fulfilment of the past, as by Matthew, nor as the foundation of the future, as by John. His object is to portray Jesus in his daily life, “in the awe-inspiring grandeur of his human per- sonality, as a man who was also the Incarnate, the wonder- working Son of God.” Hence his first words are the appro- priate keynote of his Gospel : “ The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
Such a narrative might have been expected from Peter, with his keen-sightedness, his habit of observation, and his power of graphically describing what he was so quick to per- ceive. There is, of conrse, less room for the exhibition of these traits in his epistles, though they emerge even there in certain peculiar and picturesque words, and in expressions which reflect incidents of his personal association with Christ. Those brief epistles contain over a hundred words which occur nowhere else in the New Testament. Certain narratives in the Book of Acts record incidents in which Peter was the principal or the only apostolic actor, and the account of which must have come from his own lips; and these narratives bear the marks of his keen observation, and are characterized by his picturesque power. Such are the accounts of the healing of the cripple at the temple-gate (iii.) ; of Ananias and Sapphira (v.) ; of Peter’s deliverance from prison (xii.) ; of the raising of Dorcas (ix.) ; and of the vision of the great sheet (x.). In these, especially if we compare them with narratives which Luke has evidently re- ceived from other sources, we are impressed with the picturesque vividness of the story; the accurate notes of time and _place and number; the pictorial expressions, the quick transitions ; the frequent use of such words as straightway, immediately ; the substitution of dialogue for narrative, and the general ful- ness of detail.
All these characteristics appear in Mark’s Gospel, and are justly regarded as indicating the influence of Peter, though comparatively few of the same words are employed by both; a fact which may be, in great part, accounted for by the differ- ence between a hortatory epistle and a narrative. The traces of Peter’s quick perception and dramatic and picturesque power are everywhere visible in Mark. While Matthew fully records the