THE EVANGELISTS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS.

We will now consider the character and personal history of the writers of the Gospels. Matthew was a Jew of Galilee, and had been a Publican, or taxgatherer, when called by our Lord to be his disciple. There are many marks about his narrative, which show it to have been written for his countrymen, the Jews. Thus the manners, customs, peculiarities, cities, towns, and localities of this people are always spoken of as well known to his readers. The narrative is careful to trace back the genealogy of Jesus to the tribe of Judah and house of David, because the Jews knew that such would be the lineage of the Messiah. It mentions particularly the birth of our Redeemer in Bethlehem, because the Jews well knew that the prophets had pointed it out as his birth-place. It gives more fully than the other narratives, the public discourses of our Lord, because the readers to whom it was addressed would recollect and identify them. It is supposed to have been written about A. D. 41, that is, eight years after the ascension of Christ.

Mark was the son of a pious woman, named Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem. He was a Jew, but not one of the twelve disciples. Mark seems to have been the name which he received from the Romans, while by his own countrymen he was called John. He was "sister's son to Barnabas," and for a time travelled with his uncle and Paul. Afterwards he became the intimate friend and companion of Peter, and wrote his Gospel about A. D. 64, under the direction of that apostle. Many of the early Fathers thought that he was merely the amanuensis of Peter, and wrote only what he dictated. This gospel was especially intended for the use of the Christians at Rome, then the mistress of the world: we find, accordingly, few quotations from the prophets, and few allusions to Jewish customs and localities; and when these are made, they are always accompanied by such explanations as gentile readers would need. Thus, when the Jordan is first spoken of, the word " river" is prefixed, to show what it was. The word "corban" is explained to mean a "gift." So "talitha, cumi," is interpreted to signify "damsel, arise." "The preparation day," is shown to be "the day before the Sabbath." In speaking of washing of hands, Mark says, "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding to the traditions of the elders." This single sentence is sufficient to show that this Gospel was not intended for the Jews, to whom such an explanation would have been superfluous.

Luke was either a Jew or a Jewish proselyte. The former opinion seems to have the weight of authority on its side. His Roman name is easily accounted for, upon the supposition of his Jewish origin; for it was not uncommon for the Jews to have a Latin cognomen. From the fact of Luke alone alluding to the commission of the seventy disciples, it has been conjectured that he was one of that number. It is also supposed that he was one of the two whom Christ met on the way to Emmaus. This conjecture is founded upon the fact that Cleopas is named, whilst the name of the other is suppressed. Luke was a physician by profession, and probably to that circumstance is due the minuteness and particularity with which he enters into details. Physicians, of all men in the world, acquire a habit of exactitude. The nicety required in weighing and apportioning medicine, the nice discrimination required in distinguishing allied types of disease, the careful watching to detect the slightest change in the symptoms of a patient, the circumstantial orders given to nurses and watchers by the sick-bed — all these things give medical men keen powers of observation, and a proneness to notice little matters, which would escape the attention of others. We find, accordingly, that the narrative of Luke is more circumstantial than those of the remaining three Evangelists. We must not forget, too, that Luke was the companion of Paul in most of his travels, and that, according to a tradition among the early Christians, he wrote under the supervision of the great Apostle to the Gentiles. His Gospel is supposed to have been written in Greece, a little later than Mark's, and for the edification of the Gentile converts. Its purity and classical character prove the scholarship of the author, while the Hebrew and Syriac idioms confirm the impression that he was a Jew. He was not one of the disciples, however; and though it is probable that he was an eye-witness of many of the occurrences which he relates, the most of his facts were doubtless derived from the conversations of Paul and the apostles.

John was a Jew of Galilee, the son of Zebedee and Salome. This Salome is supposed to be a daughter of Joseph, the reputed father of our Lord, by a former marriage. If so, she was the step-sister of our Saviour, and John was his nephew. The calling of John and his brother James, together with that of Matthew, Andrew, and his brother Peter, is particularly mentioned in the Gospels, while the other seven apostles are not thus honoured. John was the only apostle at the crucifixion, and to him our Lord committed the care of his mother, when he was about expiring on the cross. As John was the only apostle who stood by his suffering Saviour, so he was the first of them at the sepulchre, and the first to believe in the resurrection. He was of a loving and lovable disposition, and was emphatically the beloved disciple. Owing probably to his intimate communion with our Saviour, he loves to dwell upon and recount the precious private conversations of his glorious Master. These he treasured up with as much care as did Matthew the public discourses. It is thought that John wrote his Gospel about A. D. 97, or more than twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem. By this time many heresiarchs had crept into the Church, and some had boldly denied the divinity of our Lord. The great burden, then, of John's narrative is to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was "God manifest in the flesh." He introduces his narrative with this sublime doctrine, and he never loses sight of it from beginning to end. We must not suppose, however, that he taught this glorious truth more clearly or more emphatically than our Saviour himself had done in the Sermon on the Mount. (See Matt. vii. 21-24.) Nor yet much more explicitly than John the Baptist had proclaimed it before the assembled multitudes of Israel, on the banks of the Jordan. The Evangelist sought merely to restate, reaffirm, arid impress upon his readers a doctrine so essential to vital Christianity, but which had been ignored by a large body of professed believers.

Briefly, Matthew wrote especially for his countrymen, the Jews, and it is probable even that he wrote in Hebrew. He gives us the public addresses of our Saviour more fully than the other three Evangelists. Mark wrote under the direction of Peter, especially for the Romans. Luke wrote under Paul's direction, especially for the edification of the churches that this apostle had planted in Greece and Asia Minor. He is distinguished for his attention to minute particulars in regard to time, place, and events. John attends more to doctrine than to facts, and dwells more upon the private character and social conversation of the Saviour with his disciples, than upon his public acts and speeches.