logical Review; of whose observations the following is an abstract: 1. This hypothesis is in itself extremely improbable, and not reconcilable with certain facts deducible from the study of the style and language of St. Luke's Gospel. or of explanation), like Martial's Epigrams, some good, some indifferent, and more bad, into a book."i cher conducted the examination of St. Luke's Gospel, do not 2. Further, the principles, on which Professor Schleierma bear him out in the hypothesis which he has framed. (2.) This hypothesis is not reconcilable with certain facts deducible from a study of the style and language of St. Luke's Gospel. The validity of this objection is supported by the learned re viewer, who has cited very numerous instances of the evangelist's style and language, compared with those occurring in the Acts of (1.) The hypothesis is in itself extremely improbable. the Apostles, for which the reader is necessarily referred to the "That a person employed in writing an historical work should journal already cited. It must suffice to state in this place, that use such existing narratives as he could depend on, is undoubtedly the passages adduced clearly show that the Gospel of Luke and both probable and rational. That he should make up his history the Acts of the Apostles are throughout the production of the same of such fragmentary materials has this clear objection to it, that author; peculiar words and phrases, which are rarely or never the writer, wanting narratives of every period, cannot possibly be used by the other evangelists, being used through various pars nice in his selection, but must take such as he can find, and where of the Gospel and Acts; while a large number of these peculiar he can meet with none of high authority, must of necessity be words and phrases are derivable from one source the Septuagint; satisfied with others of less. That this must be the consequence and, what is very curious, a large number of words not used by the of so composing an history is, we think, quite clear on mere rea-other writers of the New Testament are common to St. Luke and sonable grounds; and that it is practically true Professor Schleier- to St. Paul, whose companion the evangelist was for many year macher, at least, cannot deny, for he himself states that St. Luke "If," therefore, the reviewer forcibly argues, "a peculiar phrase has introduced incorrect, unfounded, and almost fabulous narratives ology runs through two works, if much of that peculiar phraseology into his Gospel. Bat, we would ask, is an author to be supposed is constantly referable to one known source, and if much of it is totally without perception of this obvious objection; or, in other also to be found in the works of a person for many years the con words, is it to be supposed that he willingly produces a less valua-stant companion of the reputed author of these works, there is very ble and authentic history where he could produce one more so? strong reason for believing the common opinion to be the correct We must be allowed to think that if this is true of a common his-one. Chance can hardly have done so much-can hardly have tory, it is still more so of such a history as a gospel-the history of distinguished the greater part of above forty narratives (according a new religion and its founder. Whatever may be thought of the to Professor Schleiermacher) by the use of the same peculiar knowledge or powers of its historian, thus much all will allow, phraseology-can hardly have produced a striking connection be that he thought Christianity true, that is to say, he thought himself tween their style and that of the intimate friend of their compiler." employed in giving an account of a revelation from God, the whole In a note, the reviewer states the following to be the result of a value of which depends on its being true."-Now, "a person so pretty laborious examination of the New Testament: "There are employed would assuredly feel a deep responsibility attaching to in St. Luke as many words peculiar to him as in the three other him, and an earnest desire to obtain the very best and most au- evangelists together. In the Acts very far more. In St. Paul as thentic accounts of the weighty matters of which he was treating. many nearly as in the rest of the New Testament. In inquiring And if the truth of these remarks be admitted, their force can only into the words peculiar to one of the Gospels and Acts, we find be evaded by saying either that St. Luke had not the power of more than three times as many in St. Luke as in either of the obtaining better materials, or had no discrimination, no power of others. With respect to words peculiar to one of the Gospels and judging which were better and which worse. Now with respect St. Paul, there are nearly three times as many in St. Luke as in to the first of these alternatives, without at all inquiring whether St. Matthew, and more than three times as many as in St. Mark or he was or was not himself a witness to any of our Lord's miracles, St. John. Of such words there are also in the Acts about five times it cannot be denied, with any show of argument, that he lived at as many as in either Matthew, Mark, or John. And there are the time of the transactions of which he treated, nor that he had about as many words common to St. Luke, the Acts, and St Paul, ready access to those most capable of giving him exact and accu- and peculiar to these books, as there are words peculiar to St. Luke rate accounts of all that passed in our Lord's life. We have posi- and St. Paul alone."4 tive evidence of his having been for a long time the companion of St. Paul, and of his having gone with him to Jerusalem, when that apostle was seized, and his long imprisonment, previous to his voyage to Rome, commenced. At the close of that imprisonment he was at hand, and accompanied St. Paul to Rome. Where he spent the intermediate time, certainly is not positively mentioned, but from his being with St. Paul at the commencement and the close of his imprisonment, and from his having come to Jerusalem as his companion and friend, we think it most probable that he was not far distant during its continuance; at all events, it is especially mentioned that at Jerusalem he went with St. Paul to St. James, when all the elders were present. It is therefore indisputable, that he had every opportunity of acquiring the best information respecting our Lord, from his apostles and other eye-wit-of Matthew, and our Lord's discourse with the scribes and pharinesses of his life and actions. What, then, we would ask, could be the temptation to a person under St. Luke's circumstances, to prefer written narratives, circulating with an authenticity at least loosely established (and, in fact, according to Professor Schleiermacher, often worthless), to the oral testimony of the most competent witnesses; the dead words of dead writing to the living voices Of living men who had been the constant attendants of our Lord, and must daily have given Luke, at least, sufficient testimony that they were led by the Spirit of God? They who adopt this hypothesis are surely bound to give some account of the motives which But the doctors of the law would scarcely have stayed without could induce a person situated like St. Luke, led either by inclination till the splendid repast was at an end, for they were sure enough of or a sense of duty to become the historian of the faith he had learned finding Christ and his disciples at the usual time of public business and accepted, and influenced by the feelings by which he and the next day, and this conversation could scarcely follow immediately every honest Christian undertaking such a work must have been after the banquet. Had this history, therefore, been related in a influenced, to prefer imperfect to perfect testimony, and a set of continuous thread with the former, we should have found them floating narratives of doubtful character to the certain evidence connected either in this manner, Still they were minded, after this, of eye-witnesses. Professor Schleiermacher, who cannot argue again to question his disciples, for that the day before he had sat that the evangelist would take pains to procure only authenticated at meat with them at the house of a publican, with many other publi narratives (because he has stated his belief that many erroneous cans and sinners: or thus, And he went hence to a great feast which ones have found their way into this Gospel), takes the other alter-a publican had made for him, and from this the scribes and pharisees native to which we have alluded, and frequently says that the took occasion afresh, &c. Ours, however, sounds quite like an innicety and exactness which we, who are a critical generation,' dependent narrative which premises the circumstances necessary require, were unknown to former ages, which were easily satisfied to be known, without concerning itself about any further connec with a less rigid scrupulousness as to accuracy, and that St. Luketion. The phrase zaì putra raūra is much too vague to seck in it might, therefore, be contented with materials really imperfect. a view to any precise reference to the preceding passage. But to us this appears a poor answer to the difficulty; for there is "From this specimen our readers will see somewhat of the na no question here as to any research, any abstruse reasoning, any ture of Professor Schleiermacher's proceedings. He difficult inquiry. The question to be considered is simply this-we are able to judge accurately of the writer's aim in a particular whether an honest and sincere man undertaking to write the his- narrative; that we know enough of the circumstances of the event tory of events of no trivial importance, but concerning the eternal he relates, to judge whether it is probable that the doctors of the welfare of mankind, and living with those who had been present law would wait for Christ till he had finished a visit to a given and personally engaged in the most remarkable of them, would person presumed to be objectionable to them; that we can decide apply to these competent witnesses for information, or would deem whether these habits were so strongly rooted, that even the unusual it a wiser and a better plan to collect a set of doubtful narratives of these events, written by doubtful authors, till he had obtained some sort of account of all that interested him, and then to string his Collectanea together (without a word of addition, of correction, (1.) For, in applying the test of probability, Professor Schleier macher assumes, in an unwarrantable manner, the right of supplying, from his own fancy, all the circumstances and details of every nar ration which he finds in the Gospel; and then he explains the whole transaction by means of the very details he has furnished. Five examples are adduced by the reviewer of Dr. Schleiermacher, in illustration of this remark one of which will be sufficient to confirm it. "In commenting on the fifth chapter of the Gospel (p. 81.) he tells us, that the narrative (ver. 27-39.) of the calling sees, was not written in connection with the narrative (ver. 17-2) of the cure of the paralytic, which also contains a conversation of the same parties, for the following reasons: According to Professor Schleiermacher, the conversation of Christ and the pharisees is evidently the main point of the second narrative.' That is. the call of St. Matthew is not so. That is only mentioned because the conversation would not have been intelligible without the fact that Christ and his disciples had partaken of a repast at the publi can's house. 1 British Critic, vol. ii. pp. 354-356. a Ibid. vol. ii. p. 357. Ibid. pp. 365-368. supposes Ibid. pp. 358-364. • Ibid. 357. note. P. that her come to oppose their law would not induce -, but would compel them to wait till the usual or an interview with him; whether in a small ot have met with him instantly on his leaving derogating from their dignity; and again, that with some certainty as to the method by which onnect the preceding and succeeding parts of sly assumes the existence of the most incredible ance on the part of the sacred writers, whenever =y difficulty by such an hypothesis. ner. e states it (p. 92.) as his belief, that there was of the apostles, and that St. Luke did not mean alling. But he allows that St. Mark does, in the And how does he reconcile this with his ? Simply by supposing that St. Mark saw this ke, and misunderstood it! There are two monties to be got over in this statement; for we hether it is credible that St. Mark did not know as a solemn calling of the apostles or not? and, ssible reason there is for supposing that he was ocs Professor Schleiermacher allow himself the license in conjuring up feelings, intentions, mostances; but in many instances these conjectures nd the motives and circumstances conjectured [are] mprobable as it is possible to imagine. heory as to the way in which a particular occur understand St. Luke than ourselves."2 e, and then imagines circumstances to suit it.' or Schleiermacher observes, that Luke (viii. 22.) he object of our Lord and his disciples in going on wishes to show that they went out without any and not with the intention of making a journey. way of conceiving the whole occurrence is to disciples had gone out in the boat to fish, and that ed them; for why should he always have let the e lost for their instruction and the exertion of his on them?' &c. He appears to have forgotten that ntions a circumstance rather adverse to Jesus being ching his disciples on this occasion-namely, that Matt. viii. 24.)" e details conjecturally supplied by Professor Schleieronly improbable, but do great injustice to the character considered not as a divine Being, but as a heavenly quite inappropriate to such a character. be very easy to say what would be the exact line sued by such a teacher, or how far he might enter on detail of life; but surely nothing can be less reao reduce every action and every movement to the of ordinary life, and to contend that every thing be so reduced is improbable. But this is the level ssor Schleiermacher seeks to reduce all the transace of Jesus; this is the test by which he tries them; the grounds on which he passes sentence of impromany of them. Now let any man look at the Gospel st, and believing (if after such examination he can) was a mere man, yet under that belief let him say system so opposed to the spirit of the time in which ated, so abstract from the world, so pure, so holy, so be, and yet so sublime, he does not find ample reason g that its author must on very many occasions have ed and renounced all the common routine of life, and self to thought, retirement, and prayer. Jesus, we ed the night on the Mount in prayer. Is there any way improbable in this, if he were a mere man, belf sent by God to instruct and reform mankind? It is ut the question if he were really a heavenly teacher. Schleiermacher chooses to account for this by suput a trace of it in the history) that he must have been that he was returning to his abode with a caravan, bustle of the inn, which he disliked, was driven out ight in the air! All this, it seems, is easier than the hat he, who was, or at all events believed himself to ly teacher, desired to strengthen himself for his office and prayer."5 ast hypothesis, which remains to be noticed, is that poses the first three Gospels to be derived not ritten Gospel, but from ORAL TRADITION FROM THE ND OTHER DISCIPLES OF JESUS CHRIST. hypothesis was first suggested by HERDER about 8 since. He agrees with Eichhorn in assuming Hebrew or Chaldee Gospel; but he differs from st other respects, by supposing this common docua mere verbal gospel, which consisted only in the (z) of the first teachers of Christianity; and says, had been verbally propagated for thirty en the substance of it was committed to writing in rent Gospels. According to the form of this oral Critic, vol. ii. pp. 365, 366. 2 Ibid. p. 368. Essay, pp. 131, 132. 4 Brit. Crit. vol. ii. p. 372. Critic, vol. ii. pp. 373, 374. In pp. 374-395. various other examduced, and the erroneous reasonings of Professor Schleierosed with equal industry and learning. gospel or preaching, the written Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were regulated. Hence arose their similarity; but it is useless, Herder further asserts, to examine the words used in our first three Gospels, for this very reason, that they proceeded not from a written document, but from a mere oral gospel or preaching: and, accordingly, in his opinion, whoever attempts by an analysis of our first three Gospels to discover the contents of a supposed common document, can never succeed in the undertaking. who conceived the existence of an oral or traditional gospel, 2. The hypothesis of Herder was adopted by ECKERMANN, in which the discourses of Jesus were preserved; and he imagined that Matthew wrote the principal parts of it in the Aramaan dialect. Hence he accounted for the similarity in the first three Gospels, by supposing that Mark and Luke collected the materials of their Gospels at Jerusalem; which existing in this oral gospel could not but exhibit a striking resemblance to that of Matthew. So improbable, however, did this hypothesis appear in itself, at the time it was announced, that it was generally disapproved, and was at length exploded as a mere fiction; and Eckermann himself is stated to have subsequently abandoned it, and to have embraced the ancient opinion respecting the first three Gospels. 3. More recently, the hypothesis of Herder has been revived and modified by Dr. J. C. GIESELER9 in the following manner: Master. As The evangelical history, previously to being committed to writing, was for a long time transmitted from mouth to mouth with respectful fidelity: thus it became the object of oral tradition, but a pure tradition, and carefully preserved. the first Christians came out of the Jewish church, and were familiarly acquainted with that tradition, they had neither desire nor occasion for possessing a written history of their But when the Gospel was propagated in distant places, and reckoned among its followers wise men who had been converted from paganism, their literary habits and their previous ignorance of the history of Christianity caused them to wish for written books; and the first Gospels were accordingly published. In this way, Luke wrote for Theophilus. But the evangelists only transcribed accurately the most important portions of the oral tradition, selecting from it such particulars as were best suited to the place, time, and particular design, on account of which they wrote. Drawing from the same source, they have frequently said the same things; but, writing under different circumstances, they have often differed from each other. Further, oral tradition was held in higher authority by the church than written Gospels, and was also more frequently consulted and cited. By degrees those Gospels, which followed it with great fidelity, became possessed of the same respect, and finally supplanted it. The heretics contributed much to this result. They, indeed, first introduced into the church a spirit of argumentation and dispute, and they were the first persons who devoted their attention in an especial manner to the theoretical part of religion. In no long time, from the love of discussion and the pride of knowledge, they composed gospels for themselves, also derived from oral tradition, but mutilated and altered. The true Christians, who had hitherto been occupied in loving and in doing good, rather than in reasoning upon religion, and who had been accustomed to derive their requisite knowledge from oral tradition, were obliged, in defence of their faith, to have recourse to their Gospels, which were the authentic works of the disciples of Jesus. Then they accustomed themselves to read them, to meditate upon them, and also to quote them, in order that they might be armed against the heretics and their falsified histories. Thus, gradually and silently, without any decree or decision of a council, our four Gospels universally displaced oral tradition. In the middle of the second century, they were acknowledged by the whole church, and since that time they have constantly and universally possessed canonical authority. Such are the prominent features of Gieseler's system. That it solves all the phenomena and difficulties which its author imagines to exist in the first three Gospels, we may readily concede; because, being framed for the purpose explaining those phenomena, it may be expected to answer of 6 Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2. p. 203., where Herder's Christliche Schriften (Christian Writings), vol. ii. pp. 303-416. are quoted. Kundel, Comment. in Lib. Hist. Nov. Test. vol. 1. p. 5. Dr. Wait's Translation of Hug's Introduction, vol. i. Pref. pp. v. vi. This notice of Gieseler's hypothesis is abridged from Cellérier's Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 260 267., who cites Dr. G.'s Historisch-Kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien. (Historico-Critical Essay on the Origin and early Fates of the written Gospels.) Minden, 1818. that purpose; but that both this hypothesis and that of Herder are destitute of any real foundation, will (we think) appear from the following considerations: 1. In the first place,-not to dwell on the total silence of antiquity respecting the assumed existence of these verbal gospels, it is utterly incredible that so long a time should elapse, as both Herder and Gieseler suppose, before any Gospel was committed to writing; because every Christian, who had once heard so important a relation, must have wished to write down at least the principal materials of it, had it been only to assist his own memory. Besides, a mere oral narrative, after it had gone through so many different mouths, in the course of so many years, must at length have acquired such a variety of forms, that it must have ceased to deserve the title of a common Gospel (as Herder termed it); and therefore the supposition that our first three Gospels were moulded in one form is difficult to reconcile with the opinion of a mere oral gospel, which must necessarily have assumed a variety of forms. Further, the suppositions of these writers respecting the length of time which they imagine must have elapsed before any Gospel was committed to writing is contradicted by the evidence, both external and internal, for the early date of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, which has already been stated in pp. 296, 297 of this volume. 2. Although we should concede to Dr. Gieseler, that the evangelical history was so well known to the first Christians, that they had no occasion for written documents until after the expiration of many years; that the first Christians, more occupied with the cultivation of Christian virtues than with theological science, paid less attention to the words of the Gospels than to the facts and lessons contained in the evangelical history-that they restricted the appellation of F or Scripture to the Old Testament;-that the books of the New Testament were not yet collected together, and that they designated its precepts and instructions by the formula of Xpres, Christ has said it-although these points should be conceded, yet does it necessarily follow that they undervalued or disregarded written documents? that they preferred oral tradition to them, and that they did not generally make use of our four Gospels until the middle of the second century? By no means. Such a conclusion appears to us to be contradicted by the nature of things, since the writings of the apostles must have been held in at least equal estimation with that tradition, by which the subjects of their preaching were preserved; since the heathens, who were converted to the Christian faith, could with difficulty have recourse to oral tradition, and would eagerly avail themselves of written documents as soon as they could obtain them, that is to say, early in the second 3. Much stress has been laid by Dr. Gieseler on the small number of quotations from the Gospels in the writings of the fathers, previously to the middle of the second century. But this paucity of quotations is sufficiently accounted for by the small number of Christian writers whose works have been transmitted to us, by their preference of practical piety to science and theory, and by the persecutions to which the church of Christ was exposed: so that there is no necessity for concluding that the Gospels were at that time but little known. Such of those quotations as refer to the Kuy or preaching of the apostles do not necessarily imply a reference to oral tradition; and they may equally be understood of written documents. century. 4. Gieseler has further urged, in behalf of his hypothesis, our total ignorance of the precise time when, and of the occasion on which, our Gospels were admitted as canonical by the whole church. But the profound and universal veneration in which these Gospels were held from and after the middle of the second century, that is to say, from the very time when there was a greater number of Christian writers and books,-evidently demonstrates that their authority was by no means new, but had been of some continuance. The very nature, too, of our Gospels leads to the same result. In every one of them there is so evidently discernible a special design with reference to the circumstances under which they were written, and to the churches which became the depositories of them, that we cannot imagine that they could have been addressed to a few individuals only, and that they should have been forgotten by the mass of believers for nearly half a century. 5. Lastly, although the hypothesis of an oral traditionary document should be necessary, in order to solve all the difficulties which are alleged to exist, respecting the sources of the first three Gospels, yet we must take into consideration the real difficulties which it substitutes in place of those pretended difficulties. We must conceive how such oral tradition, which was diffused from Rome to Babylon, continued without the slightest alteration, amidst the great number of new converts, who were daily occupied in studying them, and in transmitting them to others. We must imagine in what manner such tradition continued sufficiently uniform; so that persons, who committed some fragments of it to writing,one, for instance, at Jerusalem, and another at Rome, should in the same narrative frequently make use of the same phrases and even the same words. And, finally, we must reconcile the hypothesis with the authenticity of our Gospels (which has been both historically and critically proved); and prevent the followers of this system from deducing thence the evidently false conclusion, which some German neologians have not been slow in forming, viz. that our Gospels were supposititious productions posterior to the time of the evangelists. 1 Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2. p. 204. V. Since, then, the four hypotheses, with their several modifications, above discussed, are insufficient to account for the harmony, both of words and of thought, which appear in the first three Gospels, should it be asked how are we to account for such coincidences? We reply that they may be sufficiently explained without having recourse to either of these hypotheses, and in a manner that cannot but satisfy every serious and inquiring reader. "It is admitted on all hands," says Bishop Gleig, "that the most remarkable coincidences of both language and thought, that occur in the first three Gospels, are found in those places in which the several writers record our Lord's doctrines and miracles; and it will likewise be admitted, that of a variety of things seen or heard by any man at the same instant of time, those which made the deepest impres sion are distinctly remembered long after all traces of the others have been effaced from the memory. It will also be allowed, that of a number of people witnessing the same remarkable event, some will be most forcibly impressed by one circumstance, and others by a circumstance which, though equally connected with the principal event, is, considered by itself, perfectly different. The miracles of our blessed Lord were events so astonishing, that they must have made, on the minds of all who witnessed them, impressions too deep to be ever effaced; though the circumstances attending each miracle must have affected the different spectators very differently, so as to have made impressions, some of them equally indelible with the miracle itself, on the mind of one inan; whilst by another, whose mind was completely occupied by the principal event itself, these very circumstances may have been hardly observed at all, and of course been soon forgotten. "That this is a matter of fact which occurs daily, every man may convince himself by trying to recollect all the par ticulars of an event which powerfully arrested his attention many years ago. He will find that his recollection of the event itself, and of many of the circumstances which attended it, is as vivid and distinct at this day as it was a month after the event occurred; whilst of many other circumstances, which he is satisfied must have accompanied it, he has but a very confused and indistinct recollection, and of some, no recollection at all. If the same man take the trouble to inquire of any friend who was present with him when he witnessed the event in question, he will probably find that his friend's recollection of the principal event is as vivid and distinct as his own; that his friend recollects likewise many of the accompanying circumstances which were either not observed by himself, or have now wholly escaped from his memory; and that of the minuter circumstances, of which he has the most distinct recollection, his friend remembers hardly one. That such is the nature of that intellectual power by which we retain the remembrance of past events, I know from experience; and if there be any man who has never yet made such experiments on himself, let him make them immediately, and I am under no apprehension, that, if they be fairly made, the result will not be as I have always found it. Let it be remembered, too, as a universal fact, o a law of human nature, as certainly as gravitation is a law of corporeal nature, that in proportion as the impression made on the mind by the principal object in any interesting scene is strong, those produced by the less important circumstances are weak, and therefore liable to be soon effaced, or, if retained at all, retained faintly and confusedly; and that when the impression made by the principal object is exceedingly strong, so as to fill the mind completely, the unimportant circumstances make no impression whatever, as has been a hundred times proved by the hackneyed instance of a man absorbed in thought not hearing the sound of a clock when striking the hour beside him. If these facts be admitted (and I cannot suppose that any reflecting man will call them in question), it will not be necessary to have recourse to hypotheses, to account either for that degree of harmony which prevails among the first three evangelists, when recording the miracles of our blessed Lord, or for the discrepancy which is found in what they say of the order in which those mira cles were performed, or of the less important circumstances accompanying the performance. In every one of them the principal object was our Lord himself, whose powerful voice the winds and waves, and even the devils, obeyed. The power displayed by him on such occasions must have made so deep an impression on the minds of all the spectators as never to be effaced: but whether one or two demoniacs were restored to a sound mind in the land of the Gadarenes; of a common document; but that document was no other than the PREACHING OF OUR BLESSED Lord HIMSELF. He was the great Prototype. In looking up to him, the Author of their fuith and mission, and to the very words in which he was wont to dictate to them (which not only yet sounded in their ears, but were also recalled by the aid of his Holy Spirit promised for that very purpose), they have given us three Gospels, often agreeing in words, though not without much diversification, ana always in sense." two blind men miraculously received their hbourhood of Jericho; and whether that mimed at one end of the town or at the other, s which, when compared with the miracles of so little importance, as may easily be e made but a slight impression on the minds the most attentive observers, whose whole en directed to the principal object, and by cumstances would be soon forgotten, or, if all, remembered confusedly. To the order To this powerful reasoning we can add nothing: pron the miracles were performed, the evange- tracted as this discussion has unavoidably been, the importhave paid very little regard, but to have re-ance of its subjects must be the author's apology for the s Boswell records many of the sayings of length at which the preceding questions have been treated; at marking their dates; or as Xenophon has because the admission of either the copying, documentary, emorabilia of Socrates in a work which has or traditionary hypotheses is not only detrimental to the spect, compared to the Gospels." character of the sacred writers, but also diminishes the value and importance of their testimony. "They seem to think more justly," said that eminent critic Le Clerc, "who say that the first three evangelists were unacquainted with each other's design: thus greater weight accrues to their testimony. When witnesses agree, who have previously concerted together, they are suspected: but those witnesses are justly credited who testify the same thing separately, and without knowing what others have said."s t to the doctrines of our Lord, it should be edition of Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 104. fewer; one subjoins a reason or an explanation, which another did not feel to be necessary; and thus, we may be assured, would three of the most correct observers, and scrupulously exact reporters in the world do always, if they separately related what they had seen or heard the very day before. Probably each would do so if he twice related, in conversation only, the very same transactions or discourses. Our daily experience may prove this to us. Narrations of the same facts, or of the saine discourses, always differ from each other; generally, indeed, more than they ought to differ; from carelessness, inaccuracy, or the love of embel son will relate rather more, another rather less, of the facts or words; one lishment. But setting these causes aside, they still must differ. One perwill try to explain as he goes, another to illustrate; and the expressions used will always savour, more or less, of the habitual mode of discourse peculiar to the individual. But in reporting speeches, the inore care is taken to preserve the very words of the speaker, the less there will be, in that part, of the usual difference of expressions. Still, something there will always remain, because, however careful a man may be to describe correct view, and I hesitate not to say, the only correct view, of the reseinor imitate another, he is never able to put off himself. This, then, is the blances and differences in the Gospels. They agree as narratives will agree, whose common model is the truth. They differ as distinct narratives will always differ, while men are men; but they neither agree nor differ as copied narratives would, for the reasons already assigned." Mr. Archdeacon Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists demonstrated, pp. 171-174. In pp. 175, 176. 297-301. the coincidence and difference of the evangelists and of St. Paul's two narratives of his own conversion, and the historical are appositely illustrated by harmonized tables of the parable of the sower, narrative of St. Luke. et 3 John xiv. 26. 32. "Remarks on Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament," P. seq. See also Bishop Gleig's edition of Stackhouse, vol. iii. pp. 105-112. Multo rectius sentire videntur, qui evangelistas tres priores scripsisse suas historias censent, cùm neuter aliorum consilii conscius esset, unde etiam eorum testimonio majus accedit pondus. Cum enim consentiunt testes, qui inter se capita contulerunt, suspecti potiùs habentur: sed testes, qui idem testantur seorsim, nescii aliorum testimonii, meritò verum dicere videntur.-Joannis Phereponi [i. e. Le Clerc] Animadversiones in Augus tini Librum de Consensu Evangeliorum Appendix Augustiniana, p. 532Antverpie 1703. folio. No. II. TABLES OF WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MONEY, MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. Extracted chiefly from the Second Edition of Dr. Arbuthnot's Tables of Ancient Coins, Weights, and Measures. 4. Scripture Measures of Capacity for Liquids, reduced to 7. Roman and Greek Money, mentioned in the New Testament, English Wine Measure. reduced to the English Standard. gal. pints. 0 0 | A mite (Λεπτον οι Ασσαρίου) 0 34 A farthing (Kodpavτns) about 32 16| 12| 24 6 2 A seah 1 2 A penny, or denarius (Avapov) 0 0 0 0 00011 0073 3 A bath or ephah 60 | 30 | 10 A kor or coros, chomer or homer 75 74 4 In the preceding table, silver is valued at 5s. and gold at £4 per 394 |