St. Peter, or not long before it.' This then is the order of the four evangelists, according to a On the other hand, Grotius says, it is manifest from comparing their gospels, that Mark made use of Matthew. d Mill has spoken largely to this point in his Prolegomena. He says, it was not the design of St. Mark, to make an abridgment of St. Matthew's gospel, as some have supposed. For he 'does not always follow St. Matthew's order, as an abridger would have done: and he is oftentimes more prolix in his histories of the same thing than St. Matthew, and has inserted many additional things, and some of great moment for illustrating the evangelical history.- Nay so far was Mark from intending to abbreviate St. Matthew's gospel, that there have been men ' of great fame, as Calvin, and our Dodwell, who were of opinion, that St. Mark and Luke had never seen Matthew's gospel. However, Grotius was of a different opinion. And indeed the great resemblance of the style and composition of these two Evangelists manifests the 'truth of it.' 6 Of St. Luke Mill says: Nothing is more evident than that he made use of the gospels of • Matthew and Mark. For he has borrowed from them many phrases and expressions, and even whole paragraphs word for word.' f But there is not sufficient foundation for such strong assertions, in the account which Mill himself gives of the time of writing the first three gospels: for, according to him, St. Matthew's gospel was published in the year 61, St. Mark's in 63, St. Luke's in 64, which is but one year later. Nor has Mill made it out, that St. Mark's was published so soon as the year 63. For he owns, that it was not written till after Peter's and Paul's departure from Rome; which could not be, till after the year 63. How then could St. Luke make so much use of St. Mark's gospel, as is pretended? k I allege but one author more, relating to this point. Mr. Wetstein says, that Mark made use of Matthew: and of St. Luke he says, that he transcribed many things from Matthew, and ' yet more from Mark.' m But may I not say, that before Mr. Wetstein asserted such things, he should have given at least some tolerable account of the times when the evangelists wrote, and that St. Mark was prior in time to Luke? Which I do not perceive him to have done. St. Matthew's gospel, indeed, he supposes to have been written in the eighth year after our Lord's ascension. But of St. Luke he observes, that " ecclesiastical writers say, he published his gospel at about fifteen, or as others about two and twenty years after our Saviour's ascension. His account of St. Mark is, that he was with Peter at Babylon. Thence he came to Rome, and was with St. Paul during his captivity there, Col. iv. 10. Philem. 33. Then he went to Colosse. Afterwards at the desire of the apostle he came to him thence to Rome, 2 Tim. iv. 11. Where he is said to have written his gospel, abridging St. Matthew, and adding some things, which he had heard 'from Peter.' A A very fine character of our evangelist truly! But according to this account of St. Mark's travels, and of the place, where his gospel was written, it could not be published R ■ See Vol. ii. p. 584. b Usum esse Marcum Matthæi Evangelio apertum facit collatio. Grot. ad Marc. cap. i. ver. 1. Ipsam evangelii structuram quod attinet, neutiquam Marco institutum fuit, quod nonnullis videtur, evangelium Matthæi in epitomen redigere. Præterquam enim quod servatum a Matthæo ordinem hon ubique sequatur, quod sane epitomatoris foret, in ejusdem rei narratione Matthæo haud raro prolixior est, ac plurima passim inserta habet, eaque subinde magni ad elucidandam historiam momenti. Proleg. num. 103. d Imo certe adeo nihil Marco erat in animo de abbreviando Matthæi evangelio, ut haud desint magni noininis auctores, qui existimant, a Marco ne quidem visum fuisse Evangelium Matthæi.... Cæterum contrarium evincit, Evangelium imprimis Matthæi et Marci quod attinet, istorum phraseos, ipsiusque contextûs similitudo. Ibid. n. 107. * Certe evulgatum fuisse illud post editionem Evangeliorum i De Marco ap. T. Gr. T. I. p. 552. m * Lucam multa ex Matthæo, ex Marco plura descripsisse, ex collatione patet. De Lucâ ibid. p. 643. 1 Ibid. p. 223. Ibid. P. 643. Postea videtur Petro adhæsisse, et cum eo Babylone fuisse. 1 Pet. v. 13. Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum invisit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad Colossenses abiit, a quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit, 2 Tim. iv. 11, ubi Evangelium conscripsisse, et Matthæum quidem in compendium redegisse, nonnulla vero, quæ a Petro audiverat, adjecisse dicitur. Ibid. p. 551. before the year 64, or 65. How then could St. Luke make use of it, if he wrote so soon as fifteen or two and twenty years after Christ's ascension? I proceed now to speak more distinctly to the merits of the question. 6 1. It does not appear that any of the learned ancient christian writers had a suspicion, that any of the first three evangelists had seen the other histories, before they wrote. They say indeed, that when the three first written gospels had been delivered to all men, they were also brought to St. John, and that he confirmed the truth of their narration: but said, there were 'some things omitted by them, which might be profitably related:' or, that he wrote last, supplying some things, which had been omitted by the former evangelists.' After this manner speak Eusebius of Cæsarea, Epiphanius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerom. Not now to mention any others. Augustine indeed, about the end of the fourth century, or the beginning of the fifth, supposeth the first three evangelists not to have been totally ignorant of each other's labours, and considers Mark's gospel as an abridgment of St. Matthew's. But, as formerly observed, so far as I know, he is the first, in which that opinion is found: nor does it appear, that he was followed by succeeding writers. e b f 2. It is not suitable to the character of any of the evangelists, that they should abridge, or transcribe another historian. St. Matthew was an apostle, and eye-witness: consequently, he was able to write of his own knowledge. Or, if there were any parts of our Lord's ministry, at which he was not present, he might obtain information from his fellow-apostles, or other eye-witnesses. And as for other things, which happened before the apostles were called to follow him, concerning his nativity, infancy, and youth; as Augustine says, these the apostles might know from Christ himself, or from his parents, or his friends and acquaintance, who were to be depended upon. i St. Mark, if he was not one of Christ's seventy disciples, was an early Jewish believer, acquainted with all the apostles, Peter in particular, and with many other eye-witnesses: consequently, well qualified to write a gospel. Mill himself has been so good, as to acknowledge this. St. Luke, if he was not one of Christ's seventy disciples, nor an eye-witness, was a disciple, and companion of apostles, especially of Paul, as is universally allowed: and he must therefore have been well qualified to write a gospel. Moreover, as has been shown, it is manifest from his introduction, that he knew not of any authentic history of Jesus Christ, that had been yet written. And he expressly says of himself, "that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," and he professeth "to write of them to Theophilus in order." After all this to say, that he transcribed many things from one historian, and yet more from another, so far as I am able to judge, is no less than a contradiction of the evangelist himself. 3. The nature and design of the first three gospels manifestly show, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic written history of Jesus Christ. k This is one of the observations of Le Clerc relating to this point. We can scarcely doubt, ⚫ whether St. John had seen the other three gospels. For as he is said to have lived to a great i age, so it appears from his gospel itself, that he took care not to repeat things related by them, except a few only, and those necessary things. But I do not see how it can be reckoned certain that Mark knew of Matthew's having written a gospel before him: or that Luke knew, that they two had written gospels before him. If Mark had seen the work of Matthew, it is likely that he would have remained satisfied with it, as being the work of an apostle of Christ, ⚫ that is, an eye-witness, which he was not.' And what there follows. I must enlarge upon this observation. I forbear to insist now on the genealogies, which are in St. Matthew, and St. Luke only.. But I say, that the writings of all and each one of these three evangelists contain an entire gospel, or a complete history of the ministry of Jesus Christ: or, to borrow St. Luke's expressions, Acts i. 1, 2. a history of "all that Jesus both did and Then taught, until the day, in the which he was taken up to heaven." For in all and every one of them is the history of our Lord's fore-runner, his baptism, preaching, and death, and of our Lord's being baptized by him: when, by a voice from heaven, he was proclaimed to be the Messiah. follows our Lord's temptation in the wilderness. After which is an account of our Lord's preaching, and his beginning to gather disciples, the choice of the twelve apostles, and their names: and our Lord's going over the land of Israel, preaching the doctrine of the kingdom, attended by his twelve apostles, in synagogues, and in cities and villages, working all kinds of healing and saving miracles, upon all sorts of persons, in all places, in the presence of multitudes, and before Scribes and Pharisees, as well as others. A particular mission of his apostles, in the land of Israel. Our Lord's transfiguration on the mount, when there appeared Moses and Elias talking with him, and there came a voice from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son. Hear him." His going up to Jerusalem, and making a public entrance into the city, then cleansing the temple, where he often taught the people, and preached the gospel, and openly asserted his authority and character: keeping the passover with his disciples, and instituting a memorial of himself: his last sufferings, and death, with the behaviour of Judas, the traitor, Peter, and the; rest of the disciples: his burial, resurrection, with the evidences of it, and the general commission to his apostles, to preach the gospel in all the world, and to all sorts of persons therein. Here are all the integrals of a gospel. And they are properly filled up. And all these things are in all and every one of the first three evangelists: which shows that they did not know of each other's writings. For it cannot be thought that they should be disposed to say the same things over and over, or to repeat what had been well said already. St. John, who had seen the other three gospels, has little in common with them: almost every thing in his gospel is new and additional. So it would have been with every other writer in the like circumstances. And if St. Matthew's gospel had been written at about eight, or fifteen, or twenty years after our Lord's ascension, and had become generally known among the faithful, (as it certainly would, soon after it was written:) it is not improbable, that we should have had but two. gospels, his and St. John's. Or if there had been several, they would all, except the first, have been in the manner of supplements, like St. John's, not entire gospels, like those of the first three evangelists. This consideration appears to me of great moment, for showing that our first three evangelists are all independent witnesses. Indeed it seems to me to be quite satisfactory, and decisive. 4. There are in these three gospels, as was observed just now by Mr. Dodwell, many seeming contradictions: which have exercised the skill of thoughtful men to reconcile them. This is another argument, that these evangelists did not write by concert, or after having seen each others' gospels. 5. In some histories, which are in all these three evangelists, there are small varieties and differences, which plainly show the same thing. I shall allege two or three instances only. (1.) In Matth. viii. 28-34. Mark v. 1-20. Luke viii. 26-40. is the account of the cure of the dæmoniac, or dæmoniacs, in the country of the Gadarenes. It is plainly the same history, as appears from many agreeing circumstances: nevertheless there are several differences. St. Matthew speaks of two men, St. Mark and St. Luke of one only. In Mark alone it is said, that the man was always night and day in the mountains, crying, and cutting himself with stonès. And he alone mentions the number of the swine that were drowned. He likewise says, that the man besought our Lord much, that he would not send them away out of the country. St. Luke says: the dæmons besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep, or abyss. Surely these evangelists did not abridge, or transcribe each others' writings. (2.) In Matt. xvii. 1-13. Mark ix. 1-13. Luke ix. 28-36. are the accounts of our Lord's, transfiguration on the mount. Where St. Matthew says: "his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." St. Mark: "And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them.", St. Luke: " And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glittering." It is plain, I think, that none had seen what the other had written. In the description of the splendor of our Lord's person and garments, each one follows his own fancy. In St. Matthew, and St. Mark are comparisons; but they are different. In St. Luke there is no comparison at all. (3.) The third instance shall be what follows next in all the three evangelists, after our Lord was come down from the mount. Matt. xvii. 14-21. Mark ix. 14-29. Luke ix. 37-42. In this history of the healing the young man, who had the epilepsy, where St. Mark is more particular and prolix than the other evangelists, there are many differences: I take notice of a very few only. In St. Matthew the father of the child says: Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: and the healing him is thus related. "And Jesus rebuked the dæmon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour." In St. Mark the father of the child says to our Lord: "Master, I have brought unto thee my son, who has a dumb spirit, and when our Lord healed him, "he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him: Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him." And what follows. In St. Luke the father says: "Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son, for he is my only child." Certainly, he who observes these things, must be sensible, that these historians did not borrow from each other: there are many other like instances: to mention them all would be endless. I shall add a consideration or two more, which must be allowed to be of some weight in this question. 6. There are some things in St. Matthew's gospel, very remarkable, of which no notice is taken either by St. Mark, or St. Luke. I intend, particularly, the visit of the Magians, with the causes of it, and its circumstances, and then the consequences of it, our Saviour's flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, and near it. Matt. ii. The dream of Pilate's wife, ch. xxvii. 19. the affair of the Roman guard at the sepulchre, ch. xxviii. 11-15, "an earthquake, rending of rocks," and "the resurrection of many saints, who came out of their graves, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many," ch. xxvii. 51-53. These are as extraordinary things as any in the gospels: and if St. Mark, or St. Luke, had written with a view of abridging, or confirming St. Matthew's history, some, or all of these things, would have been taken notice of by them. It is also very observable that St. Luke has no account of the miracle of feeding "four thousand with seven loaves and a few little fishes,' which is in Matt. xv. 32-39. Mark viii. 1-9. And what has been just now said of St. Matthew, particularly, may be also applied to St. Luke, supposing his to have been the first written gospel: for in him also are many remarkable things, not to be found in the other gospels. And if St. Matthew or St. Mark had written with a view of abridging or confirming St. Luke's history, those things would not have been passed over by them without any notice. 7. All the first three evangelists have many things peculiar to themselves: which shows that they did not borrow from each other, and that they were all well acquainted with the things of which they undertook to write a history. Many such things are in Matthew, as is well known to all: I therefore need not enlarge on them; and a few of them were just now taken notice of. St. Mark likewise has many things peculiar to himself, not mentioned by any other evangelist: a catalogue of them was made by us formerly, though far from being complete. a The same is true of St. Luke. As much was observed by Irenæus, who says, there are many, and those necessary parts of the gospel, which we know from Luke only.' His brief enumeration of those things was transcribed by us into this work long ago. Let me also rehearse them here somewhat differently. His general introduction, the birth of John the Baptist, and many extraordinary things attending it. The Roman census made in Judea, by Cyrenius, or before that made by Cyrenius, which brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; the mean circumstances of our Lord's nativity; the notification of it to shepherds by an angel; his circumcision; Mary's purification at the temple; the prophecies of Simeon and Anna there; our Lord's going up to Jerusalem at the age of twelve years, ch. ii. The names of the emperor and other princes, in whose time John the Baptist and our Lord began to preach, and our Lord's age at that time; a genealogy different from Matthew, ch. iii. In St. Luke are also divers miracles, not recorded elsewhere. A numerous draught of fishes, ch. v. 4-9. The cures of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, ch. viii. 2, 3; giving speech to a dumb man, ch. xi. 14; a woman healed in a synagogue of an infirmity, under ↳ Vol. i, p. 366, 367. See before, p. 184-187. which she had laboured eighteen years, ch. xiii. 10-17, the man cured of a dropsy on a sabbath day, in the house of a pharisee, ch. xiv. 1-4. Ten lepers cured at once, ch. xvii. 12-19, the ear of Malchus healed, ch. xxii. 50, 51; the son of a widow of Nain raised to life, in the sight of multitudes, when he was carried out to burial, ch. vii. 11-17; a miracle of resurrection, related by no other evangelist. In him alone is the mission of the seventy disciples, ch. x. 1-20. Divers beautiful parables spoken by our Lord, which are not to be found elsewhere: the parable of the good Samaritan, ch. x. 25-37; the parable of the lost piece of silver, and the prodigal son, ch. xv. 8-32; of the unjust steward, xvi. 1-12; the rich man and Lazarus, ver. 19-31; the importunate widow, xviii. 1-8; the pharisee and publican, that went up to the temple to pray, ver. 9-14. To St. Luke also are peculiar our Lord's entertainment at the house of a pharisee, where came in a woman that was a sinner, ch. vii. 36-50; his entertainment at the house of Martha, ch. x. 38-42; the history of Zaccheus, ch. xix. 1-10; our Lord's agony in the garden, ch. xxii. 43, 44; the penitent thief on the cross, ch. xxiii. 39-43; and a particular account of the two disciples going to Emmaus, ch. xxiv. 13-55. All these, and many other things, which I omit, are peculiar to St. Luke. And did he transcribe many things from St. Matthew, and yet more from St. Mark? Mill's argument, taken from the similitude of style and composition, to prove, that these evangelists had seen each other's writings, appears to be insufficient. And himself allows, that two authors writing upon the same subject in the Greek language may easily agree very much in expression. I have insisted the more upon this point, because I think, that to say the evangelists abridged and transcribed each other, without giving any hint of their so doing, is a great disparagement to them and it likewise diminisheth the value and importance of their testimony. Said Mr. Le Clerc, before quoted, They seem to think more justly, who say, that the first three evangelists were unacquainted with each other's design. In that way greater weight accrues to their testimony. When witnesses agree, who have first laid their heads together, they are suspected. But witnesses, who testify the same thing separately, without knowing what others have said, are justly credited.' those This is not a new opinion, lately thought of: nor has it been taken up by me, out of opposition to any. I have all my days read, and admired the first three evangelists, as independent, and harmonious witnesses. And I know not how to forbear ranking the other opinion among bold, as well as groundless assertions, in which critics too often indulge themselves, without considering the consequences. |