translation of it, yet the memory of its existence is preserved.

Abandoning historic ground, and appealing directly to facts, Mr. M. adduces the parallel passages in the Greek Testament, Mark i. 21-28 and Luke iv. 31-37; Mark iv. 22-25 and Luke viii. 17, 18; Mark v. 8-10 and Luke viii. 29-31; Mark v. 15, 16 and Luke viii. 35, 36; Mark v. 35, 36 and Luke viii. 49, 50, as strong characteristic marks of translation from the same document. It is, moreover, certain that no two independent historians, who wrote either from their own original knowlege, or from the accounts which they had only heard from others, could thus coincide in the structure of their sentences, and agree either in the same or in synonymous expressions. After having discussed the point at issue as far as it regards St. Mark and St. Luke, he proceeds to observe with respect to St. Matthew, that

The supposition of his having used, though himself an Apostle, a prior document in the composition of his Gospel, is in itself by no means incredible, or even improbable, if that document was a work of good authority. At any rate it is not so improbable, as to bar all proof of its reality. We cannot indeed, for this purpose, appeal to the synonymous expressions in the Greek text of St. Matthew, compared with those of St. Mark and St. Luke, because St. Mat. thew himself wrote in Hebrew. But we may compare the structure of the sentences, in the matter, which is common either to all three Evangelists, or to St. Matthew with either St. Mark or St. Luke. The able of parallel and coincident passages, in the Dissertation, is one continued proof, either that the Hebrew text of St. Matthew was the basis of the Gospels of St. Mark and St Luke, or that some common document was the basis of all three Gospels. But it has been proved, and my adversary himself admits, that one Evangelist did not copy from the other. Consequently, that a common document was the basis of all three Gospels is an inference, which it would be difficult to evade.'

In the trial of the hypothesis by this test,' Mr. M. fairly meets his opponent; he examines each of the examples adduced against him to prove that the reverse of what he has asserted takes place in the Gospels; and he here detects his adversary in having blundered strangely on the score of parallel passages. The Remarker having farther objected that almost all the instances of verbal agreement, which Mr. M. alleges, are taken from the speeches and discourses of our Lord, and scarcely any from the narrative parts of the Gospels', a table of instances is given by Mr. Marsh in a note at p. 102. of parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, which are purely narrative:

In the account which St. Matthew and St. Mark have given of Christ's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which he de

livered

livered not more than two days before his death, is a more remark. able instance of verbal agreement than any in the whole Table; for St. Mark, in not less than twenty verses together, has a close verbal agreement with the Greek text of St. Matthew. Even if we confine ourselves to the account of the crucifixion, still it is not true that the verbal agreement is "scarcely to be traced at all there": for St. Matthew and St. Mark have a close verbal agreement there in four successive verses, which two independent writers certainly never can have.'

A long section is employed in the Appendix, on the Argum μονεύματα των Αποτόλων, so often quoted by Justin Martyri which Mr. M. is of opinion were not our four Gospels, but some single work, under that title, to which the Apostles had contributed. The passage, indeed, in Justin's Apology, αποτολοι εν τοις γενομένοις υπ' αυτών απομνημονευμασιν α και εῖται EUXYYENα, seems directly to militate against this position: but Mr. M. observes that the words a xxxeitai suxyyɛhia, as they occur only in one instance, look like a marginal gloss on which no critic will rely. It is remarkable that Justin, though he makes distinct references when he quotes from the O. T., only refers generally when he introduces passages which are found in the N. T.; and Mr. M. adds that, while the extracts made from the Septuagint by Justin exhibit a great verbal coincidence with the text of the Codex Vaticanus, (which contains more of the anti-hexaplarian readings than our Codex Alexandrinus,) the reverse takes place when he relates the speeches and actions of Christ. Ample specimens are given in both cases to support this position. Stress is also laid by Mr. M. on the circumstance that Justin never mentions the names of any of our four Evangelists in quoting the Gospel history; and Mr. Marsh does not omit to bring forwards those quotations in the Απομνημονεύματα which are not contained in the Gospels. Hence he infers that these Memoirs could not have been the same as our Gospels: but he thinks that it is highly probable that they were the same with what was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, of which the document is supposed to have formed the basis.

So far Mr. M. is right, that the evidence of Justin Martyr is a proof that the acts and discourses of Christ were on record in his time, and that they were not the inventions of men of later ages but if the four Gospels were then universally used by the Church, and superseded appeals to other sources, how happened it that he should never quote them? If the añoμin

*Yet they might not be so, but be a proof of what probably was the case, that the histories of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John began about Justin's time to obtain the title of Euzyyidia.

Kovuμara were not the same with the Gospels, they must have been a work which Justin esteemed as of the highest authority. The difficulty would be obviated by supposing that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have undergone some changes since the time of Justin, but to this opinion Mr. M. will not subscribe. The Remarker, properly considering the inquiry respecting the citations of Justin as of great importance in the question concerning the Canon of Scripture, continues it in his Supplement; not (he says) for the sake of impugning Mr. M.'s hypothesis, but to vindicate to the Church the testimony of the leading witnesses to the authenticity of the Scriptures'. In opposition to Mr. Marsh's positions, he maintains that the amoun MOVEμara mentioned by Justin cannot be regarded as a single work; and that, while the title arou-Evopwvros describes the composition of an individual, απομ --Αποςόλων must designate a work composed by more than one. Farther to support his position that the writings quoted by this antient Father could be no other than our four canonical Gospels, he observes that the words TV ̓Αποτόλων καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολύθησαντών convey a precise description of the Gospels, two having been written by apostles and two by followers of the apostles, and that we must not necessarily mean all the twelve; which perhaps is as true as that by Πράξεις των αποτόλων we are not to understand the Acts of all the Apostles. To the argument founded by Mr. M. on the closer verbal coincidence in the quotations made by Justin from the O. T., compared with those which relate to the actions and discourses of Christ, he replies by denying the fact as a general position; and he endeavours, by a string of passages, to shew that Justin varies from the Septuagint as well as from the N. T. in his quotations, so that Mr. M.'s 'conclusion, taken as a præmissa to reasoning about the N. T. is no longer an universal proposition.' We cannot, however, agree with the Remarker that his opponent's argument in this place ought to be reversed; and that, because Justin in his dialogue with Trypho was dealing with a Jew, it was more necessary to be accurate in transcribing from the Jewish than from the Christian Scriptures. The Dialogue with Trypho being a studied composition as much as the Kerr Inat, which it closely resembles in the opening, it is probable that the author made it as perfect as he could, and was equally attentive to accuracy whether he quoted from the Septuagint or from the Christian records. Opposed to Mr. M.'s list of differences, is a list of passages from Justin, in which a close verbal agreement subsists with corresponding places in the N. T.; and it is contended that the inference that the azqu were the four Gospels is irresistible, when it is combined with the fact that

7

these

these arou-were constantly read in the churches with the Prophets.' The Remarker finishes his Supplement with maintaining that the Gospel, according to the Hebrews, neither could nor ought to have been the text-book of the above men tioned Christian Father, who flourished in the second century. As far as the controversy concerning Justin is concerned, we cannot think with Mr.Marsh that his opponent has 'puzzled the Cause but the arguments about the Gospel of the Hebrews having been declared by Mr.M. to be conjectural and unconnected with the proof of his hypothesis, more may have been said on it bythe Remarker than was necessary. Without giving the name of the document, , it is maintained by Mr. M. that some common Hebrew document was used by the Evangelists in question; that the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Hebrew gospel derived, in his translation, assistance from the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; and that, notwithstanding it cannot be proved by historical testimony, it can be made out by induction, since it affords an explanation of the agreement and the differences which are found to subsist among them.

On this ground, Mr.Marsh, in the Defence of the Illustration, considers the objection stated in the Supplement to the Remarks, viz. that his hypothesis is inconsistent with history," as frivolous; while he thinks that the testimony of antiquity that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is a material proof of his position.

The Remarker fails in supporting the second objection in the Supplement, that the hypothesis is inconsistent with itself;' on which Mr. M. exults over him, since, as he says, 'nothing more was necessary to substantiate the charge, than to shew that any two positions in the hypothesis were inconsistent with each other.'

Dismissing history and probability, the remainder of the Defence is employed in a re-discussion of the three subjects of inquiry forming the test of the hypothesis, viz. I. Are the phænomena true? 2. Will the hypothesis solve them? 3. Will any other hypothesis solve them?-if the first two questions can be answered in the affirmative, and the third in the negative, Mr. M. reaches his Q. E. D. Here Mr. M. has an evident advantage over his adversary; and he retires from the contest with playful exultation. He tells the author of the Remarks, that the dispute has been already prosecuted to such an extent, that unless they transgress the laws which have been hitherto observed by literary combatants, neither can write in this controversy above once more. The public has already seen my Dissertation and his Remarks; my Answer and his Reply; my Rejoinder and his Sur-rejoinder.

The

The present work is, in the language of the law, a Rebutter. Next comes his Sur-rebutter. And, last of all, falls to my

lot-the Clincher.'

Whether Mr. Marsh will be provoked to give the Clincher which he threatens, we know not: but we can answer for the public that they have had enough of this controversy; of which we have given our readers an ample dose, though we have omitted all the bitter and provoking ingredients with which it is abundantly seasoned.

ART. VI. Discursory Considerations on St. Luke's Preface, and other Circumstances of his Gospel; in three Le.ters to a Friend, from a Country Clergyman. 8vo. 35. Payne.

ROM the habit of eliciting all the obvious and latent meanings of texts of scripture, Divines are prone occasionally to indulge their imaginations to an extent which is not warranted by sound judgment. This fanciful mode of exposition often confers on preachers the envied distinction of popularity, but it is a bad property in a critic. To wiredraw a passage, to place an undue stress on words of subordinate rank, and to obscure its general drift by over-strained exposi tions of its component parts, may be thought by some to be ingenious, but will never please the wise.-The author of these. letters is a commentator of this kind. His patience and industry of inquiry are great : but he undertakes more than he atchieves, and deduces conclusions from premises which are too weak and too slender to warrant them. From his extreme zeal, we have no reason to doubt that he is serious, though occasionally his arguments are of such a nature that we can scarcely credit that he is in earnest: we particularly advert to his prolusory dissertation, the object of which is to prove from St. Luke's narrative in the last chapter of his gospel, that he was one of the two disciples to whom our Saviour appeared as they were going to Emmaus. In our estimation, the remarks do not in the smallest degree support this assertion, nor impart to it the shadow of probability. At least our eyes are so holden that we cannot see it.

As to the writer's critical observations on St. Luke's Preface, they are more plausible though not more conclusive. The whole is dissected; and the meaning of each word is weighed in order to prove that St. Luke was a constant eye-witness and auditor of the facts and discourses which he relates, and that he did not construct his gospel on the evidence of those who were from the first, eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.' We have perused the author's criticisms and considerations with atten