very close verbal correspondences. The coincidences of diction seldom continue throughout a single verse at a time. They are limited to broken parts of sentences; they are separated by discrepancies in every mode."—Vol. i. p. 397.

It would no doubt be a powerful argument against the supposition that Luke made use of an original authority in Greek, if it could be shown that "the coincidences of diction seldom continue throughout a single verse at a time; they are limited to broken parts of sentences;" but it would be none against his making use of the same document in a different language, because such are exactly the phenomena of independent translation. Dr Davidson, in the above passage, characterises with sufficient accuracy the connection between Luke and Mark, but not that which is peculiar to Luke and Matthew. Let any person compare Christ's message and his testimony to John the Baptist, as given by Luke, vii. 22, 28, with the same in Matt. xi. 4, 11, (Sec. vi. p. 236;) or John the Baptist's reproof to the people, in Luke, iii. 7, 9, with the same in Matt. iii. 7, 10, (Sec. i. p. 224,) and point out similar agreements in authors who have no common authority but oral tradition, and I will be ready to abandon the hypothesis. Let it be remembered also that we have three independent authors describing the same events, and occasionally using the same authorities. But some of these authorities are in the same language, and some of them in a different language from that used by the evangelists. They also occasionally use different authorities, and sometimes make statements from their own observations, or from information furnished by eyewitnesses. Here we have nine or ten possible causes modifying the relation of the same event, each of them consistent with the most perfect truthfulness and fidelity on the part of the historians, and of their knowledge of each other's writings. We cannot, therefore, wonder if we find "diversity in arrangement and matter intermingled with correspondence." The phenomena must necessarily be complicated where the causes are complicated, and complicated precisely as Dr Davidson has described the complications in the Gospels to be.

Dr Davidson, and to a certain extent Mr Alford, have adopted

the theory propounded by Gieseler, that the phenomena in question are to be attributed to "oral tradition." Now, we may admit that Luke, and even Matthew, may have derived information orally from the apostles; but we must not confound oral information with oral tradition-that is, direct with hearsay evidence. None of those who adopt the hypothesis of oral tradition have attempted to point out in the Gospels the phenomena of tradition; for tradition, like translation and transcription, has its phenomena. In the writings of the Fathers we meet with them constantly, in those of the evangelists never. I reject, therefore, the hypothesis which ascribes the phenomena in question to oral tradition-not because oral tradition is bad evidence, but because there are no traces of it to be found in the Gospels.

When one person relates to another an account of events which he has witnessed, the hearer is liable to misapprehend what is said to him, or to forget what is said; and in the course of oral transmission, conjecture is often mistaken for assertion. By repeated transmission, the errors arising from these causes accumulate, till in process of time the report bears but little resemblance to the reality. Sir Walter Scott founds some of his tales on oral tradition, and has been at pains, in his prefaces, to discover the variations of the story. The main fact upon which the Bride of Lammermoor is founded, is that a daughter of Viscount Stair was married and died within a fortnight. According to some accounts, the bride was forced into the marriage by her parents, and made a murderous attack on the bridegroom; according to others, the marriage was against the wishes of her parents, and it was the bridegroom who attacked the bride; whilst other accounts represent it as a happy marriage.

Variation, therefore, is the inevitable characteristic of oral tradition. There is nothing in the nature of the Gospel narrative. which, in this respect, takes it out of the category of all other history. The original eyewitnesses, the apostles, were indeed inspired, and therefore not liable to error; but their hearers were not inspired, and therefore their accounts must have presented the

usual phenomena. "A stereotyped cyclus of oral tradition” never did nor ever can exist. Even poetry cannot be repeated without variations. Olshausen cites Homer and Ossian to prove that "the parables and discourses of our Lord might be repeated constantly in the very same way." I do not believe that Homer and Ossian were repeated constantly in the very same way; but I am very certain that historical narration never can.

There is one phenomenon peculiar to compositions derived from the same written sources, which may be termed the phenomenon of tallying. The writers may add matter drawn from other sources, or they leave out passages, but ever and anon they return to the original authority where they will be found to tally with each other; but it is only in such cases that such correspondences occur. Hence, when they do occur, we are warranted in inferring the existence of a written original.

We may ask what possible reason could any of the evangelists have for having recourse to the very worst evidence-evidence which would be rejected in any court of justice-when they had access to the very best. Let us take the case of St Luke. He tells us expressly that he had communication with eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word-for the expression aρedóσav ýμîv must of necessity include himself. He certainly would have had no right to assure Theophilus that he "investigated with accuracy," if, with such means of doing so, he had inserted anything in his Gospel from tradition. But if Luke had no occasion to draw anything. from such a source, still less had Matthew, himself an eyewitness and minister of the Word. Again, with regard to Mark, no matter whether he derived his information from Peter orally or in writing, in no case could he have made use of tradition.

I now proceed to inquire into the causes of the phenomena of the connection between the Gospels. Such investigations are best conducted in the retrograde order, for by it we can proceed from what is known to what is unknown.

Assuming that the Gospel of John was the last written, or at least last published, and that in the narrative he relates what fell

under his own observation, there can be no such documentary agreement between it and historical works written before its publication, as that which subsists between the other Gospels. Now, we find that in the few cases where the same events are recorded in this Gospel and the preceding ones-such as the feeding the five thousand, and the unction of our Lord at Bethany-his accounts are entirely independent of theirs. There is, however, a possible case, which ought not to be overlooked. From the minute circumstantiality of many of the details in St John's Gospel, we must suppose that they were originally committed to writing whilst the impression was still fresh which the events made upon him; but if so, they must have been written before St Luke wrote his Gospel, and we must suppose that a man of research like this evangelist would have had recourse to so unquestionable an authority. There are, indeed, strong reasons for believing that he did so, and that St John, as well as other of the apostles, delivered to him accounts of what they had seen; and that the reason why we cannot exhibit the connection between John and Luke, as we can between Luke, and Mark, and Matthew, is owing to the supplementary character of the fourth Gospel, and that the author intentionally avoided repeating what had been published by the preceding evangelists. We can thus explain the silence of St John as to very remarkable events in the life of our Lord at which he was present, such as the Transfiguration and the Last Supper. His presence on the latter occasion is, indeed, alluded to incidentally, but without details, as an event which must be known to the reader (xxi. 20); but he is altogether silent as to the Transfiguration. Now, we find in Luke's account details which could only be furnished by Peter, James, or John; but we cannot ascribe them to Peter, for they are not noticed in the second Gospel. His informant, therefore, must have been either James or John-and we can account for the silence of John, by supposing that he considered it unnecessary to repeat what had been already given by the other Gospels. But a work may be supplementary, without being a mere supplement. To have omitted.

everything related by the other evangelists would have rendered his Gospel of no value, unless accompanied by them. I believe that both St John and St Luke meant their works to be at once supplementary, and what German critics term "selbstandig," i.e., able to stand by themselves.

John's account of the resurrection has all the circumstantiality of an eyewitness, and here, if anywhere, we might expect to find evidence that St Luke was acquainted with it. Now, I am satisfied that there is evidence that he was-that, whilst his account is based on other sources, he has made it more complete by what he has derived from John. Thus, St John has given an extremely autoptical account of his own visit to the sepulchre in company with Peter: St Luke is the only other evangelist who notices it. In doing so, he treats it historically, leaving out the circumstantial details, confining himself to the main facts—all of which are to be found in John-and at certain points of the narrative the accounts tally; that is, the same events are given in the same words exactly at those points of the narrative where a historian, condensing an original memoir, would naturally use them. John's account is as follows:

"Peter went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed."-(John, xx. 3-8.)

The account of the same visit is thus given by St Luke:

"Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down he saw the linen clothes lying, laid by themselves."-(xxiv. 12.)

It may be objected to the supposition that Luke took the account of this visit from John, that no mention is made in it of his presence; but historians are not in the habit of naming all who were present at an event: and the part which John takes, in