Transfiguration, and the like)-the omission of Peter's walking on the seathe omission of his memorable blessing, and the insertion of his no less memorable reproof, which things are the reverse of each other in St Luke-the mention of the first dispute of the apostles concerning precedence, in which Peter doubtless took an active part-the omission in St Mark of the splendid promise recorded by St Matthew (xix. 28), made, indeed, to the twelve in common, but directly in answer to a question of St Peter's-the notice of his presence, along with Andrew, James, and John, at the time of the prophecy on the Mount-the renewal of the conversation respecting the curse on the fig-tree, which was due to St Peter-the omission of his name as one of the two disciples employed to prepare the Last Supper-the peculiarly distinct and definite account which St Mark in particular has given, both of the prediction and the fulfilment of the prediction of his denials of Christ—the omission of the epithet ρŵs, at the end of the account, to describe the bitterness of his repentance, which is found in both St Matthew and St Luke-the express mention of the name of Peter in the message sent by the angels to the apostles in common;—all these, and more which might be mentioned, are circumstances in a great measure peculiar to St Mark's Gospel, and such as might naturally have been expected from a companion or disciple of St Peter in particular.” *

We have here a great mass of evidence connecting Peter with the Gospel of Mark, but connecting him personally, and not through a friend or disciple, who would rather have softened his faults, and dwelt upon the bitterness of his repentance. "The modest and indirect way in which he is placed at the head of the apostolic catalogue" is much more characteristic of an author speaking of himself, than it is of a friend and disciple.

Mr Greswell's is a statement of the moral evidence connecting St Peter with the second Gospel. There is another class of proofs which Mr Greswell merely glances at, which carry to my mind a still stronger conviction: I mean the undesigned coincidences between the writer and his own personal circumstances―national, professional, or otherwise. An eyewitness can scarcely avoid exhibiting such coincidences; but they are much more strongly marked in an unpractised writer, such as the author of the second Gospel evidently was, than in one accustomed to composition. We can detect such characteristic traits in all the historical writ

* Dissertations, &c., i. 82.

ings of the New Testament, but they are much more fully developed in the second Gospel than in the writings of the other evangelists. When at Jerusalem, Peter's Galileanism "betrayed him;" but the second Gospel abounds in Galileanisms. Thus, when the evangelist wishes to give an idea of the wide extent of our Lord's fame, he tells us that it "spread abroad throughout all the region about Galilee" (i. 28)—an idea of extent which would scarcely occur to any but a Galilean, and indeed to one writing on the spot. Many of these provincialisms escape the English reader from the neglect of the translators in rendering the article, frequently omitting it where it occurs in the original, and inserting it where it is wanting. Thus, in Matthew, v. 1, we are told in the authorised versions that our Lord "went up to a mountain;”—it ought to be rendered, "to the mountain.” But no mountain is previously mentioned. How, then, it may be asked, should the definite article be understood? The answer is, that Capernaum is placed on the margin of a lake, and at the foot of a mountain, and the universal practice of the inhabitants of a town so situated is to call the mountain behind "the mountain."* In the case in question it is, in fact, a Capernaumism. Now, the the first two Gospels abound in such provincialisms-some of them common to both, some of them peculiar to the writers of each. Thus Matthew, speaking of his own house, calls it "the house," but the other evangelists speak of it as "his" (Matthew's) "house." In Mark we have the somewhat remarkable expression, тà πрòs-τηv-Oúpav, "the before-the-door" (ii. 2), to indicate the open space before Peter's house. In another place, speaking of his house, the evangelist takes care to add that it was also the house of Andrew (i. 29), avoiding the appearance of exclusive appropriation which Peter alone would wish to avoid. He also talks of it as eis oikov, "at home" (ii. 1); so also he speaks of “the boat," "the sea," "the other side," &c., as objects so familiar as to

* Mr Stephens, a late American traveller, in speaking of Capernaum, almost unavoidably adopts the language of the evangelist. He says, The ruins of Capernaum extend more than a mile along the shore, and back towards the mountain."-P. 114.

require no other specification. These modes of expression tend to prove the authors of the two Gospels to have been Galileans.

Peter was a fisherman, Matthew was not; now the descriptions of the events which took place on the lake are professional in Mark, but unprofessional in Matthew. A storm makes a very different impression on a seaman from what it does on a landsman: the seaman, who is obliged to act, thinks and speaks of the causes of the storm the force or direction of the gale; the landsman, who is passive, thinks of what most immediately affects him-the agitation of the waters. There are two storms described in these Gospels; in Mark the prominent feature is the wind, in Matthew the waves.-See Section xxviii. and note thereupon, p. 285; see also Section xxxvii. p. 82, describing the miracle of Christ walking on the sea, p. 82. Here Matthew's account is based upon the original of Mark, but with additions, one of which is the force of the waves both of the writers mention the direction of the wind. In Mark's account it is important, as increasing the toil of the rowers; in Matthew it appears unimportant, because the agitation of the surface, on which he dwells, depended on the force, not upon the direction of the wind. There are other professionalisms in Mark which show that the author of the original was a fisherman, such as his use of the obviously technical expression aμpádXovras (i. 16) for a particular mode of fishing. The author is therefore a fisherman, but he must also have been an eyewitness of the events which he describes with such precision: he must have been in the boat when our Lord stilled the tempest, for the details are such as would only be known to an eyewitness, and which an eyewitness alone would think of describing. Who would think of adding to a pre-existing account that there were other boats, of which we hear no more, in company? (Mark iv. 36); or the number of bearers of a paralytic patient? (ii. 3); or that a youth lost his garment in a popular tumult? (xiv. 52).* The autopticity

* Mr Greswell supposes that the young man must have been Mark himself, because no other assignable motive can be imagined for the insertion of such a circumstance: to me, it is a proof that the author witnessed it, and in describing the transactions inserted it in illustration of the violence of the tumult. We have an analogous case in General

of the narration brings us still nearer Peter, for it appears in the description of events which were only originally known to three of the apostles—namely, to Peter, James, and John: such are the events which took place in the house of Jairus, and in the house of Peter. Strauss, after adverting to the circumstantiality of the details on these occasions, asks, or rather ironically abstains from asking, whether the author who describes these events was one of these three apostles, and whether the original narrator committed his account to writing? I answer both questions in the affirmative. But I proceed a step farther, and infer from the narrative, not only that the author was one of the three, but that he was neither James nor John. In the account of the cure of Peter's mother-in-law in the house of Peter, all the three must have been present, but only James and John are mentioned, and they were merely spectators, taking no part in the transactions. Why, then, are they mentioned at all, and why is Peter not mentioned? The answer is, that such notices are characteristic of the style of an eyewitness, and the omission of Peter's name can only be explained on the supposition that he was the original author of the account.

With regard to the style of the second Gospel, it is animated and picturesque, as every narrative is which is written truthfully and circumstantially, by an eyewitness who is strongly impressed by the events. It is that of a vigorous but uncultivated mind, little accustomed to composition, writing with the first intention, and while the impressions are still strong upon him. It abounds with repetitions, and with details of circumstances which have no Napier's account of the battle of Busaco. I have no reason to suppose he was present but one-the autopticity of his description. Who can read his "sparkling" account of the charge of the light division without the conviction that it is that of an eyewitness? His work is avowedly historical; he intentionally refrains from recording the achievements of particular regiments, yet he records a circumstance which certainly did not influence the result of the combat: A poor orphan Portuguese girl, about seventeen years of age, and very handsome, was seen coming down the mountain and driving an ass loaded with all her property through the midst of the French army."-Vol. iii. p. 334. This circumstance made an impression on the author, and illustrated the chivalrous spirit of the combatants, for "no man on either side was so brutal as to molest her," just as the loss of the young man's garment illustrated the violence of the people.

other connection with the main fact than juxtaposition of time and place. Its general character, as well as its particular details, agree perfectly with the supposition that the apostle Peter was the original author.

We see

It will naturally be asked, Can we trace any resemblance between the style of this Gospel and the acknowledged writings of St Peter? To this I would reply, that the style of a simple narrative and of a didactic composition differ so essentially that much resemblance is not to be expected, especially where the circumstances in which the author was placed were so completely changed. Peter, one of the leaders of a great movement, accustomed to public speaking, and writing with weight and authority, would use a very different style from the fisherman recording from day to day a simple narration of the transactions in which he was engaged. There is, however, an illustration in the second epistle that points to the author of the Gospel as its writer. with what accuracy and precision the effects of a tornado (Maî^ay) are described in the second Gospel :* now, in the second epistle, the tornado is used as an illustration of the effects of the passions on those who yield to them-they are likened to "clouds driven by a tornado" (vepédaι íñò daídaños éλavvóμevai, ii. 17)—an image which a fisherman would very naturally make use of. The nautical word Maîλay is only used by Peter, by the author of the second Gospel, and Luke, who takes his account from the original of that Gospel, and whose familiarity with nautical language would lead him to retain that expression. We must also remember that, though the matter of the second Gospel be Peter's, the language is Mark's, and that we cannot, therefore, expect to be able, by peculiarities of style alone, to identify the authors of the Gospel and the epistles.

What I have said will, I trust, have put the reader sufficiently in possession of my general views, to enable him to follow me in the minute and detailed examination of the corresponding passages of the first three Gospels, to which I now proceed, and remove

* See Note on Section xxviii. p. 285.