The power and results of his coming are still more fully expressed in other books of the New Testament. And even in this respect John differs widely from the other three Evangelists: for he is almost wholly occupied in explaining the power of Christ, and the advantages which we derive from him; while they insist more fully on one point, that our Christ is that Son of God who had been promised to be the Redeemer of the world. They interweave, no doubt, the doctrine which relates to the office of Christ, and inform us what is the nature of his grace, and for what purpose he has been given to us; but they are principally employed, as I have said, in showing that in the person of Jesus Christ has been fulfilled what God had promised from the beginning.⁴ They had no intention or design to abolish by their writings the law and the prophets; as some fanatics dream that the Old Testament is superfluous, now that the truth of heavenly wisdom has been revealed to us by Christ and his Apostles. On the contrary, they point with the finger to Christ, and admonish us to seek from him whatever is ascribed to him by the law and the prophets. The full profit and advantage, therefore, to be derived from the reading of the Gospel will only be obtained when we learn to connect it with the ancient promises.

With regard to the three writers of the Evangelical history, whom I undertake to expound, Matthew is sufficiently known. Mark is generally supposed to have been the private friend and disciple of Peter. It is even believed that he wrote the Gospel, as it was dictated to him by Peter, and thus merely performed the office of an amanuensis or clerk.⁵ But on this subject we need not give ourselves much trouble, for it is of little importance to us, provided only we believe that he is a properly qualified and divinely appointed witness, who committed nothing to writing, but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his pen. There is no ground whatever for the statement of Jerome, that his Gospel is an abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew. He does not everywhere adhere to the order which Matthew observed, and from the very commencement handles the subjects in a different manner. Some things, too, are related by him which the other had omitted, and his narrative of the same event is sometimes more detailed. It is more probable, in my opinion — and the nature of the case warrants the conjecture — that he had not seen Matthew’s book when he wrote his own; so far is he from having expressly intended to make an abridgment.

I have the same observation to make respecting Luke: for we will not say that the diversity which we perceive in the three Evangelists was the object of express arrangement, but as they intended to give an honest narrative of what they knew to be certain and undoubted, each followed that method which he reckoned best. Now as this did not happen by chance, but by the direction of Divine Providence, so under this diversity in the manner of writing the Holy Spirit suggested to them an astonishing harmony, which would almost be sufficient of itself to secure credit to them, if there were not other and stronger evidences to support their authority.

Luke asserts plainly enough that he is the person who attended Paul. But it is a childish statement which Eusebius makes, that Paul is the Author of the Gospel which bears the name of Luke, because in one passage he mentions his Gospel,⁶ (2 Timothy 2:8.) As if what follows did not make it clear that Paul is speaking of his whole preaching, and not of a single book: for he adds, for which I suffer trouble, even to bonds, (2 Timothy 2:9.) Now, it is certain that he was not held guilty⁷ of having written a book, but of having administered and preached with the living voice the doctrine of Christ. Eusebius, whose industry was great, discovers here a singular want of judgment in collecting without discrimination such gross absurdities. On this head I have thought it necessary to warn my readers, that they may not be shocked at fooleries of the same description which occur in every part of his history.

Of that method of interpretation which I have chosen to adopt, and which it may be many persons, at first sight, will not approve, it will be proper to give some account for the satisfaction of pious and candid readers. First, it is beyond all dispute, that it is impossible to expound, in a proper and successful manner, any one of the Evangelists, without comparing him with the other two; and, accordingly, faithful and learned commentators spend a very great portion of their labor on reconciling the narratives of the three Evangelists. But as it frequently happens that persons of ordinary abilities find the comparison to be no easy matter, when it is necessary to pass at every turn from the one to the other, I thought that it might prove to be a seasonable and useful abridgment of their labor, if I were to arrange the three histories in one unbroken chain, or in a single picture, in which the reader may perceive at a glance the resemblance or diversity that exists. In this way I shall leave out nothing that has been written by any of the three Evangelists; and whatever may be found in more than one of them will be collected into one place.

Whether or not I have succeeded to my expectation, the reader must decide by his own experience. So far from claiming the praise of having brought out something new, I readily acknowledge, as becomes an honest man, that I have adopted this method in imitation of others. Bucer, a man of revered memory, and an eminent teacher of the Church of God, who above all others appears to me to have labored successfully in this field, has been especially my model. As he availed himself of the labors of the ancients who had traveled this road before him, so my toils have been not a little alleviated by his industry and application. Where I use the liberty of differing from him, (which I have freely done, whenever it was necessary,) Bucer himself, if he were still an inhabitant of the earth, would not be displeased.

---

← Dedication · Contents · 1. Luke 1.1-4 →

Footnotes

1. Evangelium in Latin, Evangile in French, and Evangell in old English, are derived, with little alteration, from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, which is compounded of εὖ, well, and ἀγγελία*, a message,* and signifies glad news. The English word Gospel is of Saxon derivation, and is determined by its etymology to signify God’s word; but must have acquired, at a very early period, the meaning of the Greek word for which it has been adopted as a translation. In the margin of the celebrated Geneva Testament, printed A.D. 1557, Gospel is thus defined: — “This worde signifieth good tidinges, and is taken here for the storie which conteineth the joyful message of the comming of the Sonne of God.” — Ed ↩

2. “Ce qu’il avoit auparavant commande a tous fideles d’attendre et esperer;” — “which he had formerly commanded all believers to expect and hope.” ↩

3. “Que c’est aucunement confondre les termes;” — “that it is in a manner a confounding of words.” ↩

4. “Des le commencement du monde;” — “from the beginning of the world.” ↩

5. “En sorte qu il ait seulement este escrivain sous luy;” — “so that he was only a writer under him.” ↩

6. “Se fondant sur une passage ou il fait mention de son Evangile;” — “founding on a passage in which he makes mention of his Gospel,” (according to my gospel.) ↩

7. “Il n’avoit este accuse, et emprisonne;” — “he was not accused and imprisoned.” ↩