information sufficient, in all necessary points, not only for their own age, but for ALL ages of Christianity.

"They VARY," says the objector, "and therefore "they cannot be true and faithful narrators." But in what do they vary? Does one of them say that our Saviour rose from the dead, and the other, that he did not? Do they vary in any important point of DOCTRINE? No; but they vary in a few historical circumstances, which affect not the MAIN PURPOSE in the smallest degree. Their variations in non-essentials, and their agreement in essentials, is a mark of veracity. Their variations prove that they did not write in concert, or with a design to deceive; for if they had, they would have taken care to have avoided what would expose them immediately to the objections of their opponents; and their agreement in essentials, in the grand purpose of shewing that Man was to be favoured with the Holy Spirit, is a proof that Providence superintended them; and that they were so strongly convinced of this truth, and had it so present to their minds, that they could not possibly omit it, or vary in it, however else they might vary.

TOUTO,

Theophylact says, very sensibly, "Ai aulo TouTO μλλor αληθεύουσιν, οτι μη κατα πανία ωμοφώνησαν, ενομίθησαν, γαρ αν, ότι συγκαθίσαντες αλλήλοις και συμβουλευσαμένοι, εγραψαν. νυν δε ο παρελειψεν ουτος, έγραψεν εκείνος και δια δοκουσιν εν τισιν διαλλάττειν. "On this very account," says Theophylact, "they may be more easily believed to "have spoken the truth, because they do not every "where speak alike; for if they had, they would have "been supposed to have written in collusion; but, as "the case is now, what one is silent upon, another has "written; and, therefore, they appear in some things to "differ;"-but they differ τοις ελαχίστοις, in very

* Theophylact Proam. in Matt. Evangelium.

minute things as he had just before observed. Still keeping in mind, that Mr. Paine's chief objection is << THE SILENCE OF ONE BOOK (of the Gospel) UPON "MATTERS RELATED IN THE OTHER," let us now proceed to St. Mark.

St. Mark's Gospel was dictated by St. Peter, who was acquainted with St. Matthew's. It was in many things anticipated by St. Matthew. It was published in Italy, perhaps at Rome, and addressed to Christians in general; but particularly to the new converts, both pagan and Jewish. Some of them might have already seen St. Matthew's Gospel, and all of them might hereafter see it; and therefore St. Mark is silent on many precepts and parables, as being already known from the narrative of his predecessor. In some matters, St. Mark explains and describes more fully than St. Matthew, because he addressed himself in part to the Gentiles, who could not know so well as the Jews, to whom alone St. Matthew wrote, what related to the Jewish language, customs, scriptures, or topography. When he repeats, which is very often, for very good reasons, what St. Matthew has told, he adds some circumstance of explanation, necessary to the Gentiles, that is, to foreigners, who were very little acquainted with either the country or the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It was necessary to repeat many facts related by St. Matthew, because in that age, the art of printing being unknown and copies of the Gospels very difficult to be procured, especially by the poor, it must, in the nature of things, have happened frequently, that the persons for whom St. Mark wrote, Jews at a great distance from Judea, and pagans, (both newly converted,) had never had a sight of St. Matthew's Gospel. Very difficult must it have been, in those days to have sent many copies from Jerusalem to Rome, even if many existed, and if the converts near Jerusalem had not demanded ALL that could be

CC

multiplied by the slow process of the hand-writing. St. Mark's narrative is therefore nearly the same as St. Matthew's, with the addition of such matters as might be nessary to the persons immediately addressed, and the omission of other matters which were either not essential, or, if they were, might be learned from St. Matthew's Gospel, already published.

St. Mark, it has been already said, is supposed to have written under the entire direction, or rather the dictation, of St. Peter; and it is observable, that St. Peter is represented as present at all the actions and sayings of our Lord recorded in this Gospel. And this circumstance will account for St.Mark's "silence on some "matters related by the other Evangelists." The narrative of St. Mark seems to be RESTRICTED, in great measure, to such transactions as St. Peter was present at; which, while it adds to the authenticity of the narrative, accounts for the omission of deeds or words, at which St. Peter was not present, and thus obviatės Mr. Paine's objection.

St. Luke's Gospel was designed for the Gentiles only. Of this there is much internal evidence. He studiously avoids Hebrew words, and uses, wherever it can be done, Greek terms, to express the ideas of the Hebrew. And there is one most striking particular in St. Luke, which arose from his addressing the Gentiles only. The fine PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL, to be found in none other of the Gospels, was admitted by St. Luke, because it conveyed a doctrine highly encouraging to the GENTILE, who was that younger son, returned at last, to his father, and received with affection. St. Matthew is silent upon this parable, because writing, as he did, to the Jews, he knew, especially at that earlier period when he wrote, that it would not be agreeable to their narrow prejudices, and their ideas of exclusive

salvation, St. Mark and St. John are silent upon it, because it was not necessary to their purposes.

St. Luke's genealogy of Christ differs much from St. Matthew's; and Mr. Paine triumphs greatly on the difference. But let it be duly noticed, that St. Matthew, writing to the Jews only, was contented with tracing the genealogy of the Messiah, for their satisfaction, up to David and Abraham; while St. Luke, writing to the Gentiles, traced it up to ADAM, the father of all mankind, Gentile as well as Jew; thus encouraging the GENTILES, by making it appear that they, as descendants of Adam, were also related to the Messiah, as well as the Jews.

Another remarkable circumstance in St. Luke, evinces that the Evangelists adapted their narratives, as wisdom directed, to the particular descriptions of persons to whom they were immediately addressed. St. Luke mentions the name of the Roman emperors that reigned when Christ was born, and when himself began to preach. It was the practice of the Gentiles to mark the era of events by the reigning emperor. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John observe a silence concerning the reigning emperor. It did not appear to them necessary or expedient to use this mode of dating events, when writing to Jews, or persons acquainted with Judea and its history..

Let it be attended to, that there were in circulation, before some of the Gospels were written a great many narratives (diaynous) of our Saviour's life and death, by unknown authors, which being read in certain parts, might render it unnecessary to dwell on some particulars which they might have recorded with truth and accuracy. It has long been my opinion, (but I offer it with the diffidence of one who ventures a conjecture,) that

* See Trapp on the Gospels.

the four Gospels which we now have, were written to supply the defects, correct the errors, and give confirmation to the truths, which appeared in these popu`lar narratives, at which St. Luke seems to hint in the very entrance or introduction to his Gospel. St. Luke speaks not, when he says, that MANY had taken in hand to set forth in ORDER a declaration of those things which are most surely believed by us, he speaks not of ST. MATTHEW or ST. MARK by name. He gives them no preference. He could not mean by MANY, two only. He probably meant the AIAг HZEIZ* above-mentioned, which he seems to censure for inaccuracy. It would be highly credible, (if we had not information) that there were narratives handed about of merely human composition. Such events as had happened in Judea must have excited curiosity; and the pleasure of relating extraordinary events naturally prompted men to gratify it. Gospel histories, therefore, abounded. The Gospels of the four Evangelists were VARIED, according as the necessity which appeared to exist from the errors, the defects, or misrepresentations of the diagno ☛us, or narratives, which were circulated among the persons to whom the four Evangelists wrote, seemed to require.

But to proceed to St. John. He wrote a great many years after St. Matthew. The history of Christ, at

* There were many διαγησεις (narratives) and παραδοσεις (traditions). But there were two very celebrated, and called Gospels; the one according to the Hebrews; the other, according to the Ægyptians. These were a collection of facts and sayings, collected from oral tradition. The first maintained its credit long after the publication of the four Evangelists, and was a favourite Gospel. It was read in the church during three hundred years. Some think, and I subscribe to their opinion, that this was the original HEBREW of St. Matthew. But arguments are not wanting to prove that it was another.-See this very curious subject discussed in MILLII Proleg.