passions of human nature, which mingle with
the thoughts of the wisest and best men, seem with them to
have sunk down and become hushed in a hallowed calm."
In this life of Christ we discover no manifestations of any
party feelings. These writers cherished a strong affection
for their Master, but they never magnify him, never praise
him; not one word of panegyric is there from beginning to
end. There is not the least attempt to hold him up to our
admiration; never once do they give expression to their
feelings, when they saw him insulted, abused, smitten, and
scourged. They give the bare facts in the case, and nothing
more. So, on the other hand, they betray no desire to excite the passions of the reader against those who persecuted
their Master. The Evangelists cherished no bitterness of
feeling towards them. The very names of those who bargained with Judas, of the men who apprehended Jesus, of




96              THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
the officer who struck him, of those who afterwards did spit
upon him, and buffet him, and mock him, and were loudest
in crying "' Away with him,"- of those, too, who upbraided
him on the cross, and pierced his side with a spear, — the
very names of those persons are not given. Even if these
persons had been unknown to the disciples, angry and vindictive feelings would naturally have prompted them to seek
out the names of those who made themselves so prominent
in these cruel and disgraceful acts. It does not appear that
the Evangelists did any thing of the kind. Here is a beautiful trait in their character.  The reader is directed to a
dissertation prefixed to Campbell's Four Gospels, where he
will see it strikingly unfolded. This writer shows, that, of
all the enemies of our Lord, the names only of the highpriest and his coadjutor, of the Roman procurator, of the
tetrarch of Galilee, and of the treacherous disciple, are mentioned. In regard to the first four, the omission of their
names could have made no difference, for the official title
was equivalent in the case of such public men to a designation of the individual; while the part which Judas acted was
too notorious to permit the suppression of his name, which,
besides, would have cast a shade of suspicion over the memories of the eleven. But the names of those who befriended
Jesus are carefully recorded, such as Simon the Cyrenian,
who carried the cross, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus,
Jairus, Bartimeus, Zaccheus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha.
How strong the proof it furnishes, that these writers cherished no vindictive feelings, - that they did not write in the
spirit of blind partisans!
The wonderful harmony in the portraiture of the character of Christ is the last circumstance which can here be
named, as giving an air of truth and reality to these Gospel
narratives. It is the same Christ in all; it is the same Christ




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              97
in humble scenes and in great ones, at the marriage feast in
Cana, and on the mount of transfiguration, by the well of
the woman of Samaria, and at the grave of Lazarus, washing the feet of his disciples, and giving up his life on the
cross. What a rare union of virtues seldom joined together,
bending with grace to the lowliest act, and rising in majesty
to the height of the sublimest! That four writers leagued
together to propagate a lie should sustain throughout so peculiar and elevated a character as Christ's, should harmonize
with each other in the delineation, and, not finding a type
of truthfulness and purity in their own breasts, should draw
a portrait so lofty, so spotless, so practical, so perfect, surely
this was a prodigy which they could not achieve.'; The
fiction of such a character would be a greater miracle than
its reality," and that the Evangelists had a living model be.
fore their eyes and hearts is the alternative of the most easy
belief.
These are some of the elements of our conviction, that
this history of the life of Christ is an honest book. The
Gospels bear the impress of truth upon themselves. They
are their own witnesses. They confirm themselves. The
seal of honesty and reality is stamped upon them. The
purest and the most elevated minds see it and welcome it;
the very reading of this book lifts the mind up to its highest
and noblest state, and the more we are enlightened and purified, the deeper is our conviction that here are words of
infinite moment and worth. Nor are they men of learning
and research alone who can share this conviction. Thousands of unlettered and simple-minded believers can have
the same confidence and peace.
" A man of subtile reasoning asked
A peasant if he knew
VOL, XXI.- NO. 254,          9




98             THE GOSPEL NARRATIVESo
Where was the internal evidence,
That proved his Bible true.
"The terms of disputative art
Had never reached his ear,
He laid his hand upon his heart,
And only answered, Here"'
CHAPTER  XV.
THE TRANSMISSION OF THE GOSPELS DOWN TO OUR TIMIES.
How were the Gospels at first received and noticed? Into
what hands from those of their authors did they pass? With
what care were they treated?  How were they kept? How
extensively were they multiplied? Where were they deposited in that long night of darkness that has intervened between our times and the days of their authors? Where
were they found, and how were they regarded, at the dawn
of that light which awoke the nations from the slumber of
ages? What circumstances attended their translation and
compilation in the form in which we now receive them?
These are questions of common importance to all Christians,
and questions to which all ought to be able to reply.
Christianity was made known by the preaching of Jesus
Christ and his Apostles. It was not at first introduced by a
written document, like the ten commandments, which were
graven on tables of stone.  It was preached, in various
countries, by men who had learned it from the mouth of its
Founder. Hence their first duty was different from what it
might have been had they lived in a country where printing




TIHE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             99
and reading were as common as they are with us. Instead
of writing the history of the life and words of Christ, we
have seen that the Evangelists went everywhere preach
ing that history.  When communities of believers were
multiplied, and the Apostles had more demands than they
could attend to personally, there arose the necessity of written documents, to go where they could not go, to answer
inquiries, and to enlighten and confirm believers. The importance of securing these was still further apparent, by the
approach of the time when all the first preachers of the Gospel would be removed by death. As soon as this event had
taken place, and John, the last survivor of the disciples, had
died, at the beginning of the second century, the writings
of the Evangelists were held in the highest regard. These
writings were appealed to as writings, as the received and
authentic histories of Christ; they were cited by name; the
names of their authors were given, and frequent quotations
were made. These facts are important, as they show that
our Gospels were in the hands of the immediate successors
of the Apostles, while many were yet living who were contemporary with at least one of the original witnesses of our
Saviour, and companions of his life.
The Christian writers who lived in the age next succeeding the Apostles are called the Apostolical Fathers. Quotations from their writings, amply confirming what we have
here stated, may be found in all works on the evidences of
the genuineness of the Gospels. A few may be here presented.
Papias was pastor of Hierapolis, A. D. 116. He was acquainted, as he says, with many of the disciples of the
Apostles. In a treatise, entitled Explications of the Oracles
of the Lord, he has these words: -" Matthew wrote the
divine oracles in the Hebrew tongue, and every one inter



100            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
preted them as he was able."  Again he writes, 6- Mark,
being the interpreter of Peter, carefully wrote down all that
he retained in memory of the actions or discourses of
Christ."
Justin Martyr was a native of Samaria. In the year 150
he addressed a Defence of Christianity to the Emperor,
Antoninus Pius; and in the year 162 made another defence,
which was addressed to Marcus Antoninus. In these works
he speaks of the memoirs which are called Gospels, and
distinguishes between those written by the Apostles and
those by the companions of the Apostles, that is, between
Matthew and John, and Mark and Luke. He tells us how
these sacred books were read in the assemblies of Christians
on the Lord's day, and how reverently they were regarded.
Another of these early Christian writers, whose works
have come down to us, is Irenmeus. He was born, as is
generally supposed, at Smyrna, about the year 150, received
his Christian education from Polycarp, a disciple of St.
John, was pastor of the church in Lyons, and, finally, suffered martyrdom, A. D. 202. Writing in the defence of
the Christian faith, he says, -" We have not received the
knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than
those through whom the Gospel has come down to us;
which Gospel they first preached, and afterwards by the will
of God transmitted to us in writing, that it might be the
foundation and pillar of our faith. For after our Lord had
risen from the dead, and the Apostles were clothed with the
power of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from on
high, were filled with all gifts and possessed perfect knowledge, they went forth to the ends of the earth, spreading the glad tidings of those blessings which God has conferred upon us, and announcing peace from heaven to men;
having all, and every one alike, the Gospel of God. Mat



THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             101
thew, then, among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their
own language; while Peter and Paul were preaching the
Gospel at Rome and founding a church there. And after
their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
himself delivered to us in writing what Peter had preached;
and Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel
preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the
Lord, who leaned upon his breast, likewise published a Gospel, while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia. And all these
have taught us that there is one God, the maker of heaven
and earth, announced by the law and the prophets, and one
Christ, the Son of God. And he who does not assent to
them despises, indeed, those who knew the mind of the
Lord, but he despises, also, Christ himself, the Lord, and he
despises likewise the Father, and is self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation; and this all heretics
do."
Only a fragment of this father's writings have come down
to us; yet so numerous are his quotations from the Gospels,
that, when placed by themselves, they fill eleven closely
printed folio columns.
Tertullian, the most ancient and most eloquent of the
Latin fathers, was born in Carthage, where he was presbyter of the church, and where he became distinguished as a
Christian writer about the close of the second century. No
evidence from any writer, says Mr. Norton, can be more
full and satisfactory than that which he affords of the general reception of the Gospels, and of their authority as the
foundation of the Christian faith. There is not a chapter in
the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, from which he
does not quote; and from most of them his quotations are
numerous. Tertullian says, -"-' We lay it down, in the first
place, that the Evangelic record had for its authors Apos9*




102            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
ties, to whom  this office of promulgating the Gospel was
assigned by our Lord himself. And if some of them were
companions of Apostles, yet they did not stand alone, but
were connected with and guided by Apostles. Among the
Apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us.
Among the companions of the Apostles, Luke and Mark
renovate it."
In Alexandria in Egypt, there was a celebrated school for
the instruction of Christians, of which, near the close of the
second century, Clement was the principal master. By him
was preserved the same account of the formation and reception of the Gospels. "c The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first. The following providence gave occasion to that of Mark. While Peter was publicly preaching the word at Rome, and through the power of the spirit
making known the Gospel, his hearers, who were numerous,
exhorted Mark, on the ground of his having accompanied
him for a long time, and having his discourses in memory,
to write down what he had spoken; and Mark, composing
his Gospel, delivered it to those who made the request.
Peter, knowing this, was earnest neither to forbid nor encourage it. In the last place, John, observing that the
things obvious to the senses had been clearly set forth in
these Gospels, being urged by his friends, and divinely
moved by the spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."
Origen was born in Alexandria, A. D. 185, travelled extensively in Palestine, Asia Minor, and Greece, became the
most learned man of his age, and finally died about the year
253. He cites each of the four Gospels by name, speaks
of them as " books in the most common use," " received
without controversy,"' believed in all the churches of
God."
To these few examples, running back to the apostolic




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             103
age, and drawn from different countries, should be added
the following important reflections by Mr. Norton. " In estimating the weight of this evidence, we must keep in mind,
what has.- not always been sufficiently attended to, that it is
not the testimony of certain individual writers alone. These
writers speak for a whole community, every member of
which had the strongest reasons for ascertaining the correctness of his faith respecting the authenticity, and, consequently, the genuineness, of. the Gospels. We quote the
Christian fathers, not chiefly to prove their individual belief,
but in evidence of the belief of the community to which they
belonged. It is not, therefore, the simple testimony of Irenoeus, and Tertullian, and Clement, and Origen, which we
bring forward; it is the testimony of thousands and tens of
thousands of believers, many of whom were as well informed as they were on this particular subject, and as capable of
making a right judgment. All these believers were equally
ready with the writers who have been quoted, to affirm the
authority and genuineness of the Gospels. The most distinguished Christians of the age, men held in high esteem
by their contemporaries and successors, assert that the Gospels were received as genuine throughout the community of
which they were members, and for which they were writing.
That the assertion was made by such men, under such circumstances, is sufficient evidence of its truth.  But the
proof of the general reception of the Gospels does not rest
upon their assertions only, though these cannot be doubted.
It is necessarily implied in their statements and reasonings
respecting their religion. It is impossible that they should
have so abundantly quoted the Gospels, as conclusive authority for their own faith and that of their fellow-Christians,
if these books had not been regarded by Christians as conclusive authority. We cannot infer more confidently from




104            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
the sermons of Tillotson and Clarke the estimation in which
the Gospels were held in their day, than we may infer from
the writers before mentioned, that they were held in similar
estimation during the period when they lived." *
Nor is it in the writings of Christians alone that we find
testimonies to the reception of the Gospel histories, in the
age that succeeded the Apostles. It was about the year 176
that Celsus wrote against Christianity. In his work, which
has come down to us, he quotes the Gospels so frequently,
as the admitted authority of Christians, that it has been said
an abridgment of the history of Jesus might be made from
his writings.
Thus there can be no doubt that our present Gospels were
in common use at the close of the second century. " The
number of manuscripts then in existence bore some proportion to the number of Christians, and this to the whole population of the Roman Empire." Gibbon estimated the population of the Empire, in the time of the Antonines, A. D.
180, at one hundred and twenty millions, and supposed that
about " one twentieth part of the subjects had enlisted
themselves under the banner of the cross." From these
data, it has been estimated that there were at least three
millions of Christians at the close of the second century.'" There can be little doubt that copies of the Gospels were
owned by a large portion of Christians who had the means
of procuring them; and in supposing only one copy of these
books for every fifty Christians, the estimate is probably
much within the truth. This proportion, however, will give
us sixty thousand copies of the Gospels" in existence at
that time. See Norton, Vol. I. p. 52.
* Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. pp. 150- 152
(2d ed.).




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             105
As we come down to a succeeding age, we find that the
progress of the Christian religion, and especially the fierce
and wide-spread controversies that marked the third and
fourth centuries, called for a rapid multiplication of copies
of the Gospels. Translations of them were made into all
languages that were then spoken, so that the life and words
of Christ might be read, not only in Judea, but in Greece,
in Rome, in Asia Minor, in Africa, in Egypt, in Arabia, in
Gaul. Thus were produced Syriac, Grecian, Latin, Armenian, Ethiopic, Egyptian, Arabic, and Gothic translations.
Nor was this the only effect of these controversies. They
caused these Gospels to be most diligently studied; copies
were compared with copies; the very words of the Evangelists were quoted as the ultimate authority to which all
disputants must yield; and so numerous and various are
these quotations in the mass of the controversial writings
which have come down to us from those times, that it is
said, if every existing copy of the Gospels were now destroyed, the whole Evangelical narrative could be reproduced from the quotations found in the works of five writers
alone. It is pleasant to see how the strifes of these ages,
though in such terrible contrast with the mild spirit of the
Prince of Peace, were yet made subservient, by Him who
brings good out of evil, to an unspeakably important end.
The fact should reconcile us to the divisions and controversies which still prevail in the Christian world. Who can
doubt that these, too, are overruled for good?
That seemed an evil day for the Christian world when
there sprung up so extensively a passion for building vast
and massive convents and monasteries. In these, the piety
and virtue of the times, instead of being like leaven in the
corrupt mass of society, seemed to be immured and buried;
and the active duties of a Christian life, which the world so




106            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
much needed, were neglected for the visions and dreams of
monkish cells. The unnatural and secluded life which men
there led must have been unfriendly to the healthy piety
even of the truly devout; while with others it favored the
vices and crimes of which we have all read in history. Yet
how  great is our indebtedness to these establishments!
They became the only safe depositories of the precious
treasures of the past. Age after age these religious houses
were quiet and undisturbed. Invading armies never attacked them; and while war demolished the fortresses and palaces of kings, the sword of the conqueror was never lifted
against these shelters of peaceful piety dedicated to God.
Within their walls alone were letters and science studiously
cultivated, and thus they handed down the torch of learning
from century to century. Every monastery had its libraryroom; not only a place of deposit for manuscripts, but a
place where manuscripts were copied. Here, shut out from
the strifes and cares of the world, many monks were always
employed, year after year, in the quiet and patient work, so
well suited to the lives they led and to the tastes they cherished, of multiplying copies of important writings; and by
the vast number who were thus perpetually at work, copies
were furnished with an abundance, and cheapness, and
beauty, which even the art of printing has hardly rivalled.
And then, when barbarous ages had passed away, and our
modern civilization was established, and through the prevalence of the arts and blessings of peace a better day began
to dawn, it was from these houses of religion that were
brought forth all that we have of the records of ancient history, and poetry, and eloquence; and with them the manuscripts which bring down to us the life and words of Jesus.
Vast numbers of them have been gathered from various
lands, and in various tongues. Griesbach, a learned Ger



THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             107
man scholar, consulted three hundred and fifty-five, in order
to prepare his edition of the New Testament; and Michaelis
carefully collated the greater number of four hundred and
fifty. This is but a small part of all which are known to
exist. Even to this day additional copies are found. A
year or two since, forty were discovered in an old monastery
in Upper Egypt, of various languages, some in the very dialect which was spoken by Jesus and his Apostles, and as old
as the beginning of the fourth century. The owners of
these manuscripts could not read the languages in which
they were written, and probably these copies had been untouched for centuries, in the stone scriptorium where they
were found. Had it not been for such arks of safety, thus
provided, and guarded, and reverenced, we see not how
these treasures of the past could have been so surely preserved to us. They w6re the fit instruments to accomplish
the very work that was then needed. The perpetuity of the
Christian religion seems to be owing in part to that cause
which threatened its total corruption and death. What can
be a more striking proof of God's making even the follies
and superstitions of mankind subserve his own designs?
In 1360, a translation of the New Testament into English
was made by Wickliff, 1" the morning star of the Reformation." HIe was born in Yorkshire, England, in 1324, and
was rector of Lutterworth, in the diocese of Lincoln, till his
death, in 1384. His manuscript was a translation from the
Latin, and was circulated until it was suppressed by the
Pope. Copies of it are quite numerous in the public libraries of England, and in the collections of private individuals.
The art of printing was invented in the early part of the
sixteenth century; and the New Testament was among the
books which first received the benefit of the invention.  It
was printed in 1514, at Alcala, in Spain, under the care of




108            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo. Neither time, la.
bor, nor expense was spared to make the work as perfect as
the means would permit. Learned men were employed
twelve years in comparing various manuscripts, and the expense of a small edition was fifty thousand ducats. "A singular fate attended the manuscripts from which this edition
had been prepared. About fifty years ago, two German
professors repaired to Alcala, to ascertain if they could be
found. They learned, to their inexpressible disappointment,
that, about thirty-five years before, the librarian, to whose
care they had been intrusted, ignorant of their true value,
sold them to a man engaged in preparing fireworks, and he
had used them in making rockets."
In 1516, the second printed copy of the New Testament
was published by the learned Erasmus, at Basil, in Switzerland. In 1546, a third printed copy was published at Paris,
by Robert Stephens, who formed his edition by collating fifteen different manuscripts.  In 1582, the fourth printed
copy was published at Geneva, by Theodore Beza, who
compared all the former editions with manuscripts which
had not been consulted before.
The copy of the New Testament first printed in England
was published in 1526, by William Tyndale. In 1535, it
was again published in that country by Miles Coverdale. In
1611, the translation made by the authority of King James
was published; and this is the version which is in general
use to this day. The utmost care was taken by the king to
secure an accurate translation. For this purpose he select.
ed fifty-four of the best classical and Biblical scholars, in
order, as he said, " that our intended translation may have
the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men in
this our kingdom." This number was reduced to forty-seven
before they entered upon their labors.  They were then




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.            109
divided into six companies, to which equal portions of the
Bible were assigned. They held their sessions at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, and were employed three
years. Upon the completion of their work, a committee of
six, chosen from the joint companies, began to review the
whole. They met daily for nine months; and when at
length the translation was published, it had such a character
for accuracy, that, by general consent, all other translations
have fallen into disuse.
At the present day, Biblical scholars find a few texts, in
the received translation, which are of doubtful authority,
some passages, also, which are obscurely expressed, and not
unfrequently a word or phrase inconsistent with the present
use of our language. These evils are slight, however, compared with the immense advantages of having the same
translation used wherever the English language is spoken.
Among these must be included, not only its effect in perpetuating the original character of the Anglo-Saxon tongue,
but its moral effect, also, in preserving the unity of the Anglo-Saxon race.
Such has been the transmission down to us of the message which was brought from heaven by the mouth of the
Son of God, and which was designed for the children of
men in all after times. It would seem as if it was intrusted
to very unsafe keeping, judging merely after the manner of
men. It had no permanent memorials of brass or marble;
it was in words only, and in words merely spoken, - cast
forth upon the air. But those words were gathered up by
faithful men, and though committed to frail materials of
parchment, they have been handed down to us through ages
which have crumbled marble to dust, and rusted all inscriptions from brass. Through what a long and revolutionary
period of history have these words found their sure way!VOL. XXI. - NO. 254.       10




110           THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
the controversies of the first centuries, the irruption of the
barbarians, the dismemberment of the Roman Empire, the
night of the Dark Ages, the revival of letters, the wars of
the Reformation, the discovery and peopling of a new world.
Indeed, the whole face of the earth has been changed, -
all manners, customs, institutions, arts, and empire! Have
the records of the Gospels been changed, or do we read the
same words now which were read by the first Christian believers?
CHAPTER XVI.
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE GOSPELS HAVE BEEN TRANSMITTED WITHOUT CORRUPTION.
How do we know that, through all these countless
changes, the Gospels have come down to us unchanged?
May they not have been corrupted, by additions or perversions, so that we cannot now know whether they are worthy
of implicit trust? The early rapid spread of Christianity
is one security on this point. Before the Apostles died,
churches had been established, not only in the principal
places of Judea, but along the whole coast of Asia Minor,
in Italy, and Greece; and before the generation that sueceeded the Apostles had passed away, there were communities of believers in every part of the then known world.
When these faithful preachers had gone to their reward, we
have seen that their writings were at once the subject of a
wide-spread interest. By every Christian they were regarded as of unspeakable importance. They were sought for
and read, not only for the light and comfort of believers in




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              111
their private devotions, but as a part of the regular service
of the religious assembly on the Sabbath.  We have before
noticed the estimate which has been made, that, within a
century after the Apostles, there probably existed fifty thousand copies of the Gospels, in different tongues, and in different parts of the world.
Now had Christianity possessed only a local interest, and
been acknowledged only by a single neighbourhood of believers, who had but a few manuscripts of the Gospels, it
would have been less difficult to corrupt these manuscripts,
and deceive the community of Christians. But as it was,
while we cannot suppose that the writings of the Apostles
would be universally corrupted in the very age in which
their authors themselves lived, so it seems utterly incredible
that it could have been done in the age that succeeded. In
our day, how impossible that a single false reading could
creep, or be forced, into all Bibles, used in all families and
churches, not in this nation only, but in all lands, and in all
tongues! Human hands could just as easily introduce a
new star into the firmament of heaven, or expunge one of
those shining lights from the sky.  Doubtless this impossibility is greater now than it was in the earlier days of Christianity; for such is the accumulative nature of this evidence,
the uncorrupted preservation of the Scriptures has been rendered more safe by every step the world has taken from the
time of their origin. More copies have been made, and
they have circulated over wider portions of the globe. But
the same kind of security against a corruption of our sacred
writings has always existed, and it existed in the very age
that succeeded the Apostles. In the thousand copies that
were then made, translated into various languages, and sent
into all parts of the then known world, we have a convincing
proof that no accident or design could universally impair




112            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
their purity and authority. It is true, that, by this multiplication of copies, the chances were increased for verbal errors to be committed. By the comparison of various manuscripts, many errors of this kind are found. A word is
sometimes omitted, or misspelled, or transposed, a letter or
part of a verse is left out. These various readings, as they
are called, are counted by thousands. But not one in a
thousand affects the sense, and not one in the whole number
constitutes a turning-point of any doctrine or duty. Of so
little consequence are the various readings occasioned by a
multiplication of copies, while, in consequence of this multiplication, no essential errors could be introduced by design,
or could creep in through mistake.
But who are the persons to be suspected of undertaking
the work of corrupting the Gospels? "' Human beings do
not act without motive. If we suspect that our sacred writings were at an early period tampered with, either unauthorized additions made to them, or portions erased from them,
we can probably give some reason for such an opinion.
Who, then, are the persons that would undertakb this work?
Not Christians, certainly. They must have felt the strongest
interest in preserving the purity of these writings. The religion they had embraced separated them from all other men,
called them to a new life, gave them new sentiments, and
hopes, and desires, demanded of them such a conscientious
discharge of duty as had hardly before been conceived of,
subjected them  to privations and insults, to danger and
death. That they should have been indifferent to the purity
of those writings on which their faith rested, on which they
had staked all their interests and all their hopes, is certainly
most incredible." Not only would they not cause, but, as
far as their watchfulness could go, they would not permit,
the slightest change to be made in books whose sacredness
and trastworthiness would be thereby impaired.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             113
Shall we, then, say that corrupt changes of the sacred
writings were made in the early ages by the enemies of the
Gospel? But why should they set themselves to alter and
corrupt what it was so much easier for them to destroy?
Why resort to a process so tedious and difficult, and of extremely doubtful success, as that of attempting to weaken
the authority and pervert the design of all existing copies of
the Gospels by corrupting the text, while the far more obvious and practicable scheme for accomplishing their purpose
was before them, —that of destroying the writings themselves? That this alone would appear the practicable course
is not mere conjecture and opinion. It is proved to us by
evidence and fact. In the persecutions to which the early
Christians were exposed, we know that the destruction of
their books was often attempted, and, so far as it could be
done, it was carried into effect. They were time and time
again burned, and all were forbidden to copy them under
penalty of death. But we have no evidence and no hint,
that the plan of destroying their value and use by corrupting
the text was ever attempted, or even once thought of.
But it may be said, that in past ages all who have called
themselves friends of the Scriptures have not agreed, any
more than such persons agree now, in the interpretation of
the Gospels; that we read that there were those in very
early times who "wrested the Scripture" to favor their
own views; and that, in the zeal of party strife, the sacred
writings may have often been corrupted to support the opinions of particular sects.
We will not forget, however, that the very idea of a sect
is a number of Christians cut off, or divided from, the body
of believers; that the Scriptures have been in the hands of
this body, as well as in the hands of the sect; and that if
ever it has been for the interest of the minority to alter the
10*




.114            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
reading of the Gospels, it has been equally for the interest
of the majority to prevent such changes, and to preserve the
purity and integrity of the text. The division of Christians
into sects, then, so far from having endangered, has, in fact,
secured the uncorrupted preservation of the Gospels. Some
division has existed ever since some were of Paul and others
were of Apollos. The Epistles furnish proof how many
subjects of controversy agitated the first communities of believers.  No one, who has read the history of the Church,
will forget how early great and grave questions arose, which
continued to divide the opinions of Christians down even to
the establishment of the Romish Church. During the general sway of this church, there always existed independent
communities that came not under its dominion, while many
of the orders embraced in its folds were as much opposed to
each other as have since been the Protestant sects. Thus,
there has never been a time when an attempt to alter the
text of the Gospels, even if otherwise practicable, would not
have raised an outcry in some quarter or other. There has
never been a time when Providence has trusted the legacy
of the Scriptures even to their friends, without some safeguard for their protection and unadulterated transmission.
One portion of believers has been a check upon another.
In their mutual strifes, they have but one interest in common, - to exercise a jealous vigilance to keep the Scriptures
in the same state in which they came into their hands.
Any attempt, therefore, to alter them, for the purpose of
favoring any particular scheme of doctrines, must have been,
in the very nature of things, discovered and exposed.
We have before alluded to the great number of quotations
from the Scriptures made by the early Christian writers.
The first two hundred years after the death of the Apostles
were most prolific of works of controversy, sermons, com.




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.             115
mentaries, annotations, and histories, —a whole body of
literature, furnished by writers of different countries and of
different tongues. Their writings have come down to us in
manuscripts which are as authentic as any remains whatever
of ancient letters. In these we find the words of the Gospels quoted just as we read them now in our Bibles, and so
numerous are these quotations, that, as was before remarked,
if the New Testament should at any time be annihilated, we
could recover the book from the writings of that age. Here,
then, is a most important and valuable test of the purity in
which the Gospels have been preserved. Had those early
authors cited many texts from the New Testament which we
do not now find in our copies, we should know that parts of
this book, in the course of its transmission to us, have been
lost or suppressed. On the other hand, had they quoted
other passages in different words, and as conveying different
meanings from what we now find in our copies, we should
know that such texts have been corrupted, either through
accident or fraud. But as the quotations they make agree
substantially with the text that we possess, and include almost every passage that we possess, how satisfactory the
proof that the Gospels have suffered no essential changes, as
they have passed from one generation to another, and are
now what they were at first! This evidence is open to no
uncertainty, and admits of no refutation. If we will not say
that all remains of sacred and profane literature, of the first
centuries of the Christian era, were the forgeries of some
subsequent age, we'must admit that these quotations bridge
over the whole period of the Middle Ages, and carry us up
to the generations immediately succeeding the Apostles, and
show them reading the same Gospels which are now in our
hands.
It is a still further important consideration, that the Gos



116            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
pels bear no marks of an age later than that in which it is
affirmed that they were written. If they had suffered mutilations and additions from the hands of successive copyists,
these alterations, it is likely, would be detected. Especially if they were numerous, if they were thrust in by ignorant transcribers, having different views and feelings, and
more or less interested and excited about the opinions and
controversies of their own times, how surely would these
alterations have been discovered by something not consistent
with the character of the sacred writer, by an expression of
opinions and feelings which it is not probable that he entertained, by the use of language and the introduction of modes
of conception not known at the period to which they are
assigned, by an implied reference to opinions and events of
a later age, or by some bearing and purpose not consistent
with the time when they are alleged to have been written!
These are but a few of the ways by which the work of those
who had tampered with our sacred writings would surely
have been detected. But no traces like these of corrupt
changes of the text can be discerned. Says Mr. Norton, in
the valuable treatise before referred to, and to which this
chapter is so largely indebted, - - No one has yet appeared
who has found any thing here which does not correspond to
the age in which their authors lived, and to the circumstances in which we must believe them to have been placed."
So, also, had our Gospel histories suffered mutilations
from many successive hands, their unity both of design and
style would have been lost. Each writer has a way that is
peculiar to himself; his style, mode of narration, choice of
expressions, and form of presenting a subject, are all peculiar to himself. So strikingly is this the case, that it has
been said, if a chapter from one book should be transferred
to another book, having a different author, the transposition




THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.              117
would, by the dissimilitude of the style, be at once detected
by a critic. How irreconcilable with all this is the notion
that these books have been brought to their present state by
additions and alterations of successive copyists! Instead of
the one distinctive character which each work has, a diversity of hands would have produced a diversity of style; and
the patchwork of unknown and successive transcribers
would have been a perfect contrast to the simple, uniform,
unbroken narrative of the sacred penman.
The same general conclusion is fortified by one more consideration. It is impossible that the records of our faith
should have been much corrupted, for whenever and wherever they have been read, men have gathered from them
substantially the same Christian religion. Is there a single
copy of the Scriptures, in any language, in any land, from
which the honest inquirer would draw a different system of
faith and practice, or a different representation of the Divine
government, from that which he finds in the copy before
him? Is there a copy from which a single article of our
faith is absent?  He who would weaken our confidence in
the sacred writings, by suspicions of their corruption, should
bring forward these conflicting and imperfect versions if he
can find them. But this cannot be done. Wherever in the
past ages we find men believing in the Christian religion,
we find that they believed in the same religion that we believe in; they held to the same rule of life, referred to the
same prophecies, related the same miracles, ascribed the
same character to Christ, and were rejoicing in the same
immortal hopes. How idle, then, to speak of corruptions
which the text of Scripture may have suffered, when we see
that it has thus spoken one and the same language to all!
It is true, the mere letter has passed through many hands of
copyists and printers, and has been rendered into many different tongues.  But ever has it quickened the same spirit;




118            THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.
the piety that it kindled a thousand years ago is the same
piety that it kindles now, and thus has the essential Gospel
been, like Jesus himself, the same yesterday, to-day, and
for ever.
How can we think of these things without reflecting with
gratitude upon the course which Divine Providence adopted,
to hand down the Gospel truth from one generation to
another? Those frail records of the Evangelists were in
fact the most secure means for the preservation of the life
and words of Christ which could be employed.  " A
temple, a statue, a monument, is but one, and however
durable may be the material, it continually decays, and is
always destructible. The touch of the sculptor moulders
from the chiselled surface, and the time will come when
every monument of his genius shall have crumbled to the
earth. The Pyramids themselves have grown old with age,
have forgotten the names of their builders, and have long
since betrayed their trust."
But written records are less liable to extinction than any
other memorial of the past that can be devised. The sacred
words, inscribed of old on parchment, soon found their way
to every land, and the time has never been when they could
perish or suffer corruption, except by a devastation that visited at once the whole face of the earth.
Thus has the past ever been safe. Thus, too, is the future ever secure. Amid all the revolutions and vicissitudes
of earth, the Gospel will still be accomplishing the thing
wherefor it was sent, and no one can turn it aside from its
silent and steadfast way. The assaults of its enemies are in
vain. The gates of death shall not prevail against it. The
mouldering fingers of time, that efface every thing else,
shall not destroy this. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of the Lord abideth for ever.