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 them-and 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 in 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.

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

ences observable in the four distinct narrations of the same series of transactions and events contained in the Gospels. But anterior to the appearance of the remarkable work which we have alluded to, it seems never to have occurred to any one of the number that it was necessary to account for the resemblances as well as the differences, and to show in what way, or upon what principle, four independent writers, composing their narrations at considerable intervals of time, as well as distance of place, come to coincide so miraculously both in point of expression and of statement. Only one side of the case was looked at-one set of objections alone was encountered—while the main difficulty, the chief stumblingblock, was left in the way, and kept altogether out of view."-No. 51, p. 529.

Since the time of Eichhorn, many volumes have been written, and the wildest theories have been propounded, to account for the agreements, and conclusions the most inconsistent with the historical authority and contemporaneity of the Gospels have been arrived at. Upon these conclusions, which I believe to be erroneous, rests entirely the mythical theory of the origin of Christianity of Strauss, in his Life of Jesus, a work which has done more to shake the faith of inquiring minds than any sceptical production of the age. Witness its effects on that very interesting character, John Sterling, whose doubts on the historical authenticity of the Gospel narrative appear to have been raised, in a great measure, by the perusal of this work, which he thus characterises:

"It will work deep and far in such a time as ours. When so many minds are distracted about the history or rather genesis of the Gospel, it is a great thing for partisans, on the one side, to have what the other never wanted-a book of which they can say, 'This is our creed, or rather anti-creed and anticode.' And Strauss seems perfectly proof against the answer to which Voltaire's critical and historical shallowness perpetually exposed him. I mean to read the book through. It seems admitted that the orthodox theologians have failed to give any sufficient answer."-CARLYLE's Life, p. 243.

Strauss himself admits, what indeed cannot be denied, that if it can be shown that we have contemporary written historical narratives of the transactions of our Saviour and his apostles, his theory must fall to the ground. Now, upon such an issue, to say that the subject is inexplicable, is in fact to yield the point; on

the other hand, if we can, by careful and laborious research, prove that we have written accounts, which are in the strictest sense of the word contemporaneous, and if we can show that, in respect to the facts upon which this author rests his theory, his "critical and historical shallowness" is at least as great as Voltaire's,* then I humbly apprehend that the explication I have to offer, if founded upon sound induction, must be of service to the cause of Divine truth.

Having in my former work shown by proofs independent of all others, that the writings of St Luke were those of a contemporary author, personally engaged in some of the most eventful scenes which he has recorded, I can, as Dr Chalmers somewhere says, "take him from the bar and place him in the witness-box." Now, nothing but the perfect truthfulness of his narrative could account for its agreement with facts which could only have been known to him from personal observation; for our knowledge of these facts is only due to recent discoveries and the accurate researches of modern science. Had St Luke's writings been discovered for the first time amongst the papyri of Herculaneum, these proofs of their authenticity must have been held conclusive by every one accustomed to investigate the truth or falsehood of sea-voyages of doubtful authority ; but if it can be shown that

* Strauss's reasoning is ingenious; but, having necessarily gone over much of the same ground, I have no hesitation in asserting that, as a work of original research, his Life of Jesus is utterly worthless. Wherever he meets a critical conclusion which suits his views, he assumes that it is established, and reasons accordingly. Mr Norton, in his late work on the genuineness of the Gospels, observes truly, that "Nothing more superficial was ever put forth by a writer of any note as the examination of an important subject."—Vol. i. p. 74.

Even since the publication, some of the facts, which I could only establish by laborious investigation, have been confirmed by actual observation-such as the position of Port Phenice, and its capabilities as a winter harbour. Captain Spratt, R.N., in his recent survey, finds that the port still retains the name; and Mr Urquhart, M.P., who visited it, assures me it is an excellent harbour. Nay, the almost incredible agreement which subsists between the time and geographical position of the traditional scene of the shipwreck, and that which must be assigned to it by the dead-reckoning drawn from the scattered and incidental notices furnished by St Luke, has been confirmed by a similar calculation, which had been made by Admiral Sir Charles Penrose, and is since published in my friend