cidences between different writings. Yet, with all these coincidences, it is perfectly natural to suppose, that there must have been peculiarities appropriate to each individual Evangelist, as to his mode of viewing each subject, his method of stating it, and the extent of what was comprised in his account. Such is the fact beyond all doubt. On the ground that inspiration is fully credited in each case, this would make no important difference in respect to diversities. The Greek and Roman writers do not exhibit more striking discrepancies of style and modes of representation, than those which are apparent in both the Old Testament and the New.

Mr. Norton endeavours, on p. cclxx. seq., to account for the occasional verbal agreement between Mark and Luke, by the supposition that the Gospel was more usually preached in the Greek language, particularly at Jerusalem, where was always a concourse of foreign Jews, who spoke that language and probably would not have well understood the Hebrew. The words of the Saviour being often stated in the Greek language, would be remembered by those who often heard them, and repeated in like manner, in many respects, by those from whom Mark and Luke obtained information.

But here a difficulty occurs in regard to the occasional sameness of Matthew's Gospel also. Mr. Norton, as we have seen, supposes this to have been originally written in Hebrew. The translator of this Hebrew to Greek, then, as he here maintains, when he came to passages parallel in sentiment with some passages in Mark and Luke, instead of making a simple and direct version of his original, expressed the sentiment of it in the language of one or both of the two latter Evangelists. Of course, he supposes the translator to have had the Gospels of Mark and Luke before him.

There is another point in respect to this similarity, which must be exhibited in Mr. Norton's own language, in order to do justice to him.

But there is, further, a remarkable phenomenon in the verbal coincidences between the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which shows that the translator of Matthew used those Gospels in a particular manner. Throughout the matter common to all three Gospels, his rendering is, with very trifling exceptions, never coincident with the words of Luke, except in passages where there was a previous verbal coincidence between Luke and Mark; while in the matter common only to Matthew and Luke, he

often adopts the words of the latter. The obvious solution of this fact is, that the translator, in his renderings, did not rely merely upon his general recollection of the phraseology of Mark and Luke, but wrote with their Gospels open before him; and that, finding the correspondence between the language of his original and that of Mark much greater than between it and that of Luke, he used the Gospel of Mark alone so far as it contained the same matter, and had recourse to that of Luke only when Mark failed him. Thus, in the matter common to all three, he agrees with Luke only accidentally, that is, where there was a previous agreement between Luke and Mark; pp. clxxii. seq.

In the next paragraph he states, that on the supposition that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, the verbal agreement of his Greek Gospel can be accounted for in no other way than this. A more important conclusion still he deduces from the alleged coincidence of agreement with Luke as stated above, where the latter agrees with Mark in cases of matter common to both the conclusion namely, that Matthew's Gospel must have been originally written in Hebrew, because such a phenomenon in respect to coincidence can be accounted for in no other way, than by supposing it to have been occasioned by the manner in which the translator performed his work. Where Mark and Luke exhibit the same matter, the translator of Matthew, it is assumed, followed Mark; and the coincidence of Luke in such a case is accidental, or (in other words) springs merely from his having accorded with Mark in his expressions. Of course, then, where Luke differs from Mark, there the translator of Matthew follows the latter, and consequently disagrees with Luke; but where Luke and Matthew alone exhibit narrations of any particular thing, there the translator of Matthew resorted to Luke as his model, and there the resemblance between them is striking.

Mr. Norton thinks that this discovery of the manner in which Matthew harmonizes with Mark, in the way of preference to Luke, and then with Luke where Mark fails him, is "one of the most important of all the explanations that have been given of the phenomena of the correspondencies among the Gospels." He deems it due, therefore, to Bishop Marsh, to acknowledge him as the author of this discovery, lest he should be thought to arrogate to himself the credit arising from so important a discovery, which is due to the Bishop.

It seems not a little strange however to me, that Mr. Norton, VOL. XI. No. 30.

42

who has been so keen-sighted in spying out the faults and errors of the wonderful conceit about an Original Gospel, as the grand menstruum by which all difficulties were to be solved, should have given so easy credence to the Bishop of Peterborough in the present case. I can explain it only by the supposition, that he saw in this theory, as he says, a conclusive reason in favour of an original Hebrew Gospel, and then found decisive evidences of the work of a translator and of the manner of that work.

I should begin the examination of this theory, in case I felt at liberty now to go fully into it, by a denial of the main fact, viz., that in cases where all three of the Evangelists relate the same occurrence and Luke differs from Matthew, Matthew, i. e. the translator of Matthew, attaches himself to Mark and agrees with him. Nothing is like facts in such a case; but to them I must briefly refer the reader, not thinking it meet here to produce the Greek originals at full length. I refer him, however, to the pages in Newcome's Greek Harmony, the second edition recently published, where these originals are spread out to his eye, and he can instantly determine whether my statement is correct. Compare then, (1) Matt. 17: 18 with the latter part of Luke 9: 42 and Mark 9: 25. (Harm. p. 105.)

Here Matthew, although discrepant in some respects from both of the other Evangelists, is plainly much nearer in matter and manner to Luke than he is to Mark.

(2) Matt. 17: 22 with Mark 9: 31 and Luke 9: 44. (Harm. p. 106.)

Here' Luke and Matthew exhibit μέλλει παραδίδοσθαι, while Mark has simply παραδίδοται.

(3) Matt. 22: 27 with Mark 12: 22 and Luke 20:32. (Harm. p. 156.)

In this case Matthew and Luke exhibit ὕστερον δὲ πάντων, while Mark has ἐσχάτη πάντων.

(4) Matt. 26: 16 with Mark 14: 11 and Luke 22: 6. (Harm. p. 172.)

Here' Matthew and Luke have ἐζήτει εὐκαιρίαν ; while Mark says: ἐζήτει πως εὐκαίρως.

(5) Matt. 27: 59 with Mark 15: 46 and Luke 23:53. (Harm. p. 207.)

Here Matthew and Luke: ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ (sc. σῶμα ̓Ιησοῦ) σινδόνι; while Mark says: ἐνείλησε τῇ σινδόνι.

(6) Matt. 28: 6 with Mark 16: 6 and Luke 24: 6. (Harm. p. 210.)

Here Matthew and Luke say : Οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ηγέρθη γάρ, (Luke, αλλ' ηγέρθη); while Mark says: ηγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε. These examples of discrepancy I have taken from De Wette's Introduction to the New Testament, $ 80, Note a. With this meagre list he seems to rest satisfied, in opposing the view of Bishop Marsh, which is presented above and which is so much applauded by Mr. Norton. My first impression on examining this list was, that it must be a rare case indeed in which Matthew could be found to agree with the diction of Luke, while the example of Mark was also before him. So at least De Wette would seem to have thought, when he gave to his readers such a list of coincidences with Matthew, seemingly the result of comparison throughout the parallel passages of the three first Gospels. The list is introduced into the midst of statements that wear an imposing appearance of great labour and diligence, in the examination of all the coincidences and discrepancies of the Gospels.

But I had learned, many years since, to believe that De Wette, with all his talent and learning (and he has much of both), is a very hasty, and not unfrequently a very inaccurate writer, and is not always to be depended on where long continued and patient research must be made. It was a matter of course, therefore, for me to resort to the Greek Harmony, and there, to my surprise, after reading such statements in Bishop Marsh, Mr. Norton, and De Wette, I found, without any pains-taking, in every section which I investigated merely as it occurred on opening the book, facts which shew how utterly groundless this great discovery of my Lord of Peterborough is. Will the reader have patience while I present him with a few examples of what a few hours' diligent research brought under my notice? The point to be settled here, (and this is my apology for dwelling upon it), is of more importance than every one at first view will be ready to suppose.

In the very first instance of triplex harmony that occurs in the Gospels, there are some striking discrepancies in the mode of narration, in which Matthew follows, (if I may be allowed this word merely for brevity's sake, for I hold Matthew to have been entirely an original writer), Luke instead of Mark.

(a) Compare Matt. 3: 3 with Mark 1: 2, 3 and Luke 3: 4. (Harm. p. 12.)

Here, after the words Isaiah the prophet, common to all three of the Evangelists, Matthew and Luke use Aéyovros, and

then quote a passage from the Old Testament, as it stands in the Septuagint (Is. 40: 3), with the exception that instead of τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν there at the close, the two Evangelists both read αὐτοῦ. But here Mark, after the words Isaiah the prophet, inserts a passage from Malachi 3: 1, and then proceeds. with the quotation from Isaiah, as in the other Evangelists. Moreover he omits the word λέγοντος, and in its stead employs γέγραπται.

(4) Matt. 3: 11, compare with Mark 1: 7, 8 and Luke 3: 16. (Harm. p. 13.)

Here Matthew and Luke employ βαπτίζω; but Mark has ἐβάπτισε. Matthew and Luke say, αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί; but Mark says, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι αγίω, differing in some respects as to manner, order, and matter.

(c) Matt. 9: 5 with Mark 2: 9 and Luke 5: 23. (Harm. p. 32.)

Here, after τ' . . . εὐκοπώτερον; εἰπεῖν· Matthew and Luke immediately subjoin: ἀφέωνταί σου (σοι) αἱ ἁμαρτίαι; ἢ εἰπεῖν· "Εγειραι καὶ περιπάτει; but Mark inserts τῷ παραλυτικῷ after the first εἰπεῖν, and for the last phrase he has "Εγειρε, ἆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον, καὶ περιπάτει ;

(α) Matt. 12: 1 with Mark 2: 23 and Luke 6: 1. (Harm. p. 36.)

Matthew says, οἱ μαθηταὶ . . . οἱ μαθηταὶ . . . ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίεν; Luke, ἔτιλλον.... τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον; while Mark says, ἤρξαντο οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τους στάχυας, wholly omitting ἤσθιον.

And again in the next succeeding verses, Matthew and Luke, ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ (ἐν τοῖς σάββασι), while Mark has τί ποιοῦσιν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι

(e) Matt. 12 : 4 with Mark 2 : 26 and Luke 6 : 4. (Harm. p. 37.)

Here Matthew and Luke, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν (ἔλαβε); but Mark inserts after θεοῦ the words ἐπὶ ̓Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως.

(f) Matt. 12: 13 with Mark 3: 5 and Luke 6: 10. (Harm. p. 38.)

Rejecting the evidently spurious readings here, Matthew says, καὶ ἀποκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη, but Luke adds ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ after αποκατεστάθη and omits υγιής (according to the