of the ten virgins; and of the talents; and the description of the general judgment; the account of Judas's death; Pilate's washing his hands; his wife's dream; the dead rising out of their graves after the Resurrection; and the history of the guard at the tomb. It is difficult to assign a probable date to this Gospel, as we have to choose between two. The earliest, A.D. 41, eight years after the Ascension; the latest, A.D. 61, when St. Paul first visited Rome. The passage quoted above from Irenæus, is favourable to the later one; and the Evangelist's remarks, that Aceldama is so called unto this day, and that the Jews then believed the report spread by the guard concerning the Saviour's body, suit better this supposition. On the other hand, it does not seem likely that the Apostles should separate before it was written.

The language in which Matthew wrote has been also a subject of discussion. The ancients unanimously declare that it was Hebrew; and Erasmus is the first who argued against their testimony. He has been followed principally by Protestant critics, and Campbell supposes their judgment to have been biassed by party feelings. The Council of Trent having decided in favour of the Vulgate, the then received translation of the Scriptures, the Protestants, who appealed to the original text as the standard, were aware, that the Romanists would retort, that in the instance of Matthew's Gospel, they must depart from their own principles; and he concludes, that to silence this objection, they maintained that the Evangelist wrote in Greek. Modern critics reconcile the two opinions by the supposition, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in both languages, the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for a Hebrew original, and the internal evidence for the Greek. This determination of the discussion is not unreasonable, for it may be supported by the example of Josephus, who wrote his history first in Hebrew, and afterwards

in Greek. Eusebius informs us, that Matthew, when about to leave his country, wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; and we can easily conceive that he was willing to translate it at a subsequent period, for the benefit of Gentile converts. This supposition would reconcile the discordant opinions concerning its date, as the original Hebrew might have been written at the earliest period, the Greek translation at the latest. The disappearance of the Hebrew copy is explained by its being so interpolated and corrupted by the Ebionites, as to lose its authority, as well as by the increasing disuse of the language after the destruction of Jerusalem.

St. Mark is supposed to have been converted by St. Peter, for he calls him his son, (1 Epist. v. 13.) and we know that the appellation is applied in this sense by St. Paul to Timothy, his own son in the faith. (1 Epist. i. 2.) We also read in the Acts (xii. 12.) of Mark the son of Mary, who is generally believed to be the same; and if this opinion be correct, he was the nephew of Barnabas, (Col. iv. 10.) and the frequent fellowlabourer of Paul. It was at her house that the believers were engaged in prayer for Peter when cast into prison; and to them he came on his miraculous liberation. Her son's Hebrew name was John, and he probably assumed the Roman one of Mark, when he left Judæa as a missionary. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas upon their first mission to the Gentiles, but left them abruptly in Pamphylia. He then went with the latter to Cyprus, (Acts xv. 37.) because Paul would not accept of his attendance. Afterwards he was fully reconciled to him, and during his last imprisonment desires Timothy (2 Epist. iv. 11.) to bring him, bearing to him the honourable testimony, he is profitable to me for the ministry. He had been with him before at Rome; for he sends his salutation to Philemon, and the church of Colosse, (iv. 10.) He is said to have founded the church at Alexandria, and to have died there in the eighth year of the reign

of Nero. In his account of our Lord's apprehension in the garden he introduces the fact, the connection of which with it is not apparent, of a young man, veavíoxos, who followed Him, when his disciples had forsaken Him, but who afterwards fled, leaving his linen garment in the hands of the soldiers, veavioxo, who attempted to seize him. Townson supposes that this was the Evangelist himself. The conjecture explains the introduction of the incident; and, if it could be verified, might make him, in part at least, an original witness; but this is not material, since his Gospel may be considered as that of Peter. As the plural number was in popular language used of soldiers, it seems natural to give it this sense in the singular, which would render the conjecture improbable.

Papias, our earliest authority, A. D. 110, informs us, that Mark, being Peter's interpreter, wrote whatever he remembered, but not in the order of time; because he was not himself a follower of our Lord. The reason here assigned for the neglect of chronological error is clearly not a valid one; and the assertion is in my opinion untrue. Jerome tells us, that, being requested by the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard Peter relate, who approved it, and delivered it to be read in the Church; but this is inconsistent with the passage of Irenæus cited already, if we take the exodus or departure of Peter to mean his death, as it does in his own second Epistle. Chrysostom speaks of its being written in Egypt; but the general consent of antiquity, even of the Egyptian writers, decides in favour of Rome; and it has been remarked in corroboration of this opinion, that mentioning Simon the Cyrenian, (xv. 21.) he adds, that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a fact, which would be interesting only where they were known; and we find the name of the latter among those whom Paul salutes in his Epistle to the Romans. Internal evidence confirms the tradition, that Mark wrote under the direction

of St. Peter; for scarcely any action or conversation is mentioned by him, at which that Apostle was not present; his faults and fall are brought into full view, while whatever redounds to his honour is slightly touched, or wholly omitted; less is said of his speedy repentance and bitter tears, than by Matthew and Luke; the benedictions and promises made to him are left out; and it has an introduction of only fifteen verses before it comes to his call.

From the Hebraisms of Mark's style, which is the least classical of any of the inspired authors, we conclude that he was a Jew; and from his Latinisms, that he lived among the Romans. Cardinal Baronius maintains that he wrote in Latin, and that the Greek is a translation; but this opinion derives no support from history; and those who advocate it forget that the Roman Christians were principally Jews, and consequently more conversant with Greek than Latin, and that the former was generally understood by most persons of Gentile extraction, who had had any education. If St. Paul addressed a letter to them in the former language, it was not necessary that Mark should write a Gospel for their use in the latter. The Gospel itself shows that it was written out of Judæa, and for the use of Gentiles; for terms intelligible only to Jews it either avoids or explains; thus instead of Mammon, he uses the common word " riches;" to Jordan, he adds " river;" and to defiled, or common hands," unwashen," (vii. 2.) To Corban, (vii. 11.) he subjoins the interpretation, "that is, a gift." Gehenna, which we translate "hell,” is literally the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been burnt to death in honour of Moloch, and where afterwards a perpetual fire was kept up to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this application of the word would not have been understood by a foreigner, he adds to it, " unquenchable fire.”

From the striking coincidence of Mark's Gospel with that of Matthew, Augustine asserted that he was his epitomizer;

but this hypothesis, contradictory, as we have seen, to the most ancient testimony, though supported by some eminent moderns, is untenable; for Mark deviates from Matthew no less than thirteen times in his arrangement of facts, and has both additions and omissions which it would be difficult to account for on this theory. A mere abridger would also have avoided every appearance of contradiction; but Mark calls Matthew, Levi; speaks (x. 46.) of one blind man, where the other mentions two; and makes Peter twice interrogated by the same maid, (xiv. 69.) instead of once by two, (Matt, xxvi. 71.) According to Matthew, Christ crossed the lake the day after the sermon on the mount; but according to Mark, he then retired to a desert, (Matt. viii. 28–35. Mark i. 35.) His Gospel is, in fact, a critical revision of Matthew's; and as he had paid most attention to the discourses, his own is more full as to the facts; and where his predecessor is most concise he is most copious, and differs enough to be an original authority. He adds many circumstances from the personal knowledge of Peter, and has also much matter in common with Luke, and his order of events is generally the same, though his verbal resemblance to Matthew is greater. What is exclusively his own is comprised in twenty-four verses; but a minute examination will show, that he has continually added particulars to the narratives of both. Thus he alone mentions, that during the temptation Christ was with wild beasts; the surname given to the sons of Zebedee; our Lord's anger and grief at the obduracy of the Jews; and the declaration of his unbelieving friends, He is beside Himself.

Simplicity and conciseness are his characteristics: he relates facts more circumstantially than Matthew, and abridges discourses. The only parable peculiar to him is that of the imperceptible growth of corn; and he has two miracles, recorded by no other Evangelist, the cure of a deaf and dumb