:

and hated him.

(4.) Much stress has been laid on the supposed difficulty of reconciling the genealogies of Christ, as recorded by Matthew and Luke; but the different designs with which those evangelists composed their respective Gospels completely solve this apparent difficulty: which has been considered and explained in

the first volume of this work.

(3.) It is said to be a circumstance scarcely credible, that | tius, the only apostolical father who had occasion to refer to "when Herod had heard these things" (the arrival of the Magi, them. Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexan&c.)," he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Now dria, who all flourished in the second century, have referred this circumstance is so far from being incredible, that it is pre- to them as also have Irenæus and all the fathers who imcisely what we should expect from the well known sanguinary mediately succeeded him, and whose testimony is undisputed. and jealous character of Herod, who had caused the death of his Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, the most acute and inveterate wife, his children, and the greater part of his family, not to men- enemies of the Gospel, in the second, third, and fourth cention numbers of his subjects who fell victims to his savage turies, likewise admitted them. "Thus, we have one conjealousy so that the Jews, especially the Pharisees, dreaded tinued and unbroken series of testimony," of Christians as well as of persons inimical to the Christian faith," from the days of the apostles to the present time; and in opposition to this we find only a vague report of the state of a Hebrew copy of Matthew's Gospel, said to be received amongst an obscure and unrecognised description of Hebrew Christians, who are admitted even by the very writers who claim the support of their authenticity, to have mutilated the copy which they possessed, by removing the genealogy."2 and Eusebius in testifying that Matthew wrote his Gospel VII. The voice of antiquity accords with Irenæus, Origen, in Judæa for the Jewish nation, while the church consisted wholly of the circumcision, that is, of Jewish and Samaritan believers, but principally Jewish; and that he wrote it primarily for their use, with a view to confirm those who believed, and to convert those who believed not, we have, besides historical facts, very strong presumptions from the book itself. Every circumstance is carefully pointed out, which might conciliate the faith of that nation; and every unnecessary expression is avoided, that might in any way tend to obstruct it. To illustrate this remark by a few particulars :-There was no sentiment relating to the Messiah, with which the Jews were more strongly possessed, than that he must be of the race of Abraham, and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jesus; which, agreeably to the Jewish custom, he gives according to his legal descent by Joseph his supposed father, deducing it from Abraham through David to show his title to the kingdom of Israel.

(5.) The slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem is further objected against the authenticity of the second chapter of Matthew, because that event is not mentioned by any writer but by the "supposed Matthew, and by those who quote from him.". The credibility of this event, and consequently the authenticity of the evangelist, has likewise been established in the same volume.

(6.) It is alleged that there are in these two chapters several prophecies cited as being fulfilled, but which cannot easily be made to correspond with the events by which they are declared to be accomplished. A little attention, however, to the Hebrew modes of quoting the prophecies will show the fallacy of this objection. For Isa. vii. 14. cited in Matt. i. 23., and Micah v. 2. cited in Matt. ii. 6., are prophecies quoted as being literally accomplished; and Jer. xxxi. 15. cited in Matt. ii. 17., and Hos. xi. 1. cited in Matt. ii. 15., are passages from those prophets applied to similar facts, introduced with the usual formulas of Jewish writers, That it might be fulfilled, and Then was fulfilled. Lastly, It is said that the flight of Joseph with Mary and Jesus into Egypt is inexplicable; that it could not be from Bethlehem, for Luke expressly says that they continued there forty days (ii. 22.), at the expiration of which he was carried to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord, and afterwards was taken to Nazareth (39.): and that the flight from this latter place was altogether unnecessary, because the slaughter did not extend so far. A little attention, however, to the different orders pursued by the evangelists in their Gospels, will remove this seeming objection; and the different narratives concerning our Lord's infancy, given us by Matthew and Luke, will appear very consistent, if we only suppose that, immediately after the transactions in the temple, Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth, as Luke says, but only to settle their affairs there, and soon after returned to Bethlehem, where the report of the shepherds, and the favour able impressions it had made on the inhabitants (see Luke ii. 17, 18.), would suggest many cogent motives to fix their abode. There they might have dwelt many months before the arrival of the wise men related by Matthew: for the order issued by Herod for the slaughter of the children, in consequence of the diligent inquiry he had made of the Magi concerning the time when the star appeared, affords us ground to conclude, that a considerable time had intervened between the birth of the child, or the appearance of the star (supposing them to coincide), and the coming of the wise men. It is also worthy of observation, that on Joseph's return from Egypt, his first intention seems to have been to go into Judæa (see Matt. ii. 22.); but, through fear of Archelaus, and by divine direction, he fixed at Nazareth, the place of his first abode. There he and his family were at the time of the only event of our Lord's childhood which Luke has recorded, and therefore it was not to his purpose to take notice of any removal or other place of abode.

To sum up the evidence upon this question, the importance of which must apologize for the length of the preceding discussion:-The commencement of the third chapter of Saint | Matthew's Gospel shows that something had preceded, analogous to what we read in chap. ii. All the ancient manuscripts now extant, as well as all the ancient versions (two of which are of apostolical antiquity), contain the two first chapters. They are found in a genuine epistle of Igna

men and their worshipping of the infant Jesus are discussed in Mr. Franks's Hulsean Prize Dissertation on the Magi, Svo. 1814.; and the objections of Professor Schleiermacher are satisfactorily refuted in the British Critic and Theological Review, vol. ii. pp. 395, 386.

1 Dr. Priestley's Notes on the Bible, vol. iii. p. 31. See also Lightfoot's, Doddridge's, and Macknight's Parmonies on Mitt ii. and Cellèrier's Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 334- 337.

That he should be born at Bethlehem in Judæa was another circumstance in which the learned among the Jews were universally agreed; accordingly, this historian has also taken the first opportunity to mention his birth in that town, together with some very memorable circumstances that attended it. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, which either foretell any thing that should happen to the Messiah, or admit of an allusive application to him, or were in that age generally understood to be applicable to events which respect the Messiah, are never passed over in silence by this evangelist. To the Jews who were convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, the fulfilment of prophecy was always strong evidence: accordingly, neither of the evangelists has been more careful than Matthew that no evidence of this kind should be overlooked.

Further, this evangelist very frequently refers to Jewish customs, and relates most of our Saviour's discourses against the errors and superstitions of the Jews, whose most considerable objections he answers. How admirably his Gospel was adapted to that people, will appear from the followsider the letter of the law as the complete rule and measure ing considerations: "The Jews were much disposed to conof moral duty; to place religion in the observance of rites and ceremonies, or in a strict adherence to some favourite precepts, written or traditionary; to ascribe to themselves sufficient power of doing the divine will without the divine assistance; and, vain of a civil or legal righteousness, to contemn all others, and esteem themselves so just that they needed no repentance, nor any expiation but what the law provided. They rested in the covenant of circumcision and their descent from Abraham as a sure title to salvation, whatever lives they led; and though they looked for a Messiah, yet with so little idea of an atonement for sin to be made by his death, that the cross proved the great stumbling-block to them. They expected him to appear with outward splendour, as the dispenser of temporal felicity: the chief blessings of which were to redound to their own nation in an earthly Canaan, and in conquest and dominion over the rest of mankind. A tincture of these delusive notions, which they had imbibed by education and the doctrine of their elders, would be apt to remain with too many, even after their admission into the church of Christ. How necessary

2 Archbp. Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. p. 447. Irenæus adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. I. Eusebius, Eecl. Hist. lib. v. c. 8. Origenis Exposit. in Matt. apud Euseb. lib. vi. c. 25.

Dr. Campbell's Translation of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 18. Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 121-137.

these, his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his master to the cavils of his adversaries." He is the only evangelist who has given us an account of our Lord's description of the process of the general judgment; and his relation of that momentous event is awfully impressive.

SECTION III.

ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT MARK.

I. Title.-II. Author.-III. Genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel.—IV. Probable date.—V. Occasion and scope. -VI. In what language written.-VII. Synopsis of its contents.-VIII. Examination of the question, whether Mark transcribed or abridged the Gospel of Matthew.-IX. Observations on his style.

λιον,

is not mentioned by Eusebius or any other ancient writer and is contradicted by Jerome, whose expressions seem imply that he died a natural death.

III. That Mark was the author of the Gospel which bears his name, is proved by the unanimous testimony of ancient Christians, particularly Papias, by several ancient writers of the first century consulted by Eusebius, by Justin Martyr, Tatian,' Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,10 Ammonius, Origen, 12 and by all the fathers of the third and following centuries.13 Though not cited by name, this Gospel appears to have been alluded to by Clement of Rome in the first century; but the testimony of antiquity is not equally uniform concerning the order in which it should be placed. Clement of Alexandria affirms that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written according to this account, Mark wrote after Luke; but Papias, on the information of John the Presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles, expressly states that it was the second in order; and with him agree Irenæus and other writers. Satisfactory as is the testimony, to the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospel of Mark, generally, some critics have thought that the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapI. THE TITLE of the Gospel by Saint Mark is, in the Vati- ter were not written by the evangelist.15 The following is a can manuscript, x1тa Maxov, according to Mark. In the Alex- concise statement of the question. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, andrian MS., the Codex Beza, the Codex Regius, 62 (for- in Cappadocia, has said in his second discourse on the resurmerly 2862, Stephani »), and some other editions, it is Trection, that this Gospel terminates in the more correct copies xxтa Mapacy Evezzar, the Gospel according to Mark; and in with the words or gap, for they were afraid: and Jerome some manuscripts and editions, To naтa Maрnov aysor Evay has observed,16 that few of the Greek MSS. which he had the Holy Gospel according to Mark, or (as in the author- seen, contained these verses. But the very concise affirmaized English version), the Gospel according to Saint Mark.2 tion of Jerome is greatly restricted by what he had himself In the Syriac version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, it is said of a various reading in the fourteenth verse, viz. that it entitled The Gospel of the Evangelist Mark ;" in the Ara- is found in quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime Græcis codibic version, "The Gospel of St. Mark the Apostle, which he cibus. It is evident, therefore, that, in the former passage, wrote in the Roman [tongue] by the inspiration of the Spirit he has exaggerated,-which is no unusual occurrence with of Holiness;" and in the Persian version, "The beginning this writer. With regard to the assertion of Gregory, at this of the Gospel of Mark, which was written at Rome, in the distance of time it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine Latin tongue." what he meant by the most exact manuscripts. Perhaps he II. This evangelist was not an apostle, or companion of intended MSS. more correctly written, but this merit alone Jesus Christ during his ministry, though Epiphanius and would add nothing to their authority; nor can we now ascerseveral other fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy dis-tain the recension to which they belonged. We must, thereciples. All that we learn from the New Testament concern-fore, examine the evidences which actually exist. The verses ing him is, that he was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col. iv. in question are certainly wanting in the Vatican.manuscripts; 10.), and the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at and in Nos. 137. and 138. of Griesbach's notation they are whose house the apostles and first Christians often as- marked with an asterisk; they are also wanting in the canons sembled. (Acts xii. 12.) His Hebrew name was John, and of Eusebius: but, on the other hand, their authenticity is Michaelis thinks, that he adopted the surname of Mark when attested by authorities of the greatest importance. These he left Judæa to preach the Gospel in foreign countries,-averses are extant in the Codex Alexandrinus; the most conpractice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who fre- siderable portion of the disputed passage (that is, the seven quently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which first verses) is in the Codex Bezæ, à primâ manu, but the they visited than by that which they had been distinguished remainder has been added by a later hand, and they are exin their own country. From Peter's styling him his son tant in the Greek commentaries of Theophylact. The whole (1 Pet. v. 13.), this evangelist is supposed to have been con- twelve verses are likewise found in the Peschito (or Old verted by Saint Peter; and on his deliverance (A. D. 44, re- Syriac) and Arabic versions, and in those MSS. of the Vulcorded in Acts xii. 12.), Mark went from Jerusalem with gate Latin Version, which are not mutilated at the end Paul and Barnabas, and soon after accompanied them to of the second Gospel; and they are cited by Augustine, other countries as their minister (Acts xiii. 5.); but declining Ambrose, and Leo bishop of Rome (surnamed the Great), to attend them through their whole progress, he returned to who followed this version. But what is of most importance Jerusalem, and kept up an intercourse with Peter and the is, that the manner in which so ancient a writer as Irenæus, other apostles. Afterwards, however, when Paul and Bar- in the second century, refers to this Gospel, renders it highly nabas settled at Antioch on the termination of their journey, probable that the whole passage was read in all the copies we find Mark with them, and disposed to accompany them known to him. His words are these:- -In fine autem Evanin their future journeys. At this time he went with Barna- gelii, ait Marcus: Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus bas to Cyprus (Acts xv. 37-39.); and subsequently accomest eis, receptus est in cœlo, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.17 panied Timothy to Rome, at the express desire of Saint Paul (2 Tim. iv. 11.), during his confinement in that city, whence Mark sent his salutations to Philemon (24.), and to the church at Colosse. (Col. iv. 10.) From Rome he probably went into Asia, where he found Saint Peter, with whom he returned to that city, in which he is supposed to have written and published his Gospel. Such are the outlines of this evangelist's history, as furnished to us by the New Testament. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, we learn that Mark, after he had written his Gospel, went to Egypt; and, having planted a church at Alexandria, Jerome states that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other writers, affirm that Saint Mark suffered martyrdom; but this fact

1 Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 20. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. p. 176. Bishop Cleaver has an excellent Discourse on the Style of Saint Matthew's Gospel in his Sermons on Select Subjects, pp. 189-205.

2 Griesbach, Nov. Test. tom. i. on Mark i. 1.

The verse here quoted is the nineteenth, and the chapter contains only twenty verses. Hippolytus, who wrote in the early part of the third century, also bears testimony in favour of the disputed fragment, in the beginning of this book I Xapoμara. It is further worthy of notice, that there is not a single manuscript containing this verse, which has not also

A. D. 172.

A. D. 178.

A. D. 116. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 109. 112.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 338, 339. Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 33. A. D. 140. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 120.; 4to. vol. i. p. 344. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 138.; 4to. vol. i. p. 354. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 158, 159.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 365, 366. A. D. 194. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 211, 212; 4to. vol. i. p. 395. 10 A. D. 200. Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. pp. 257, 258.; 4to. vol. i. p. 420. 11 A. D. 220. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 414, et seq.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 503, et seq. 19 A. D. 230. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 466, 467.; 4to. vol. i. p. 332. 13 See the later testimonies in Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 87-90.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 179, 180.

14 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 31.; 4to. vol. i. p. 294.

15 Michaelis (Introd. chap. iii. sect. 3. vol. i. pp. 87-97.) has brought for ward some strong objections to the canonical authority of the Gospel of Mark. As his objections apply equally to the Gospel of Luke, the reader is referred to pp. 308, 309. infra; where those objections are considered,

See the passages of these writers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. and (it is hoped) satisfactorily refuted. pp. 82-84.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 176, 177.

1 Quæst. ad Hedib. Quæst. 3. 17 Adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 10. (al. 11.)

IV. Although the genuineness and authenticity of Mark's Gospel are thus satisfactorily ascertained, considerable uncertainty prevails as to the time when it was composed. It is allowed by all the ancient authors that Mark wrote it at Rome; and many of them assert that he was no more than an amanuensis or interpreter to Peter, who dictated this Gospel to him, though others affirm that he wrote it after Peter's death. Hence a variety of dates has been assigned between the years 56 and 65; so that it becomes difficult to determine the precise year when it was written. But as it is evident from the evangelist's own narrative (Mark xvi. 20.), that he did not write until after the apostles had dispersed themselves among the Gentiles, and had preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them and confirming the words with signs following; and as it does not appear that all the apostles quitted Judæa earlier than the year 502 (though several of them laboured among the Gentiles with great success), perhaps we shall approximate nearest to the real date, if we place it between the years 60 and 63.

the whole passage from the eighth to the end: nor is there | xμzra, "riches." Again, the word Gehenna, which in our a single manuscript, in which this verse is wanting, that version is translated hell (ix. 43.), originally signified the does not also want the whole. No authority of equal anti- valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed to Moquity has yet been produced on the other side. It has been loch, and where a continual fire was afterwards maintained conjectured that the difficulty of reconciling Mark's account to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not of our Lord's appearances, after his resurrection, with those have been understood by a foreigner, the evangelist adds the of the other evangelists, has emboldened some transcribers words," unquenchable fire" by way of explanation. These to omit them. The plausibility of this conjecture renders it particularities corroborate the historical evidence above cited, highly probable to which we may subjoin, that the abrupt- that Mark designed his Gospel for the use of Gentile Chrisness of the conclusion of this history, without the words in tians.6 question, and the want of any thing like a reason for adding Lastly, the manner in which Saint Mark relates the life them if they had not been there originally, afford a strong of our Saviour, is an additional evidence that he wrote for collateral proof of their authenticity. Transcribers, Dr. Gentile Christians. His narrative is clear, exact, and conCampbell well remarks, presume to add and alter in order to cise, and his exordium is singular; for while the other remove contradictions, but not in order to make them. The evangelists style our Saviour the "Son of man," Saint Mark conclusion, therefore, is, that the disputed fragment is an announces him at once as the Son of God (i. 1.), an august integral part of the Gospel of Mark, and consequently is title, the more likely to engage the attention of the Romans; genuine. omitting the genealogy of Christ, his miraculous conception, the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, and other particulars, which could not be essentially important in the eyes of foreigners. VI. That this evangelist wrote his Gospel in Greek is attested by the uninterrupted voice of antiquity; nor was this point ever disputed until the cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, and, after them, the Jesuit Inchofer, anxious to exalt the language in which the Latin Vulgate version was executed, affirmed that Mark wrote in Latin. This assertion, however, not only contradicts historical evidence, but (as Michaelis has well observed) is in itself almost incredible: for, as the Latin church, from the very earliest ages of Christianity, was in a very flourishing state, and as the Latin language was diffused over the whole Roman empire, the Latin original of Mark's Gospel, if it had ever existed, could not have been neglected in such a manner as that no copy of it should descend to posterity. The only semblance of testimony, that has been produced in support of this opinion, is the subscription annexed to the old Syriac version, that Mark wrote in the Romish, that is, in the Latin language, and that in the Philoxenian version, which explains Romish by Frankish. But subscriptions of this kind are of no authority whatever: for the authors of them are unknown, and some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides, as the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immediately from the Greek, no appeal can be made to a Syriac subscription in regard to the language in which Mark wrote at Rome. The advocates for the Latin original of this Gospel have appealed to a Latin manuscript pretended to be the autograph of the evangelist himself, and said to be preserved in the library of Saint Mark at Venice. But this is now proved to be a mere fable: for the Venetian manuscript formerly made part of the Latin manuscript preserved at Friuli, most of which was printed by Blanchini in his Evangeliarum Quadruplex. The Venice manuscript contained the first forty pages, or five quaternions of Mark's Gospel; the two last quaternions or sixteen pages are preserved at Prague, where they were printed by M. Dobrowsky, under the title of Fragmentum Pragense Evangelii S. Marci vulgo autographi. 1778. 4to.9

V. Saint Peter having publicly preached the Christian religion at Rome, many who were present entreated Mark, as he had for a long time been that apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter had delivered, that he would commit the particulars to writing. Accordingly, when Mark had finished his Gospel, he delivered it to the persons who made this request. Such is the unanimous testimony of ancient writers, which is further confirmed by internal evidence, derived from the Gospel itself. Thus, the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in every part of it, where any thing is related or might be related of him; his weaknesses and fall being fully exposed to view, while the things which redound to his honour are either slightly touched or wholly concealed. And with regard to Christ, scarcely an action that was done, or word spoken by him, is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and with such minuteness of circumstance as shows that the person who dictated the Gospel had been an eye-witness of the transactions recorded in it.4

From the Hebraisms discoverable in the style of this Gospel, we should readily conclude that its author was by birth and education a Jew: but the numerous Latinisms it contains, not only show that it was composed by a person who had lived among the Latins, but also that it was written beyond the confines of Judæa. That this Gospel was designed principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there were some Jewish converts in the church of Rome) is further evident from the explanations introduced by the evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for Hebrew Christians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, the appellation “river" is added to the name. (Mark i. 5.) Again, as the Romans could not understand the Jewish phrase of "defiled or common hands,” the evangelist adds the parenthetical explanation of "that is, unwashen." (vii. 2.) When he uses the word corban, he subjoins the interpretation, "that is, a gift" (vii. 11.); and instead of the word mammon, he uses the common term 1 Griesbach, Comm. Crit. in Text. Nov. Test. Particula n. p. 199. Dr. Campbell, on the Gospels, note on Mark xvi. (vol. ii. p. 405. 3d edit.) Cel lérier, Introd. au N. T. pp. 344-352. Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 285 2 See Dr. Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility, chap. 7., where this subject is amply discussed. Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 65-77.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 167-173. Clemens Alexandr. apud Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 14. Jerome de Viris Illustribus, cap. viii. Tertulliani Opera, p. 505. edit. Rigaltii. See several instances of this adduced in Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 151-163.

-295.

Several of these Latinisms are specified in Vol. I. p. 29.
VOL. II.
2 Q

VII. The Gospel of Mark consists of sixteen chapters, which may be divided into three parts; viz. PART I. The transactions from the Baptism of Christ to his entering on the more public part of his Ministry. (ch. i. 113.) PART II. The Discourses and Actions of Jesus Christ to his going up to Jerusalem to the fourth and last Passover. (i. 14. -x.)

SECT. 1. The transactions between the first and second pass-
overs. (i. 14-45. ii. 1—22.)

• Dr. Campbell's Pref. to Mark, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83.
Pritii, Introd. ad Lect. Nov. Test. p. 311.

Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 225. See also Jones on the Canon of the New
Test, vol. iii. p. 67-69.

The history of the pretended autograph manuscript of St. Mark is briefly as follows. There was, at Aquileia, a very ancient Latin MS. of the four Gospels; two quaternions or sixteen pages of which the emperor Charles IV. obtained in 1534, from Nicholas, patriarch of Aquileia, and sent them to Prague. The remaining five quaternions the canons of the church at Aquileia, during the troubles which befell that city, carried to Friuli, together with other valuable articles belonging to their church, A. D. 1420. and from the inhabitants of Friuli the Venetian Doge, Tomaso Macenico obtained these five quaternions, which were subsequently passed for the original autograph of St. Mark. (Alber, Hermeneut. Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 238.) There is a particular account of the Prague Fragment of St. Mark's Gospel, by Schoepflin, in the third volume of the Historia et Commentationes Academiæ Electoralis Theodoro-Palatina, 8vo. Manheim, 1773. ; in which a fac-simile is given. The account is abridged, and the fac-simile copied in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1778, vol. xlvi. pp. 321, 322.

The whole difficulty, in reconciling this apparent discrepancy between

the two evangelists, "has arisen from the vain expectation that they must always agree with each other in the most minute and trivial particulars: as if the credibility of our religion rested on such agreement, or any reasonable scheme of inspiration required this exact correspondency. The solution, which Michaelis afterwards offered in his Anmerkungen, affords all the satisfaction which a candid man can desire. After stating that Matthew had said another maid,' Mark 'the maid,' and Luke another man,'

Lastly, Mark's imperfect description of Christ's transac-(ps), he observes, the whole contradiction vanishes at once, if we only tions with the apostles, after his resurrection, affords the 1 Prof. Adler's hypothesisis, that Mark first epitomized the Gospel of Matthew into Greek, omitting those topics which the heathens (for whom he wrote) would not understand; such as the Genealogy, the Discourse delivered on the Mount, the 23d chapter, which was addressed to the Pharisees, some references to the Old Testament, and a few parables. After which he imagines (for the hypothesis is utterly destitute of proof) that the whole was translated into Greek, for the use of the Greek or Hellenistic Jews.