tradition, floating through different countries, and received and transmitted by thousands of new converts. We cannot suppose, that, after the apostolic age, three unconnected writers, founding their narratives upon oral accounts alone, would have harmonized together as do the three Evangelists.* The agreement and difference among these Gospels present a very extraordinary, or rather a unique phenomenon, which requires a peculiar cause for its solution, and this cause is, I think, to be found only in the fact, that they were all based upon unwritten narratives, which had, as yet, lost nothing of their original character; and which, therefore, were the narratives, true or false, of the first preachers of the religion.

“In reading those Gospels, therefore, we are in effect listening to the very words of the Apostles; we are, if I may so speak, introduced into their presence, to receive their testimony concerning deeds and words which they affirm that they saw and heard, and miracles of such a character that it would be idle to suppose them deceived or mistaken in their reports. The question, then, concerning the truth of Christianity, under this aspect of its evidences, lies within a narrow compass. Realize, as far as you can, the characters and circumstances of the Apostles; place yourself, in imagination, in their presence, attend to their testimony, and search for every motive and feeling that might lead them, all in common, at the hazard of every worldly good, to persist in asserting the truth of stories, which they knew, and thousands of their hearers knew, and all might know, to be false. Just so far as any probable motive may be assigned for such conduct, just so far, and no further, may the truth of Christianity be rendered doubtful."

* See Genuineness of the Gospels, I. 176, seqq.

III.

ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE GosPELS AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

"IT deserves observation, that, with the exception of the history of the last days of our Saviour's life, the accounts of his ministry in the first three Evangelists relate to events which took place either in Galilee, or elsewhere, at a distance from Jerusalem. With this part of his ministry the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the strangers who resorted there, being least. acquainted, the Apostles would be most frequently called upon to give information respecting it. . . . .

"In accounting for the resemblance among the first three Gospels, we are led to consider the difference between them and the Gospel of John. To explain it, we may observe, that this Gospel is not properly a history of the ministry of Jesus. It supposes that history, as recorded in the first three Gospels, to be already known; it is founded upon it, and supplementary to it. It relates principally to what took place at Jerusalem, where our Saviour spent but a small portion of his ministry. It consists, in great part, of connected discourses of Jesus with the unbelieving Jews, and with his Apostles, of which much has special and immediate reference only to the character and circumstances of those immediately addressed. It did not, like the narrative contained in the first three Gospels, constitute that elementary instruction in the history of Jesus, which was the first want of the converts to the new religion. Like the Epistles of the Apostles, it implies that this had been already received." Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Additional Note D, Section IV. p. clxxvi, seq., note.

IV.

ON THE DATE OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

"IF," as has been shown, "the Evangelists did not copy one from another, it follows, that the first three Gospels must all have been written about the same period; since, if one had preceded another by any considerable length of time, it cannot be supposed that the author of the later Gospel would have been unacquainted with the work of his predecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it; especially when we take into view, that its reputation must have been well established among Christians. Whatever antiquity, therefore, we can show to belong to any one of the first three Gospels, the same, or nearly the same, we may ascribe to the other two. Now Luke, in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of his Gospel in terms which imply that this work had been completed but a little while before; and in the Acts he brings down the history to the end of the second year of Paul's residence at Rome, which was some time after the sixtieth year of our era. According, likewise, to the remarks formerly made respecting the Gospel of Mark,* it was probably written about the year 65, when St. Peter is supposed to have suffered martyrdom at Rome. We may conclude, therefore, that no one of the first three Gospels was written long before or long after the year 60."”† — Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Additional Note D, Section V. p. clxxxviii, seq.

* See Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. p. lxxix, seq. [The following account is given by Irenæus, who flourished in the

V.

ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

"WE believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning by that term the common language of the Jews of his time, because such is the uniform statement of all ancient writers who advert to the subject. To pass over others whose authority is of less weight, he is affirmed to have written in Hebrew by Papias,* Irenæus,† Origen, Eusebius,§ and Jerome; nor does any ancient author advance a contrary opinion. This testimony is of the more weight, because, if there had been any prejudice on the subject, it would have operated against the common belief, as the prejudices of modern Chris

latter part of the second century:— "Matthew 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 [death], 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." Contra Hæres. Lib. III. c. 1,- as quoted in the Genuine

ness of the Gospels, I. 131.]

* Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. c. 39.

† Contra Hæres. Lib. III. c. 1.

‡ Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. c. 25.

§ Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. c. 24. Quæstiones ad Marinum, ap. Maii Scriptorum Veterum Nov. Collect. Tom. I. p. 64.

"The fact is stated or implied by Jerome in passages so numerous, that it is not worth while to refer to them particularly."

tians have done. It would have led the great body of ancient Gentile Christians, from whom we receive the account, to prefer considering their Greek Gospel of Matthew as the original, not as a translation.

"If we will not, then, reject the testimony of all Christian antiquity to a simple fact, in which there is no intrinsic improbability, we must believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Nothing has been objected to that testimony which I can regard as of sufficient force to justify a protracted discussion. On the contrary, it is confirmed by the corresponding evidence of the Fathers, that the Hebrew original of Matthew was in common use (either in a pure or corrupt form) among Jewish Christians."- Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Additional Note A, Section IV. p. xlv, seq.

For further remarks, see what follows the passage just quoted, pp. xlvi. - lv.

"The Gospel of Matthew was probably translated into Greek some time about the close of the first century. The verbal coincidences of its translation with the Gospels of Mark and Luke admit of one, and I think only one, satisfactory solution. The original of Matthew agreed with them essentially in many narratives and many sayings and discourses of Christ. These, or portions of these, were the same, except their expression in different languages, and the manner of their expression in the Greek language had been fixed by the Greek Gospels of Mark and Luke. But these Gospels being known to the translator of Matthew, when his original corresponded with them sufficiently, he was led to adopt their expressions."- Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Additional Note D, Section IV. p. clxxix, seq.

Respecting the Greek translation of Matthew, see also Genuineness of the Gospels, I. 90–92.