Mark, wrote in the Romish, that is, the Latin lan guage : but subscriptions of this kind are of no authority whatsoever, for no one knows from whom they proceeded, and some of them contain the most glaring errors. Besides as the Syriac version was made in the East, and taken immediately from the Greek, no one can appeal to a Syriac subscription, in regard to the language in which St. Mark wrote in Rome.

The advocates for a Latin original of St. Mark's Gospel have appealed to a Latin manuscript in the library of St. Mark at Venice, which they said the Evangelist wrote with his own hand. Though this assertion was not only incapable of proof, but like other stories of ancient relics savoured strongly of the fabulous, yet during some time it was difficult to give a positive proof of its falsity for the dampness of the place, in which the manuscript was kept, had very fortunately for the admirers of this treasure, so materially injured it, as to have rendered it almost illegible. Hence Misson contended that it was written in Greek, for he fancied that he had discovered in it the letters A and 2, and in one passage the whole word KATA. But about forty years ago, Laurentius a Turre, in a Letter published in Blanchini Evangeliarum Quadruplex, P. ii. p. 543. threw a new and unexpected light on this obscure subject. From this Letter it appears that the manuscript in question was brought to Venice from Friuli (Forum Julii,) where a very ancient Latin manuscript containing the Gospels of St. Matthew,

· The Syriac subscription to St. Mark's Gospel is, :00 Ullso? me? Kino lado d pooo poo. In the Philoxenian version is an addition to this subscription: for Ao; (Romish) is explained by , that is, Frankish. From this explanation it is obvions, how very modern the subscription is in the Philoxenian

St. Luke and St. John is still preserved. That this manuscript once contained likewise the Gospel of St. Mark is certain, because at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel is written, Explicit Evangelium secundum Matthæum, incipit secundum Marcum: and that the Venice manuscript of St. Mark's Gospel formerly made a part of the Friuli manuscript appears from the following circumstances. In the year 1534, the emperor Charles IV. brought with him from Aquileia, where the MS. was then preserved, the two last quaternions, or the sixteen last leaves of a Latin nianuscript of St. Mark's Gospel. This fragment is now at Prague, and has been lately published by Dobrowsky, under the title Fragmentum Pragense Evangelii S. Marci vulgo autographi1. That the manuscript now in Friuli is no other than the MS. which in the time of Charles IV. was in Aquileia, appears from a comparison of it with the fragment in Prague, for they are written in the very same hand, on the same vellum, and in each page is precisely nineteen lines. And that the Venetian manuscript is the remaining part of St. Mark's Gospel which fails in the Friuli manuscript, appears first from its having been sent from Friulito Venice in the year 1420, as a present to the doge Macenico, and secondly from its containing the first five quaternions of St. Mark's Gospel, of which the Prague fragment contains the two last. The pretended autograph of St. Mark's Gospel therefore is nothing more than a fragment of the Friuli manuscript published by Blanchini, and consequently contains only a part of the Latin translation'.

Blanchini has printed this MS. which is called Codex ForoJulianus, letter for letter.

Whoever wishes for more information on this subject must consult the above-quoted work of Debrowsky.

Blanchini has given a copper plate representing the letters of this manuscript, from which we perceive the cause of Misson's mistake. A he mistook for A, and E for E: and the imaginary word KATA was nothing more than the second, third, fourth, and fifth letters of IBATAŬTEM2.

No writer of the New Testament has neglected elegance of expression, and purity of language, more than St. Mark. The word uwc occurs incessantly, and he abounds likewise with numerous and harsh Hebraisms. Yet his Gospel is very valuable, because it contains several important though short additions to the accounts given by St. Matthew. For instance, the answer of Christ, which St. Matthew has recorded, ch. xii. 4850. would be thought very extraordinary, unless we knew what St. Mark has related, ch. iii. 21: but from this passage we clearly perceive the reason of Christ's answer. Sometimes he has additions, which more clearly ascertain the time, in which the events happened, as in ch. iv. 35. vi. 1, 2. It is therefore unjust to suppose that St. Mark neglected the order of time more than the other Evangelists, and still more so, to reject his arrangement for that of St. Matthew or St. Luke, in places where the time is positively determined by St. Mark'.

CHAPTER VI.

OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.

SECTION I.

Of the life and character of St. Luke..

THE Evangelist St. Luke" appears from Coloss. iv. 10, 11, 14. to have been by birth a heathen and therefore he was neither one of the seventy disciples,

Instead of Lucas, some old Latin MSS. have Lucanus.

* St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians, ch. iv. 10, 11, says, Ασπάζεται υμας Αρίςαρχος ο συναιχμαλωτος με, και Μαρκος ο ανεψιος Βαρνάβα, περι κ ελάβετε εντολας" εαν έλθη προς υμας, δέξασθε αυτόν και Ιησές ο λεγομενος Ιώτος, οι οντες εκ περιτομης. Ουτοι μονοι συνεργοί BIS THE BRIDEIA TO 8. Ver. 12, 13. St. Paul makes mention of Epaphras, and ver. 14. adds Ασπαζεται υμας Λέκας ο ιατρός ο αγαπητος, και Δημας. Here then the Apostle distinguishes Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus the Just, from Epaphras, Lucas, and Demas, saying expressly of the three first, that they were of the circumcision we may conclude therefore that the three last were not of the circumcision. Further, as St. Paul immediately after 。。ts Ex περιτομης adds ετοι μονοι συνεργοι εις την βασιλειαν το Θε8, and it cannot be supposed that he meant to exclude St. Luke from the number of his fellow-labourers, the words μovo ougyou can have no other meaning than my only fellow-labourers of the circumcision.' Consequently St. Luke as well as Demas and Epaphras, were among St. Paul's fellow-labourers, who were not of the circumcision. I admit however that this induction is not so decisive, as to lead to an absolute certainty; and therefore if stronger arguments can be produced in favour of the opinion, that St. Luke was by birth a Jew, the preceding inference will not be valid. Now that St. Luke was really a Jew, Dr. Lardner in the Supplement to his Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. I. p. 236. has endeavoured to shew by the two following arguments. 1. That, as St. Luke constantly attended St. Paul, the Jews, especially at Jerusalem, would have reproached the Apostle, if his companion had been an uncircumcised Gentile, but that we no where find an account of any such reproaches having been made him. 2. That St. Luke follows the Jewish computation of time, and mentions the Jewish festivals, as in

nor an eye-witness of the actions of Christ, to which indeed he lays no claim, saying only that he would write according to the best information he could procure, παρηκολεθηκώς ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως. From Col. iv. 14. we find that he was a physician, on which subject Clausewitz has written a short treatise entitled, De Luca Evangelista medico. Heumann was formerly of opinion that Luke the physician mentioned Col. iv. 14. was not Luke the Evangelist: but he afterwards revoked it, and in his Notes to Acts xiii. 1. and Col. iv. 14. has shewn that they were one and the same person.

The two circumstances, that St. Luke was not a Jew, at least not by birth and education, and that his profession was that of a physician, have had some influence on his mode of writing and the choice of his expressions. For instance, the word Sapovov, which the other Evangelists use, without any epithet, to denote an evil spirit, appears to have been understood by St. Luke, as it was understood by the pure Greek writers, namely as denoting either a good or an evil spirit for at ch. iv. 33. where he uses Saioviov for the first time, he explains it by the epithet akalapтov. The lake of Gennesareth, which the other Evangelists, according to the usual mode of expression among the

Acts xii. 3. xx. 6. 16. xxvii. 9.' But the first argument, though specious, is not decisive, because it depends merely on the silence of our historian, who was so free from egotism, that he has very seldom related what concerned himself, even where the relation would be of some importance: for instance, his stay at Philippi, of which I shall take notice in the next section. Nor does the other argument prove that St. Luke was a Jew; for an heathen historian, who understood the Jewish customs, would accommodate his relation to the Jewish mode of reckoning, in describing St. Paul's transactions with the Jews.

Some writers have related that St. Luke was a native of Antioch, others that he was originally a slave, others again that he was by profession a painter. These reports, which are very uncertain, the reader will find examined by Lardner, whose opinion of them is perfectly just. Lastly, some authors may have supposed that St. Luke was one of the two disciples, whom Christ met on the road to Emmaus: a supposition, which Lardner thinks not improbable.