tionably, referred to the Greek Gospels. See those references collected by Lardner, Vol. II. p. 15-93.

2. Irenæus, more critically translated, may well be understood to signify, that in addition to his Greek Gospel, Matthew published also a Hebrew Gospel for the benefit of the Hebrews, or converts from Judaism, who used the vernacular language of Palestine. This surely is the unstrained import of the particle και, in the original και γραφην εξηνεγκεν ευαγγελιον. And this was most probably the fact *. This was the original basis of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, cited by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerom, which, in process of time, became so adulterated by these Judaizing converts, as to lose all authority in the Church, and to be reckoned spurious.

3. The testimony of Origen perfectly corresponds therewith; for surely when he cited tradition for the existence of a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew, for the converts from Judaism, he by no means denied, but rather presupposed his Greek Gospel, written for all classes of Christians, composing the whole Church of God under heaven; for whose use the Hebrew Gospel would be utterly inadequate.

And that Origen himself considered the Greek as the only authentic original in his time, is evident for the following

reasons.

1. Origen, in his Hexapla, was accustomed to correct the Greek versions of the Old Testament by the Hebrew original; but he virtually confesses that he had none such by which he could correct the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel. See his own words, Tom. III. 671, edit. Delarue, or Marsh's citation and explanation of their meaning, in his Notes on Michaelis, Vol. III. p. 114, 115.

2. Origen expressly cites " a certain Gospel, according to the Hebrews, if any one, (says he) chuses to receive it, not as of authority, but for illustration of the present question: "A certain rich man," says that Gospel," said to him, Master, what good thing shall I do, and live? He said unto him, Man, keep the law and the prophets. He answered him, I have done so.

This derives additional weight even from the incorrect reports of Eutychius and Theophylact; that Matthew wrote his Hebrew Gospel at Jerusalem, which John the Evangelist translated into Greek. Matthew probably wrote first indeed in Greek, and afterwards translated into Hebrew himself.

He said unto him, Go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it displeased him. And the Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have kept the law and the prophets? seeing it is written in the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and behold many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clothed with filthy rags, dying for hunger, whilst thy house is filled with many good things, and nothing of it goes out of it unto them. And turning about he said to his disciple Simon, who was sitting by him, Simon son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." See the original, Lardner, Vol. II. p. 505.

Who does not see that this is an incongruous parody of the genuine Gospel, Matt. xix. 16-24, and a medley of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 20-25, with some detached texts of Scripture interspersed, which are irrelevant: For," thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is but a bad substitute for " If thou desirest to be perfect." The question being now, not about the observance of the moral commandments, but about Christian perfection, to which the young man aspired. Michaelis has mistaken this: and also asserted, without foundation, that "Jerom was inclined to believe that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, was the original of Matthew's Gospel." Introduction, Vol. III. p. 137, 138. Jerom believed no such thing; he only stated a current report of the ignorant many :-In evangelio juxta Hebræos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apostolos *, sive ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum, &c. See Marsh's Notes, Vol. III. p. 115, 116.

II. Whether of the twain, Mark or Luke, wrote first, is a matter of more difficult determination.

It was long the received opinion, that the Gospels were written exactly in the order in which they are placed in our Canon, from the testimonies of Irenæus, Origen, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, &c. who so cite the Evangelists. Hence Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Townson, &c. entertained no doubt of the pri

Origen, we have seen before, when speaking of the four canonical Gospels, considered this, according to the twelve Apostles, to be spurious.

ority of Mark's Gospel to Luke's. But later critics have found reason to question the validity of this assumption, Owen, Busching, &c. And the critical penetration of that skilful editor and collator, Griesbach, by an elaborate process, has furnished internal evidence of the priority of Luke's Gospel; shewing that Mark copied both from Matthew and Luke; that his Gospel is a compilation from both; the whole of it being contained in their Gospels, with the exception of about four and twenty verses, which contain facts not recorded by either of his predecessors, but illustrative of the general subject.

To render this investigation more perspicuous to those who have not access to the Commentationes Theologica, Lipsiæ, 1794, Vol. I. p. 374-384, in which Griesbach published it, we shall copy here, from Marsh's Dissertation, p. 14, his Table of the contents of Mark's Gospel, compared with those of Matthew and Luke. The middle column contains the whole of Mark's Gospel: and those to the left and right, the corresponding portions of Matthew's and Luke's.

In the Commentationes Theologica, "this Table is accompanied with Notes, in which the learned and ingenious author endeavours to explain why Mark copied this portion from Matthew, and that portion from Luke; why he sometimes attended to both, and why at other times certain portions of their Gospels were wholly omitted by him;" as we learn from Dr. Marsh, p. 15. And we regret that these notes, or rather the substance of them, was not given in the Dissertation. I shall endeavour, in some measure, to supply the defect.

1. In general, it appears that Mark rather adopted the language of Matthew, but the order of Luke in their joint sections, but neither implicitly.

2. He is usually more circumstantial and correct than they are in the relation of joint facts. Compare, for instances, their accounts of the death of John the Baptist with his, Mark vi. 17-29. His masterly description of the storm on the lake of Galilee, quelled by CHRIST, iv. 36-41; his account of the barren fig-tree cursed, and of the temple purged, xi. 12—26, in which he has judiciously separated those two transactions, as happening on two successive days, which Matthew had concisely blended together, on the day of OUR LORD's triumphal entrance. In the joint parable of the vineyard, he has critically corrected a verbal inaccuracy of Matthew, wovžev Anvov, “he dug a wine-press,” Matt. xxi. 23, into wρužev úñoλnviov, “he dug a wine-vat," Mark xii. 1. It being the usage, in hot countries, in order to prevent too great a fermentation, and souring of the must, or new wine, that issues from the press, to dig a vat for its reception under ground, lined with mason's work, or hewn

out of a rock, for coolness; as remarked in Michaelis's Introduction, Vol. III. p. 157, from Lowth's Isaiah, v. 1. Note. And in the conclusion of the parable, the sentence against the rebellious tenants, “He will miserably destroy them, and let out the vineyard to others, which Matthew has put in the mouths of the chief priests and elders, xxi. 41*, is restored by Mark to its true owner, CHRIST, xii. 9, while Luke has recorded their true answer, perceiving the drift of the parable against themselves, "God forbid!" xx. 16. Matthew's expression, therefore, Aɛyovσiv avтy, “they say unto him," must be rejected as an interpolation, injurious to the sense, upon their joint authority, and yet to its genuineness, all the ancient versions, all the printed editions, and all the ancient manuscripts, with the single exception of the Codex Leicestrensis, bear witness. We must, therefore, either suppose it to be an inaccuracy of the Evangelist himself, or rather, that it glided into some of the earliest transcripts of his autograph, or original copy.

In their joint accounts of blind Bartimeus restored to sight, he follows Luke, in preference to Matthew, who notices two blind men; while he follows the order of Matthew in preference to that of Luke, in representing the miracle as having been performed after our Lord left Jericho in his way to Jerusalem, Matt. xx. 29, 30, Mark x. 46, which Luke had represented as before his entrance into Jericho, Luke xviii. 35, xix. 1; and yet Luke himself allows that CHRIST at the time was attended by a "multitude," (collected, we may suppose, at Jericho,) Luke xviii. 36-39. Whereas, Matthew and Mark both agree that he came to Jericho, attended only by the twelve. Here, therefore, Mark has receded from Matthew in one point, and corrected Luke in another, and noticed the leading blind man's name, omitted by both.

3. Indeed, to the accurate fidelity of this well informed Evangelist, Mark, we owe several important facts and illustrations, omitted by his predecessors. Thus, he alone mentions that CHRIST was with the wild beasts in the wilderness during his temptation, i. 13. That additional circumstance in our Lord's first preaching," the time is fulfilled," foretold by the prophets, i. 15. David's eating the shew bread in the days of

• Michaelis, upon his hypothesis, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, supposes that his Greek translator mistook ), “And he said," for ", " And they said," p. 158, but he does not depend upon it, and the account in the text seems preferable.