y
born in Judea, and, it is supposed, was converted to Christianity by the
preaching of the ardent, zealous Peter. At one time, he was the
companion of Paul and Barnabas; but, when a quarrel sprang up between
these men, each went his way. Christians quarrelled then sometimes as
well, or as bad, as in our days. Chiefly, Mark travelled with Peter, as
he went forth among Jews and Gentiles, and aided him in his arduous
toils. He went, at last, to Egypt, where he planted churches, and where,
also, he died. Mark was not an apostle; neither did he attend on the
ministry of Jesus. Do you ask, how, then, could he write a correct
account of our Saviour's life? Here is one fact worth remembering. Mark
was the companion of Peter, who was an apostle, who saw the miracles and
heard the discourses of Christ. He examined the account which Mark had
written, and gave it his approval, as being correct,--true. Very few men
who write histories have vouchers like his. So, did we not regard the
Bible-writers as inspired men, we should place the utmost confidence in
the truth of Mark's gospel. He composed it about A.D. 65. We come now,

3d, to LUKE. He was a Gentile,--all people not born in Judea were called
Gentiles,--born in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where the disciples of
Jesus first were called Christians. Luke was a learned man, we are told,
having studied in the famous schools of his own land, also of Greece and
Egypt. He was a physician by profession; and physicians assure us, that,
in his gospel, he has given a more accurate account of the diseases
which Jesus cured than any other New Testament writer: that he often
uses medical terms in his description of the miracles which were
wrought. He was a good and careful thinker, not at all credulous, but
disposed to prove all things, holding fast only to the good and true. He
wrote his gospel (perhaps you know that he was the author of the book of
Acts, also) in Greece, about 35 years after the ascension of Jesus. He
was associated with Paul in his travels, went with him to Rome, and
continued there during the imprisonment of the apostle. Historians are
not agreed in regard to the time or manner of his death. Some affirm
that he suffered as a martyr; others, simply, that, in due time, he
"fell asleep," or died a natural death. We are sure that his talents,
learning, and time were given to the diffusion of the Christian faith.
Lastly, and

4th, of JOHN, the beloved disciple, so termed b