SECT. 6. The sounding of the seventh trumpet-the vision of | tioned eminent critic and divine, who has most successfully the woman persecuted by the dragon, and of the wild beasts applied them to the exposition of the Apocalypse:from the sea and from the land. (ix. 15-19. xii. xiii.) SECT. 7. The vision of the Lamb and the hundred and fortyfour thousand elect on Mount Sion, and the proclamations or warnings.

§ v. The blessedness of those who die in the Lord proclaimed. (xiv. 13.) church of Christ.

§ vi. The vision of the harvest and the vintage. (xiv. 14-20.)

SECT. 8. contains the seven vials and the episode of the not a temporal but a spiritual kingdom;—not "a kingdom of this harlot of Babylon and her fall.

APPENDIX.

No. I.

ON THE SOURCES OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

Different Hypotheses stated.-II. Examination of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists abridged or copied from each other.— III. Examination of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists derived their information from a primary Greek or Hebrew Docu ment.-IV. Examination of the Hypothesis, that they consulted several Documents.-V. And of the Hypothesis, that oral Tradition was the Source of the first three Gospels.-VI. That the only Document consulted by the first three Evangelists was the Preaching of our Saviour himself.

I. THAT the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke should contain so much verbal agreement, and yet that there should exist such striking differences as appear in the parallel accounts of these three Evangelists when they relate the same discourses or transactions, is indeed a most remarkable circumstance. Hence several eminent writers have been induced to discuss this singular fact with great ability and equal ingenuity and although the testimonies which we have to the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels, are so clear and decisive, as to leave no doubt in the minds of private Christians; yet, since various learned men have offered different hypotheses to account for, and explain, these phenomena, the author would deem his labours very imperfect, if he suffered them to pass unnoticed.

Four principal hypotheses have been offered, to account for these verbal similarities and occasional differences between the first three evangelists; viz. 1. That one or two of the Gospels were taken from another;-2. That all three were derived from some original document common to the evangelists;-3. That they were derived from detached narratives of part of the history of our Saviour, communicated by the apostles to the first converts to Christianity;-and, 4. That they were derived from oral tradition. We shall briefly state the arguments that have been offered for and against these various hypotheses.

II. The FIRST and most commonly received opinion has been, that one or two of the first three evangelists had copied or abridged from the third, or one from the other two. Thus Vogel endeavoured to show that Mark made use of the Gospel of Luke, and that Matthew drew from Mark and Luke.' Grotius, Mill, Simon, Calmet, Wetstein, Wolfius, Drs. Owen and Harwood, and others, after Augustine, have asserted that Mark was an epitomiser of Matthew. Griesbach2 and Dr. Townson3 have maintained that both Mark and Luke had seen and consulted the Gospel of Matthew. Hug has defended the opinion that Mark had before him the Gospel written by Matthew for the Jews dwelling in Palestine, and that Luke made use of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Seiler affirmed that Mark translated into Greek and enlarged the Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of Matthew; that this Syro-Chaldaic Gospel, enlarged in many places, either by Matthew himself, or by other men worthy of credit, was subsequently translated into Greek either by the evangelist or some other person; and that the Greek translator consulted the Gospel of Mark. Storr endeavoured to prove that the Gospel of Mark was the source whence Matthew and Luke derived

Vogel, per die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien (on the Origin of the first Three Gospels), in Gabler's Journal für auserlesene Theologisch Literatur, band 1. stuck 1. p. 1. et seq.

Griesbach, in Kuinöel's, Ruperti's, and Velthusen's Commentationes Theologica, tom. i. pp. 303. et seq. Griesbach's hypothesis was refuted by Koppe, in Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge Commentationum Theologicarum, tom. i. pp. 55. et seq. Aminon defended Griesbach's hypothesis, and also contended that Luke made use of the Greek version of St. Matthew's Gospel, which he corrected and enlarged. Dissertatio de Luca emendatore Matthæi. Erlangæ, 1805. 4to.

Discourses on the Four Gospels, Oxford, 1778, 4to.; or vol. i. of Dr. Townson's Works, pp. 1-273.

Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Dr. Wait, vol. ii. pp. 73-83. 111-134.

Ibid. vot ii. pp. 152-185. Dr. Wait's translation having been executed from Hug's first edition, the learned translator of Dr. Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke has given an abstract of Hug's hypothesis from his second edition published in 1821. Introduction, pp. xcviii.-cxv.

Seiler, Dissertationes II. de tempore et ordine quibus tria Evangelia priora canonica scripta sunt. Erlanga, 1805-6. 4to. VOL. II.-APP. 3 C

materials for their Gospels. Busching was of opinion that Matthew and Mark compiled from Luke. Saunier maintains that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, are authentic and independent narratives; that Mark made use of those by Matthew and Luke; and that the passages, not to be found in either of these, were supplied by Peter, under whose direction he wrote. And, lastly, Janssens affirms that the agreement and disagreement between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are sufficiently accounted for, by saying, after the ancient fathers, that Mark composed his Gospel after that of Matthew, and after the preaching of Peter.10 Not to dwell upon the uncertainty of these various hypothe ses, all of which differ as to the point which was the original writer, and which of the evangelists were copyists or abridgers, the opinion which they respectively are designed to advocate is contradicted by the following weighty consi derations:

1. They could have no motive for copying from each other others, when their narratives were known, they could not have "For, as each acknowledged the authority and veracity of the been so absurd as to repeat what had been already rightly told Had they then written successively, with knowledge of each other's writings, it is probable, nay, it is almost certain, that each subsequent author would have set down only, or at least chiefly, what his predecessors had happened to omit. To repeat in substance, but in different words, what another had sufficiently told, might peculiar style of expression, or their own mode of compilation. But have been practised by writers who valued themselves upon their to copy the very words of ancther, whose account we do not mean to supersede, and to introduce them in the very same manner, is an idle and superfluous task, which no man in his senses would ever undertake." That the two evangelists, St. Mark and St. Luke, who were not eye-witnesses of the facts, and heard not the discourses of Christ pronounced, relate them nearly in the same words with those who were actually present, appears to me to That what one wrote others had told, and each precisely in the prove that the narratives of all the witnesses perfectly agreed. same manner. The witnesses had all taken such care to remember, with minute exactness, the principal discourses of their Lord, and the occasions on which they were spoken, and were so often called upon to repeat them, in making and confirming converts to the faith, that a precision was obtained in relating these particulars, of which, if no other example occurs in the annals of the world, the reason is, because no other relators of facts and diswords and actions to relate; such frequent occasions to repeat them; or so many powerful reasons to relate them with the strictest accuracy, on every possible occasion. From this cause it naturally arose, that they who wrote as original witnesses, and they who wrote from the testimony of such witnesses, agreed, not only substantially, but almost verbally. The exact and literal truth, without alteration or embellishment, was equally delivered by them; as when several perfect mirrors reflect the same object, the images will be the same in form, at the first or second reflection "'12

courses were ever so situated. No other men ever had such

Storr, Dissertatio de fonte Evangeliorum Matthæi et Lucæ, in Kuinöel's, Ruperti's, and Velthusen's Commentationes Theologica, tom. iii. pp. 140. et seq. Busching, Harmonie der Evangelisten, pp. 99. 108. 118. et seq._ Kni nöel's Commentarius in Libros Historicos Novi Testamenti, tom. i. Prole. gom. pp. 1-3. Saunier, Ueber de Quellen des Evangeliums des Marcus. Berlin, 1827. 8vo. The above notice of Saunier's hypothesis is given from the Christian Examiner or Church of Ireland Magazine, vol. iv. p. 389. 10 Janssens, Hermeneutique Sacrée, tom. ii. p. 11. Paris, 1828. 8vo. 11 "If I follow another writer, and copy the substance of his account in other words, I make it my own, and become responsible, as a second wit ness; but if I take his very words, my account is resolvable into his, ano it is still but one testimony."

18 Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 33-35.

385

5. The seeming contradictions occurring in the first three Gospels (all of which, however, admit of easy solutions), are an additional evidence that the evangelists did not write by con cert, or after having seen each other's Gospels.

But, further, "the copying of one book from another is usually | of things related in them, except a few necessary facts. But there the resource either of ignorance or indolence. Of ignorance, wher. is no certain evidence, either that Mark knew that Matthew had the writer has no knowledge of the facts, except what he derives written a Gospel before him, or that Luke knew that the twe from the author whom he copies: of indolence, when, though pre-evangelists had written Gospels before him. If Mark had seen the viously informed, he takes the statement of another, which he ap- work of Matthew, it is likely that he would have remained satisfied proves, to save himself the thought and trouble which would be with it as being the work of an apostle of Christ, that is, an eye. required for forming an original narrative. With respect, then, to witness, which he was not. Nor would Luke, who, from the begin the evangelists, above all other writers, we may surely ask, if they ning of his Gospel, appears to have been acquainted with several knew not of a certainty what they undertook to write, why did memoirs of the sayings and actions of Christ, have omitted to say they undertake it? But if they knew from their own recollection that one or more of them was written by an apostle, as Matthew or inquiries, why should they copy from any other person? If they was. His silence, therefore, is an additional proof that the first thought a new narrative was wanted, why should they copy one three evangelists were totally unacquainted with any previous which was already to be had? If they are supposed to have copied authentic written history of Christ. through ignorance, why did they presume to alter even a single word? If they copied through indolence, the very same indolence would doubtless have led them to copy word for word, which is much more easy than to copy with variations, but which it never can be pretended they have done, for many lines together. I know but of one more supposition, which can be made, and that is so 6. In some of the histories recorded by all these three evandishonourable to the evangelists, that I think no sincere Christiangelists, there are small varieties and differences, which plainly could be induced to make it. It is this. That they copied, indeed, show the same thing. through ignorance or indolence, or both, but inserted slight alterations, as they went on, for the purpose of disguising or concealing their thefts. Should an enemy even presume to say this, for surely no other would say it, to him I would boldly reply, that, if so, they were very awkward and blundering contrivers; for they altered so very little, that copying has been generally imputed to them: and yet sometimes so indiscreetly, that their differences have been, without reason indeed, but hastily, regarded as contradictions." 2. It does not appear that any of the learned ancient Christian writers had a suspicion, that either of the first three evangelists had seen the other Gospels before he wrote his own. They say, indeed, "that when the three first-written Gospels had been delivered to all men, they were also brought to Saint John, and that he confirmed the truth of their narration; but said, that 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." To mention no others, Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea,2 Epiphanius,3 Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome, express themselves in this manner. Towards the close of the fourth century, indeed, or early in the fifth, Augustine supposed that the first three evangelists were not totally ignorant of each other's labours, and considered Mark's Gospel as an abridgment of Saint Matthew's; but he was the first of the fathers who advocated that notion, and it does not appear that he was followed by any succeeding writers, until it was revived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, by Grotius

and others.

3. It is not suitable to the character of any of the evangeästs, that they should abridge or transcribe another historian. Matthew was an apostle and an eye-witness, and consequently was able to write from 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, with respect to things which happened before the calling of the apostles (as the nativity, infancy, and youth of Christ), the apostles might ascertain them from our Saviour himself, or from his friends and acquaintance, on whose information they could depend.

In illustration of this remark, it will suffice to refer to and compare the accounts of the healing of the demoniac or demoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 28-34. with Mark v. 1-20. and Luke viii. 26-40.); the account of our Lord's transfi guration on the mount (Matt. xvii. 1-13. with Mark ix. 1—13. and Luke ix. 28-36.), and the history of the healing of the young man. after our Saviour's descent from the mount. (Matt. xvii. 14-21 with Mark ix. 14-29. and Luke ix. 37-42.) In each of the accounts here cited, the agreeing circumstances which are discoverable in them, clearly prove that it is the same history, but there are also several differences equally evident in them. Whoever, therefore, diligently attends to these circumstances, must be sensible that the evangelical historians did not copy or borrow from each

other.

7. There are some very remarkable things related in Saint Matthew's Gospel, of which neither Saint Mark nor Saint Luke has taken any notice.

Such are the extraordinary events recorded in Matt. ii. xxvii. 19 xxvii. 51–53. and xxviii. 11-15.: some or all of which would have been noticed by Mark or Luke, had they written with a view of abridging or confirming Matthew's history. It is also very observ able, that Luke has no account of the miracle of feeding "four lated in Matt. xv. 32-39. and Mark viii. 1–9. The same remark thousand with seven loaves and a few small fishes," which is re is applicable to Luke's Gospel, supposing (as Dr. Macknight and others have imagined) it to have been first written, as it contains many remarkable things not to be found in the other Gospels Now, if Matthew or Mark had written with a view of abridging or confirming Luke's history, they would not have passed by those things without notice.

8. All the first three evangelists have several things peculiar to themselves; which show 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 peculiar relations occur in Matthew's Gospel, besides those just cited; and both Mark20 and Luke," as we have already seen, have many similar things, so that it is needless to adduce any additional instances.

9. Lastly, Dr. Miil has argued that the similarity of style and composition is a proof that these evangelists had seen each other's writings.

But this argument in Dr. Lardner's judgment is insufficient. In fact, Mill himself allows1? that a very close agreement may easily subsist between two authors writing on the same subject in the Greek language.13

Mark, if not one of Christ's seventy disciples, was (as we have already seen) an early Jewish believer, acquainted with all the apostles, and especially with Saint Peter, as well as with many other eye-witnesses: consequently he was well qualified to write a Gospel; and that he did not abridge Matthew, we have shown by an induction of various particulars. Luke, though not one of Christ's seventy disciples, nor an eye-witness of his discourses and actions, was a disciple and companion of the apostles, and especially of Paul; he must therefore have been well qualified to write a Gospel. Besides, as we have shown in a former page,9 it is manifest, from his introduction, that he knew not of any authen-critics have attempted to explain the verbal harmony obIII. The SECOND hypothesis, by which some distinguished tic history of Jesus Christ that had been then written; and he expressly says, that he had accurately traced all things from the source in succession or order, and he professes to write of them to Theophilus. After such an explicit declaration as this is, to affirm that he transcribed many things from one historian, and still more from another, is no less than a contradiction of the evangelist himself.

4. It is evident from the nature and design of the first three Gospels, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic written history of Jesus Christ.

There can be no doubt but that John had seen the other three Gospels; for, as he is said to have lived to a great age, so it appears from his Gospel itself that he carefully avoided the repetition

Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 168-170.

See the passages from Eusebius in Dr. Lardner's Worka, 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 226, 227.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 369.

p. 529.

3 Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 314, 315.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 418.
Ibid. Svo. vol. iv. pp. 511, 512.; 4to. vol. ii.
Ibid. Svo. vol. v. p. 41. ; 4to. vol. ii. p. 553.
Ibid. 8vo. vol. v. p. 93.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 582
See p. 304. of this volume.

• See pp. 306, 307. of this volume.

⚫ Sce p. 311. supra.

servable in the first three Gospels, is that which derives
them from some COMMON GREEK OF HEBREW DOCUMENT of
source, which occasioned the evangelists so frequently to
adopt the same terms and forms of expression. Le Clerc14
was the first writer to whom this idea occurred; and after it
had lain dormant upwards of sixty years, it was revived and
advocated by Koppe,15 and has been modified in various
ways by subsequent writers, so that (as it has been severely
but not unjustly remarked) "hypothesis has been knocked
down by hypothesis, till the Gospels must begin to feel
themselves in a very awkward condition."16
Of these various modifications the following is a concise
outline:-

10 Sec p. 306. supra, of this volume.

11 See p. 311. note 6. supra, of this volume.

19 Millii Proleg. § 108. 13 Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 223-233.; 4to. vol. ii. pp 215-250.

Clerici Eccl. Hist. sæc. i. anno Ixiv. § xi. pp. 429, 430.

15 In his dissertation entitled Marcus non Epitomator Matthæi. See Prit's and Ruperti's Sylloge, tom. i. pp. 65–68.

1 British Critic and Theol. Review, vol. ii. pp 351