was published the easier it would be to inquire into its truth and accuracy, and consequently the greater would be its weight and authority. The Gospel according to St. Matthew is therefore supposed to have been written about eight years after the ascension of Christ'.

The New Testament, as a whole, was written in Greek, but a peculiar question has been raised as to the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel. Many ancient Fathers positively assert that it was written by St. Matthew in Hebrew; that is, in the language then spoken in Palestine, the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, or what may be called Syriac, which was, in fact, the Hebrew, corrupted by a large admixture of foreign words. In a question of this sort, which is a question of fact, the concurrent voice of antiquity ought to be decisive with us. The question is one of originality rather than antiquity, for it is allowed, even by those who are for a Hebrew original, that the Greek translation of it must still be considered of earlier date than the composition of the other Gospels. It may be observed that the opinion that the first published Gospel was written in the language of the Jews, and for their peculiar use, is perfectly conformable to the distinction with which we know they were favoured of having the Gospel preached Archbishop Sumner.

9

❞ Bishop Tomline.

1

to them before all other nations. That the Gospel was published in Palestine for the immediate use of the Jews, whether it were originally written in Hebrew or Greek, was the opinion of all ecclesiastical writers; and it is confirmed by the contents of the book itself. There are more references in this than in other Gospels to Jewish customs; and cities and places in Palestine are always mentioned by it as being well known by those to whom it is addressed. St. Matthew seems studiously to have selected with prominency the circumstances that were most calculated to conciliate or strengthen the faith of the Jews. He begins his narrative by showing Jesus to have his descent from Abraham, and to be of the family of David. He then relates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the city in which the Messiah was expected to be born, and throughout his Gospel he omits no opportunity of explaining the Scriptures, and of pointing out the fulfilment of prophecy, which was known to have had greater weight with the Jews than any other species of evidence 2.

§ 2. St. Mark.-It has been doubted, both in ancient and modern times, whether St. Mark the Evangelist were the same as "John whose surname was Mark," mentioned in the Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles. Some will have JohnBishop Tomline.

2

3

Ibid.

Mark a different person from the Evangelist, but the general opinion is against them. His Jewish name was John, to which Mark was a Roman addition, which was probably assumed by him, when he left Judæa to go into foreign countries. The passage in the Acts that gives his original name also acquaints us that his mother's name was Mary, that she lived at Jerusalem, and that the Christians of that city frequently assembled at her house. He was nephew to Barnabas, being his sister's son; and it is supposed that he was converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his son, probably his convert or son in the faith, a fact which bears against the conclusion that he was one of the seventy disciples sent forth by the Saviour 1. The first historical fact recorded of him in the New Testament is that he went from Jerusalem to Antioch with Barnabas and Saul. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with those Apostles upon a journey which they undertook, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching in different countries; but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, and returned to Jerusalem. Afterwards, when Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with them to which Paul

Pictorial Bible.

objected, because he had left them in their former journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which ended in their separation. We may conclude, however, that St. Paul was afterwards reconciled to St. Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his Epistles; and we find St. Mark again becoming his fellow-labourer, and with him during his imprisonment at Rome. No further particulars are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is believed, on the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his journey with St. Barnabas he met with St. Peter in Asia and accompanied him to Rome. The tradition is, that he preached the Gospel in Egypt, where the Coptic Christians honour his memory as the founder and first bishop of their church o.

There is an almost unanimous concurrent opinion that St. Mark's Gospel was written when he was with St. Peter at Rome'. It is also supposed that it was written under the instruction of St. Peter; and it offers a bright testimony to the modesty of that Apostle's character, that the transactions in which he appears to the least advantage are related with greater circumstantiality than in the other Evangelists; whilst the high commendations which our Lord bestowed on him are entirely

3

Bp. Tomline.

6 Pict. Bible.

7

Bp. Tomline.

omitted. The church at Rome, for the use of which this Gospel appears to have been written, included some Jews, but was chiefly composed of Gentiles. Hence this Evangelist explains many little circumstances, which to a Jew would have been needless: such as, "the rivers of Jordan;" he subjoins to the word "Corban" the interpretation, a "gift;" he uses the term "riches" instead of "Mammon "," &c. Some authors represent St. Mark's Gospel as merely an abridgment of St. Matthew's; but this is a mistaken idea, as St. Mark entirely omits several important things related by St. Matthew, and dilates upon some facts concisely mentioned by the other. He is the most exact of all the four in observing the proper time and series of the stories recorded2.

§ 3. St. Luke.-Luke the Evangelist was a native of Cyrene in Africa, but it is doubtful if he was a Jew other than by religion; as his name, not being of Hebrew origin, is opposed to this idea. There seems no reason to doubt that

66

Luke, the beloved physician," so called in the Epistles, was this Evangelist'. Some have thought that he was one of the seventy disciples. It is not certain, however, whether he was personally a follower of our Lord during his ministry, like John and Matthew; or whether,