between the earlier and the later MSS., although unimportant as to the matter, are of great importance in an inquiry like the present, where so much depends upon verbal expression.

The conclusion which the comparison between the earlier and later texts leads me to form is, that there is a greater amount of verbal agreement in the more modern MSS. than we find in the earliest existing ones; whilst, on the other hand, there is a greater amount of translational agreement in the oldest. The reason for this tendency, on the part of transcribers, to convert the translational into the transcriptural, will be easily understood by those who have had much practice in transcription. If we examine a passage which has been translated from a common original, it will be found that, whilst the meaning is the same, many of the words are different; but a transcriber, when he comes to a passage in one Gospel exactly corresponding in meaning with a passage in another, and which is firmly fixed in his memory, is apt unconsciously to make the words identical; and in like manner, when words or expressions are wanting in one Gospel which occur in the corresponding passages in another, he is apt to insert themand in both cases he introduces verbal agreements not in the original. The reader can easily satisfy himself that this must be the case, for he will rarely find any of the words or passages which I have bracketed which do not occur in corresponding passages another Gospel. But these causes are constant; they must have influenced the earliest, as they have the latest transcribers; and we are warranted in supposing that there was still less verbal agreement in the original writings of the evangelists than what we have in the earliest existing MSS.

in

As a proof of the importance of attending to this, I would cite the two verses, Mark, i. 24, 25, compared with the corresponding two in Luke, iv. 34, 35, which are stated by Bishop Marsh, in his Essay on the origin of the Gospels, page 118, to contain the only

verbal agreement which is peculiar to Mark and Luke. Now, in the earliest MSS. this agreement does not exist; for I find not less. than three deviations from verbal agreement in these two verses, (see Section vii., p. 10.) No inference, therefore, can be drawn from the passage cited by Marsh adverse to the conclusion that the agreements peculiar to Mark and Luke are translational, and taken from an original in another language. In addition to the above, Dr Davidson has cited two other passages-namely, Mark, viii. 38; Luke, ix. 26-Mark, ix. 38, 40; Luke, ix. 49, 50; but if the reader will examine the passages, he will perceive that there are verbal differences sufficient to remove them from the category in which they are placed by this author.

An objection has been made to the inquiry, which I should not have thought of noticing, because I do not suppose it entertained by any person versant in historical or Biblical criticism, but because it expresses sentiments which I believe are entertained by a certain class of theological writers, and by no inconsiderable number of theological readers. It is expressed in the following note, appended to an otherwise favourable review of my former work, in the Free Church Magazine:

"Our author endeavours to explain (after the example of the searching, but on this point profitless, criticism of Germany) what, for wise reasons, the Divine Author of Scripture has left wrapt up in profound mystery; what we believe it utterly impossible for any one satisfactorily to explicate now; and what, if it could be explicated, would be of no service whatever to the cause of Divine truth. He seeks to prove, by internal evidence of manner and style, from what original sources a writing, which is known to the Church only as itself an original source, has been derived; and in the particular case of St Luke would establish that his Gospel and that of St Mark have alike, in most places, been drawn from the same original; but that the Gospel of St Mark is merely a translation, in Greek, of the original-while St Luke's Gospel contains another translation, and adds from other quarters various particulars not contained in the Aramaic original referred to. It is but due to Mr Smith, and to the truth itself, to express our conviction that in this part of his researches he is far from proving himself to be so much at home as in the other parts of

his volume; and we are persuaded that few persons of competent learning and judgment, at all skilled in judging of criteria and weighing evidence of this kind, will be disposed to go along with him. His theory appears to us to be utterly groundless; and we could produce many passages from the two Gospels so varied in expression and colouring, that we would defy any unprejudiced and judicious critic to say that they are simply different translations. of the same original. But there is no occasion to enter more at large into the subject. We wished merely to express our regret at the introduction of this discussion into Mr Smith's otherwise admirable volume, as we are afraid the perusal of such a discussion, in the manner in which it is here handled, may be fitted in some to awaken doubts as to the inspired character of St Luke's writings, and as not only the general aim of the discussion is objectionable, but also some of the particular expressions in it (we believe inadvertently used) are liable to exception."

So far as the above paragraph contains any reasoning upon the subject, it proceeds upon an entire misconception of what I had advanced. I admit that there are many passages in Luke that are not "simply different translations of the same original." I only said there were some that were. My conclusions as to the originality of St Luke's Gospel were the same as St Luke's own, as stated in his preface-namely, that he has used the accounts of those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word-the same as those of the early Fathers, as well as of the best modern critics. This, however, is not the place for reasoning on the subject, but for defending myself from inquiring into a subject "upon which it is impossible to throw light, and which, even if light could be thrown, would be of no service to the cause of Divine truth." Such cautious, I should say timid, reasoning is too late. Men's minds are attracted to the subject; and the necessity of solving the problem is recognised by every Biblical critic. A writer on the subject in the Edinburgh Review thus expresses

himself

"Until the time when the publication of Eichhorn's celebrated edition of the New Testament gave a new impetus and direction to theological inquiry, the whole tribe of expositors, commentators, and writers on the evidence of Christianity had been successively labouring to explain and reconcile the differ

the Acts of the Apostles are genuine and authentic, so must also be the Gospel, for not only is it mentioned in that work, but it is obviously by the same hand. Again, if it can be shown that St. Luke made use of the Gospel of Matthew as one of his authorities in composing his own, he is at once the earliest and the best evidence of its genuineness and authenticity that he did so, and that he used the same Greek Gospel which we now have, is proved by the extracts from it in his writings. In like manner, if I have succeeded in showing that both Luke and Matthew made use of the original of which Mark is the translator, we have not one but two contemporary historians to attest the authenticity of the second Gospel. And lastly, if I have succeeded in showing that Peter is the author of the memoir of which Mark is the translator, we have the best of all historical evidence of the truth of the transactions-that of eyewitnesses, written immediately after. None of these conclusions rest in any manner upon conjecture; they are all of them supported by external and internal evidence -evidence such as in the works of secular writers would have been held to be sufficient to establish them; and-but for certain preconceived theories respecting the originality and independence of the Gospels, with which they are supposed to be inconsistent must have been admitted ere now in the case in question. The evangelists are, indeed, independent of each other, but theirs is the independence of historians, not of poets or romancers. No historian is independent of his facts, and none but an eyewitness of his authorities. It has also been said, in the above extract, that the manner in which "the discussion is handled may be fitted with some to awaken doubts as to the inspired character of St Luke's writings;" and another critic, equally favourable in other respects, objects to my remarks, as "making it entirely a human.

Mr Howson's Life of St Paul. Nothing has gratified me more than the entire acquiescence of nautical men in my conclusions.

affair. The notion of Divine inspiration is left out of sight completely; nay, an ordinary reader might be inclined to think that there was no such article in his creed. It is but meeting the sceptics whom he would confute on grounds lower than necessary, and of course lower than right, to talk of the 'landsman-like style' of St Matthew," &c.*

I am thus thrown upon my defence, both with respect to my own personal belief in inspiration, and with respect to the manner in which I have conducted the inquiry.

I had at one time written a caveat against such inferences, but considered it unnecessary, because the question of the inspiration. of the sacred writers did not properly belong to the subject, and was in no ways affected by the way in which it was treated. Had I, indeed, discovered anything like a want of truthfulness in the writings of the evangelists, it might be said to have affected the question; and in so far as the severest tests only rendered this truthfulness more evident, it may be said to have affected it in favour of inspiration; for if we believe Scripture to be true, we must believe it to be inspired-as, on the other hand, it must, if inspired, be true; but we must not reason in a circle, and say, Scripture is true, therefore it is inspired; Scripture is inspired, therefore it is true. We cannot prove one of the propositions by assuming the other. I was dealing with the previous question of the truth of the narrative, and therefore felt precluded from assuming the inspiration of the writer. I cannot agree with my critic in thinking it wrong "to meet sceptics on ground lower than necessary;" for if we can establish our point on the lowest ground, à fortiori we can on the highest. We are not entitled to assume what opponents do not admit. I am not to say that the mythical theory of the origin of Christianity is unfounded, because

London Guardian.