(Cleopas, according to Luke, was one of them, on the way to Emmaus). 14. Then to the eleven, whom he commissions to "preach the Gospel to every creature," and to whom he promises miraculous attestations. 19. Then he is "received up into heaven;" and they go forth everywhere preaching, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

Such is a simple abstract of the history of Christ's public life and ministry, as recorded by Mark. By this account of the matter, our Lord's personal labours would seem to have been confined chiefly to Galilee, while reaching the other side of the Lake eastward, Cæsarea Philippi northward, and the neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon westward,—until his fatal journey to Jerusalem at the last passover. We shall afterwards find, however, that he was present at Jerusalem at other Jewish festivals (probably at each as it occurred during his short public ministry), returning thence to Galilee. Whatever may be the cause, Mark confines his history (as Matthew and Luke also do theirs) to the transactions in Galilee and the neighbourhood, until that last journey to Jerusalem. John's Gospel alone supplies the incidents at Jerusalem at the previous festivals.

As regards that part of our Lord's ministry which was transacted in Galilee, Matthew and Luke will be found to add many things omitted, and to enlarge upon things briefly mentioned, in Mark. Most particularly, they give a large additional store of our Lord's parables

without a conclusion, and very inconsistent with the orderly method observed in the introduction of this Gospel, which opens with an appropriate title: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." The last twelve verses form, in fact, a most appropriate and regular ending; the little repetition (in the 9th verse) of part of what had been said in the first, being no more than is easily explained if we suppose this conclusion to have been the author's own rapid summary of the Gospel history after the resurrection of Jesus.

and other instructions. It cannot fail to be observed, however, that they often materially vary from the order in which Mark has related certain incidents common to them all. And the order again varies often between Matthew and Luke. Nor is this surprising, nor really important. Whether certain instructions were given by Christ before or after certain others,-whether a miracle upon a blind man preceded or followed, by a few weeks or months, one performed upon a paralytic,—is of no religious importance. One can imagine Peter, and the other apostles in like manner, storing up each incident and each parable, and repeating them very carefully to other disciples again and again, while comparatively negligent of their exact order of time, and presently forgetful of it. The only misfortune is, when readers demand from these writers, or ascribe to them, an infallibility of chronological memory, which they do not exhibit nor profess; and when, finding the three or four assumed infallible memories to be inconsistent with each other in point of fact, they are weakly apprehensive for the credit of Christianity, thus staked upon a fiction of their own false reverence. Any Harmony of the Gospels will shew the real state of the case, in the frequent transpositions which it has been found necessary to make of portions of each Gospel, in order to bring side by side such portions as are parallel to each other.

I shall now analyze the other Gospels in turn, to see how they severally enlarge the materials thus far presented by Mark; and shall preface each, as I have done his, by a biographical notice of the author. And, without disparaging the meritorious labours of the Harmonists, who have endeavoured, often with considerable success, to reconcile together, by various allowable suppositions, the seeming discrepancies of statement in the different writers, I may hope the plan here adopted may,

in its turn, help to give a distinct view both of the harmony and the discrepancy, by presenting a clear outline of the Gospel incidents themselves, and of the varied order and different degrees of fulness with which they are narrated by the different evangelists.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

It is by no means clear whether Matthew's or Luke's Gospel was the earlier written; nor, indeed, that Mark's was the earliest of the three. Considering them all to have been produced about the same time, and independently of each other, we are endeavouring merely to adopt that order of perusal which will leave the clearest impression of their respective contents. With this view, we have first analyzed Mark's, the shortest, simplest, and perhaps earliest of the three. It is of little or no importance whether we take Matthew's or Luke's next. But Matthew's has a special claim to precedence, in the fact that he was an apostle of Christ, and an eye-witness, therefore, of most of the events recorded by him;-at least, of those occurring after his ninth chapter, where his own call to the apostleship is narrated; and no doubt also of many things preceding his call, and his mingling in which may have led to it and justified it. The fact of his apostleship disposes some Harmonists to prefer his order of events to that of Mark or Luke, where they differ. Yet it is thought, on the other hand, that Matthew has, in several instances, brought together into one passage discourses or events properly belonging to several occasions, through their similarity of character. These are questions of accuracy of memory on the part of the several evangelists, on which we may well despair

of deciding between Matthew and Peter (as represented by Mark), or the unknown testimonies appealed to by Luke.

Matthew gives the following account of his own call to the apostleship:

"And as Jesus passed forth from thence (Capernaum?), he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners (tribute-takers and Gentiles) came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. ix. 9—13).

In Mark (ii. 13—17) and Luke (v. 27—32), there is evidently the same history; but, instead of Matthew being its subject, we are surprised and perplexed to find that the person in question is named Levi. Mark calls him "Levi the son of Alpheus," and also specifies that he was receiving custom near the sea-side,—that is, the side of the Lake of Galilee. He was one of the Roman publicans, or tribute-collectors, though himself a native Jew; and it is probable that he was collecting a toll upon passengers and merchandize crossing the Lake.

But was Matthew the same person as Levi? Or were they two publicans, both called at the same time? And if two different persons, both called by Christ, did they both become apostles, or was Levi merely a disciple? And why does Matthew mention his own call merely, without alluding to Levi; while Mark and Luke mention only Levi, without a word about Matthew?

It is a curious and perplexing question of personal

identities, and both sides of the question have had their advocates from the most ancient times to the present.

Perhaps the most common opinion is, that Levi was only a surname for Matthew, the apostle and evangelist. But how is it, then, that Mark and Luke, who call him Levi on this occasion, call him Matthew in their lists of the apostles? (Mark iii. 18, and Luke vi. 15; also Acts i. 13). The passages now enumerated are absolutely all in which either Matthew or Levi is mentioned, and we must be content to leave the matter in some doubt. But the patronymic given to Levi by Mark, of "son of Alpheus," seems to shew that Levi was not Matthew. For, in all the lists of the apostles, we have "James the son of Alpheus," also known as James the Less, or the younger (Mark xv. 40), to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee; and Paul further designates this James the son of Alpheus, "James the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 19). Then again, in the lists of the apostles, there is a Judas, the brother of this James, the “Judas not Iscariot" (John xiv. 22),—the Jude whose Epistle stands among the New-Testament Scriptures. And these two names, James and Jude, are also enumerated among the "brethren" of Jesus by Matthew (xiii. 55, 56): "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas?" (See also Mark vi. 3.) Now, if Matthew was the same as Levi the son of Alpheus, he must have been one of the Lord's "brethren" (whatever degree of relationship we understand to be implied in that term). But he is not mentioned among them, though four brothers are mentioned by name. Nor is there any hint of Matthew's sustaining such a relationship; while, in all the three lists of the apostles (which I shall now give side by side), James is expressly described as son of Alpheus, and Judas is called his brother