3. Another hypothesis makes this book to have been | Christian churches in Asia; and, secondly, and principally, written before the time of Domitian, and before the Jewish to reveal to him "the things which shall be hereafter," or war; but it does not determine whether it was in the reign the constitution and fates of the Christian church, through of Claudius, or in that of Nero. its several periods of propagation, corruption, and amend ment, from its beginning to its consummation in glory. "The prophecy of the Revelation," says Daubuz, was designed as a standing monument to the church, to know what destinies attend it; and that, when men should suffer for the name of Christ, they might here find some consolation both for themselves and for the church-for themselves, by the prospect and certainty of a reward;-for the church, by the testimony that Christ never forsakes it, but will conquer at last.' 4. The most probable and generally received opinion is, that John was banished into Patmos towards the end of Domitian's reign, by virtue of his edicts for persecuting the Christians; and that he had the Revelations contained in the Apocalypse during his exile; though the book itself could not have been published until after the apostle's release and return to Ephesus. The unanimous voice of Christian antiquity attests that John was banished by the order of Domitian. Irenæus, Origen, and other early fathers, refer the apostle's exile to the latter part of Domitian's reign, and they concur in saying that he there received the Revelations described in the Apocalypse. Internal evidence likewise supports this conclusion. For, in the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, the seven Asiatic churches are described as being in that advanced and flourishing state of society and discipline, and to have undergone those changes in their faith and morals, which could not have taken place if they had not been planted for a considerable time. Thus, the church of Ephesus is censured for having left "her first love." That of Sardis "had a name to live, but was dead." The church of Laodicea had fallen into lukewarmness and indifference. Now the church of Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudian's reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A. D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith. (Eph. i. 15.) Further, it appears from the Revelation that the Nicolaitans formed a sect when this book was written, since they are expressly named: whereas they were only foretold in general terms by Saint Peter in his second Epistle, written A. D. 65, and in Saint Jude's Epistle, which was written about A. D. 65 or 66. It is also evident, from various passages of the Revelation, that there had been an open persecution in the provinces. John himself had been banished into Patmos for the testimony of Jesus. The church of Ephesus (or its bishop) is commended for its "labour and patience," which seems to imply persecution. This is still more evident in the following address to the church of Smyrna (Rev. ii. 9.),-" I know thy works and tribulation," : which last word always denotes persecution in the New Testament, and is so explained in the following verse. V. The Apocalypse, therefore, consists of two principal divisions or parts; viz. After the title of the book. (i. 1—3.) PART I. contains à soi, the "things which are;" that is, the then present state of the church. SECT. 1. The Epistle of John to the seven churches, and his account of the appearance of the Lord Jesus with the syn bols of his power, together with the commission given by him to the apostle, to write what he beholds. (i. 9—20.) SECT. 2. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Ephesus (ii. 1-7.) SECT. 3. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Smyrna. (ii. 8-11.) SECT. 4. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Pergames. (ii. 12-17.) SECT. 5. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Thyatira. (ii. 18-29.) SECT. 6. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Sardis, (ii 1-6.) SECT. 7. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Philadel phia. (iii. 7-13.) SECT. 8. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Laodicea, (iii. 14-22.) The seven churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, to which these Epistles were addressed, are supposed to have been planted by the apostle Paul and his assistants during their ministry. They lie nearly in an an phitheatre, and are addressed according to their geographical positions Vitringa and other eminent commentators have supposed that the seve Epistles to the Apocalyptic churches are prophetical of so many successive periods and states of the church, from the beginning of Christianity to the consummation of all things. But for this opinion, Bishop Newton thinks, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence and it is in fact contradicted by the book of Revelation itself; for the last state of the church is here Lastly, In Rev. ii. 13. mention is made of a martyr named described as the most glorious of all, but in the last of these Epistles, that of Laodicea, the church is represented as "wretched and miserable, Antipas, who was put to death at Pergamos. Though and poor, and blind, and naked." But though these Epistles have rather ancient ecclesiastical history gives us no information con- a literal than a mystical meaning, yet they contain excellent precepts and cerning this Antipas, yet it is certain, according to all the exhortations, commendations and reproofs, promises and threatenings, which are calculated to afford instruction to the universal church of Christ rules of language, that what is here said is to be understood at all times. Some churches," Dr. Hales remarks, like those of Sardis, literally, and not mystically, as some expositors have ex-Thyatira, and Laodicea, are lukewarm and greatly corrupted; others in a plained it. Since, therefore, the persecution, mentioned in mixed state, as those of Ephesus and Pergamos; and some still rich, or rather flourishing, and have not denied the faith of Christ, as Smyrna and the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, cannot relate to Philadelphia. And the admonitions addressed to them-1. To repent and the time of Claudius, who did not persecute the Christians, reform their ways;-2. To reject faise apostles and corrupt doctrines:nor to the time of Nero, whose persecution did not reach the 3. To retain their patience and steadfastness in the faith;-4. Under the penalty of having their 'lamps removed,' or their established churches provinces, it must necessarily be referred to Domitian, ac- extinguished-are equally addressed to all. He that hath an ear, let him cording to ecclesiastical tradition.1 hear what the Spirit saith to the churches' in general." (Rev. ii. 29. iii. 22.) PART II. contains a Prophecy of as μore you do, “the things which shall be hereafter," or the Future State of the Church through succeeding ages, from the time when the apostle beheld the apocalyptic visions to the Grand Consummation of all things. Domitian's death is related to have happened in September, A. D. 96. The Christian exiles were then liberated, and John was permitted to return to Ephesus. As, however, the emperor's decease, and the permission to return, could not be known in Asia immediately, some time must intervene before the apostle could be at liberty either to write the Apocalypse at Ephesus, or to send it by messengers from Patmos. We conclude, therefore, with Dr. Mill, Le Clerc, Basnage, Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, and other eminent critics, in placing the Apocalypse in the year 96 or 97.3 IV. The OCCASION of writing the Apocalypse is sufficiently evident from the book itself. John, being in exile in the island of Patmos, is favoured with the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ to him, and is repeatedly commanded to commit to writing the visions which he beheld. (See Rev. i. 11. 19. ii. 1. 8. 12. 18. iii. 1. 7. 14. xiv. 13. xix. 9. and xxi. 5.) The SCOPE or design of this book is twofold; first, generally to make known to the apostle "the things which are" (i. 19.), that is, the then present state of the 1 Beausobre et L'Enfant, Préface sur l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean, pp. 613, 614. From the expression in Rev. i. 9. "I was in the Isle of Patmos," Dr. Woodhouse is of opinion that there seems to be internal evidence that the Revelation was written after Saint John had left Patmos. 3 Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 518-528. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 633-639.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 450-453. Dr. Woodhouse's Dissertation, pp. 6-25. Pritii Introd. Nov. Test. pp. 126-132. SECT. 1. The representation of the divine glory in heaven. (iv.) SECT. 3. The opening of the first six seals. (vi.) SECT. 5. The opening of the seventh seal, and the first six i. The opening of the seventh seal, and the commission to the angel with the seven trumpets. (viii. 1–5.) Sii. The first four trumpets (viii. 6-12.), and the denunciation of the three woes. (13.) $ii. The fifth trumpet and the first wọ. (ix. 1—12.) § iv. The sixth trumpet and the second wo. (ix. 13-21.) § v. The first prophetical vision of the open little book, representing the different states of the Christian church to the end of the sixth trumpet, -the measuring of the temple, and the two witnesses. (x. 1-11. xi. 1-14.) An account of the above-mentioned cities is given in the Historical and Geographical Index, in Vol. II. of the present work. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. p. 1294. Bishop Newton's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 167. ON THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN THE DIVINE. 383 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. i. The Lamb on Mount Sion. (xiv. 1-5.) Sii. The first angel proclaims. (xiv. 6, 7.) iii. The second angel proclaims. (xiv. 8.) § iv. The third angel proclaims. (xiv. 9-12.) the Apocalypse with those of former revelations; and admit only 1. Compare the language, the symbols, and the predictions of such interpretation as shall appear to have the sanction of this divine authority. 2. Unless the language and symbols of the Apocalypse should in particular passages direct, or evidently require, another mode of application, the predictions are to be applied to the progressive Sv. 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.) 3. The kingdom which is the subject of this prophetic book is 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. $i. The vision preparatory to the seven vials. (xv. xvi. 1.) ii. The pouring out of the seven vials. (xvi. 2—21.) § iii. The great harlot, or Babylon. (xvii.) $iv. The judgment of Babylon continued. (xviii.) Sv. Exultation in heaven over the fallen Babylon, and upon the approach of the New Jerusalem. (xix. 1-10.) SECT. 9. contains the grand conflict, the millennium, the conflict renewed, the judgment, and the new creation. (xix. 11-18.) § i. The appearance of the Lord with his followers, for battle and victory. Sii. The conflict and victory over the beast and false prophet. (xix. 19-21.) § iii. Satan bound, and the millennium. (xx. 1-6.) iv. Satan loosed, deceives the nations, and is cast into the burning lake. (xx. 7-10.) § v. The general resurrection and final judgment. (xx. 11—15.) world" (John xviii. 36.), not established by the means and ap- SECT. 10. Description of the new Jerusalem. (xxi. xxii. 1—5.) prophecies which remain to be fulfilled.2 4. We are not to attempt the particular explanation of those VI. No book has been more commented upon, or has given rise to a greater variety of interpretations, than the Apocalypse, which has ever been accounted the most difficult portion of the New Testament. The figurative language in which the visions are delivered; the variety of symbols under which the events are presignified; the extent of the prophetical information, which appears to pervade all ages of the Christian church, afford little hope of its perfect elucidation, till a further process of time shall have ripened more of the events foretold in it, and have given safer scope to investigation. Referring the reader, therefore, to the works of Mede, Daubuz, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishops Newton and Hurd, Lowman, Faber, Dr. Hales, and others, who have attempted to illustrate these sublime and mysterious prophecies, and especially to the learned and pious labours of Dr. Woodhouse, we shall conclude this article with the following canons of interpretation, which have been proposed by the last-men 1 Brit. Crit. vol. xxix. p. 191. Rosenmüller (Scholia, vol. v pp. 614-619.) and Dr. A. Clarke (Preface to the Revelation, pp. i-x.) have given an abstract of various hypotheses relative to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, some of which are sufficiently extravagant. See also Cellerier's Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 497-501. and Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 665-667. still future, yet enough is sufficiently clear to convey to us Although many parts of the Apocalypse are necessarily the most important religious instruction. This book is to obscure to us, because they contain predictions of events us precisely what the prophecies of the Old Testament were to the Jews, nor is it in any degree more inexplicable. "No prophecies in the Revelation can be more clouded with obscurity, than that a child should be born of a pure virginthat a mortal should not see corruption-that a person defor ever on the throne of David. Yet still the pious Jew spised and numbered among malefactors should be established preserved his faith entire amidst all these wonderful, and, in appearance, contradictory intimations. He looked into the holy books in which they were contained, with reverence; and with an eye of patient expectation waited for the consolation of Israel. We, in the same manner, look up to these prophecies of the Apocalypse, for the full consummation of the great scheme of the Gospel; when ChrisWorld, and be universally established in its utmost purity." tianity shall finally prevail over all the corruptions of the the observations in Vol. I. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 1. are applicable to the 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, über 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, Rupert'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. Ammon 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 778, 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. vol 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 hypotheses, all of which differ as to the point which was the original abridgers, the opinion which they respectively are designed to advocate is contradicted by the following weighty consi writer, and which of the evangelists were copyists or derations: others, when their narratives were known, they could not have 1. They could have no motive for copying from each other been so absurd as to repeat what had been already rightly told "For, as each acknowledged the authority and veracity of the 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 but in different words, what another had sufficiently told, might his predecessors had happened to omit. To repeat in substance, have been practised by writers who valued themselves upon their peculiar style of expression, or their own mode of compilation. But to supersede, and to introduce them in the very same manner, is an idle and superfluous task, which no man in his senses would to copy the very words of ancther, whose account we do not mean 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 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, That what one wrote others had told, and each precisely in the 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 substantially, but almost verbally. The exact and literal truth, without alteration or embellishment, was equally delivered by who wrote from the testimony of such witnesses, agreed, not only images will be the same in form, at the first or second reflection "12 them; ; as when several perfect mirrors reflect the same object, the courses were ever so situated. No other men ever had such Ruperti's, and Velthusen's Commentationes Theologica, tom. iii. pp. 140. other words, I make it my own, and become responsible, as a second wit 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. 6. In some of the histories recorded by all these three evan gelists, there are small varieties and differences, which plainly show the same thing. 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, when 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 eyerequired 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 dishonourable to the evangelists, that I think no sincere Christian could be induced to make it. It is this. That they copied, indeed, 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 Christtan 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 fast, supplying some things which had been omitted by the former evangelists.' To mention no others, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,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 evangelists, 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 com pare 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 transf 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. 1–9. with Mark ix. 14-29. and Luke ix. 37-42.) In each of the ac counts here cited, the agreeing circumstances which are discovers ble in them, clearly prove that it is the same history, but there are also several differences equally evident in them. Whoever, thers fore, 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. 12. 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 Mark10 and Luke, as we have already seen, have many similar things, so that it is needless to adduce any additional instances. 9. Lastly, Dr. Mill 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 allows12 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, it is manifest, from his introduction, that he knew not of any authen-critics have attempted to explain the verbal harmony ob 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. III. The SECOND hypothesis, by which some distinguished servable in the first three Gospels, is that which derives them from some COMMON GREEK or HEBREW DOCUMENT OF source, which occasioned the evangelists so frequently to adopt the same terms and forms of expression. Le Clere was the first writer to whom this idea occurred; and after it had lain dormant upwards of sixty years, it was revived and 4. It is evident from the nature and design of the first three advocated by Koppe,15 and has been modified in various Gospels, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic writ-ways by subsequent writers, so that (as it has been severely ten 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 Works, 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 226, 227.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 369. a Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 314, 315.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 418. Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 511, 512.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 529. Ibid. 8vo. vol. v. p. 93.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 583. See p. 304. of this volume. See pp. 306, 307. of this volume. See p. 311. supra. but not unjustly remarked) "hypothesis has been knocked 10 See p. 306. supra, of this volume. 11 See p. 311. note 6. supra, of this volume. 13 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 lxiv. § xi. pp. 429, 430. 1 In his dissertation entitled Marcus non Epitomator Matthæi. See Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge, tom. i. pp. 65-69. 1 British Critic and Theol. Review, vol. ii. po. 351. |