ORIGIN AND MUTUAL RELATIONS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

"THE WORD, the artificer of all things, who sits upon the [four] Cherubim, holding together all things, being manifested to men, gave to us the FOUR-formed Gospel, actuated by one spirit." So said Irenæus in the middle of century second, reckoning from the Lord's ascension. Earlier than he, Tatian had formed a Harmony, titled the DIATESSARON, or Through-the-FOUR. And still earlier than he, Justin Martyr, Tatian's own teacher, tells us what "the apostles in the memoirs by them which are called GOSPELS," said. And those Gospels, he tells us, were in his day publicly read as of sole and unique authority in the churches, as the Old Testament was in the synagogues. So that it is beyond rational question, from these and other proofs, that between the death of St. John and the time that Justin wrote, the Four GosPELS had by silent and spontaneous consent of the holy martyr Church arisen to a universal, unquestioned, unrivalled authority. It was not by decrees of councils or any arbitrary authority, but by unanimous catholic concurrence that the evangelic Canon was adopted.

66

But there was a Gospel, that is, a Gospel-matter, a Gospel-history, before there were the four written Gospel-books.* Our Saviour's deeds, words, death, and resurrection, being the very essence and substance of the gospels, existed in the minds and memory, in the heart and soul of the living Church with great fulness and completeness before the four evangelists wrote. The twelve apostles had been by Jesus chosen as his eye and ear witnesses; and after his death they were the official rehearsers of the narratives. Beginning at Jerusalem," where the works and words of Jesus were well known, endued with power from on high, they repeated the story of Jesus and him crucified. This oral gospel the Church accepted from these first eyewitnesses; and it formed the complete body of the Christian faith. Hearers and spectators would sometimes commit to parchment memoranda of particular sayings, discourses, or doings of Jesus. And these would be of various authenticity, arrangement, and extent. In time more extended and completer, yet imperfect narratives would be composed and come into the possession of many private Christians and most of the Churches. Thus there existed an oral and documentary gospel-matter before the four gospel-books.

This living oral gospel had a peculiar power to it during the time *Consult our Notes on Luke i, 1-4.

when its utterances came from the original inspired apostolic lips, and, though in a less degree, from the reports of those who had heard the apostles. Even after the written gospels had come into existence, and until late toward the close of the second century, a feeling of interest in behalf of the oral tradition over the recorded letter pervaded many hearts. "I do not think," says Papias, soon after the close of the first century, "that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those who are still surviving." His preference was this: "If I met with any one who has been a follower of the elders,” (the apostles and their contemporaries,) “I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what Aristion (= Luke?) and the presbyter John, disciples of our Lord, relate." In an age where reading and writing little prevail, such oral traditions are conveyed, by memory, with great accuracy of form. The Jewish succession of Rabbies claimed to transmit by tradition an entire unwritten law without addition or subtraction. Repetition of the same narratives by the same apostolic narrators, often in each others' hearing, would result in great sameness of expression; and the narrative would finally assume something of a stereotype form. The wonderful deeds and holy words of Jesus, had no writing existed, might have been mentally preserved with great accuracy for more than one generation. But as the authoritative written letter alone could preserve above suspicion a gospel intended for ages, so the great Head of the Church took providential care that the record should come from responsible hands. Two books from original apostles, and two from apostolic contemporaries under apostolic sanction, and with general sanction of the apostolic Church, have come down to these and future ages. Of these the three first (which, from their strong likeness, are commonly called The Synoptic Gospels) contain the authentic transcript of the oral gospel, as it existed in varied stereotype forms in the apostles' preaching; while the fourth contains the independent personal narration of the apostle who was nearest and deepest in the heart of Jesus. As these gospels took their place in the archives of the Churches of the widespread Christendom already existing in different quarters of the globe, Asia, Africa, and Europe, and were read to the congregation (as the oral had been delivered) from Sabbath to Sabbath, the oral gospel was gradually superseded until scarce a trace of it remains to our day.* Of the nature of the verbal identities and variations between the three Synoptic Gospels, the following comparative passages, as specimens, will convey some idea:

* See note on Luke vi, 4.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.

thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suf

THE HEALING

MATTHEW Viii, 14-17. 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house,

The verbal relations between the three gospels are thus well described by Alford: "First, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical, then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more, expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause not wholly distinct, but apparently incon sistent; and so forth, with recurrence of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions."

These agreements and variations cannot be explained on the theory held by some writers that one evangelist copied from another. Neither can they be explained on the assumption that the Gospels are transla tions from a common original document. Nor would they appear in the style of several perfectly separate and independent narrators of the same transactions. The only solution, as the best biblical scholars now agree, is to be found in the statement given above. Our Gospels are the record of the oral narratives and written memoranda of the apostolic eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, naturally falling into these mingled uniformities and varieties.

Of the general comparison of the Gospels, the following are a very few of the interesting results:

I. Two, Matthew and Luke, have a proper beginning, middle, and end, namely: 1. The early Life of Jesus to his ministry; 2. His Ministry; and, 3. His Suffering, Resurrection, and Ascension. The other two, Mark and John, with the beginning nearly omitted, have only the middle and the end. All are full toward the end, as if the Redeemer's sufferings were by all held as the supreme point of interest.

II. There are but about twenty-five verses in Mark which have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke; yet Mark is often more full and fresh in his narrative than either of his parallels. And it is curious to note that Matthew and Luke never both present a passage but Mark presents it also. Matthew and Luke never alone coincide without Mark intermediately coinciding with both.

On

III. Matthew and Mark furnish, as their peculiar contributions, (not found in either Luke or John,) a most important mass of the Lord's Galilean history, Matthew xiv, 22-xvi, 12; Mark vi, 45–viii, 26. the other hand, Luke's peculiar contributions are particulars of John's and Jesus's birth, chap. i, and a full but apparently unchronologi. cal account of the Lord's ministry in Perea and eastern Judea, ix, 51-xviii, 14. This last Lukean contribution contains some of the most brilliant gems of the Lord's teachings.

IV. Let the entire contents of the Gospels be estimated as 100, and the following table will give an idea of their various peculiarities and agreements: