discourses of the same nature, delivered in the same place, at other times. St Luke, on the other hand, writing more historically, relates the different occasions upon which the discourses were delivered: this, indeed, implies that he must have drawn his authority from a separate source of information, but in doing so he has adhered very closely to the Greek text of Matthew. I agree with those critics who consider that the so-called sermon on the plain, of Luke, is the same as that which Matthew has made the basis of his collection of discourses.

Luke's words, éñì tónov nedivov, mean on a level place," not "on the plain," which conveys an impression of extent not implied in the original; and he does not say that our Lord came down from the mountain, but merely that he came down had he meant to say he came down from the mountain, we must suppose that he would have added άnò тоû öрovs, as Matthew did, viii. 1.

St Luke says expressly that our Lord "went out" to the mountain, where he chose the twelve; he then came down, it may be, a few steps -and stood on a level place, it may be, a few feet square-evidently for the purpose of addressing the multitude; and after appointing the twelve, and finishing the discourse, he re-entered Capernaum. The words used by Luke, instead of, as in Matthew, "going up" and "coming down" from the mountain, were "going out" and "coming in," éλev, ἐξῆλθεν, vi. 12, and bev, vii. 1. Both Matthew's and Luke's accounts indicate that the mountain was in the immediate vicinity of Capernaum.

Whilst, however, I think that Matthew has combined in one discourse several delivered on different occasions, and that Luke was acquainted with and made use of Matthew's Gospel when it suited his purpose, he has not taken the so-called sermon on the plain from Matthew, but from the original report; for there is by no means the same verbal agreement in this section that there is in the three first. There is much translational agreement in the two reports, modified, no doubt, by St Luke's familiarity with Matthew's version, which, from the importance of the matter, and the source from which it flowed-and, I may add, the channel through which it flowed-could not fail of being deeply impressed upon his memory.

We have, therefore, two distinct conditions under which the agreements between Luke and Mark present themselves—the immediate and the intermediate. The immediate are those where Luke makes use of the Greek Gospel of Matthew as an original authority; the intermediate, when he makes use of a common original. Now, these are the very phenomena which our independent knowledge of the authors

would have led us to expect. They are both historians of the same series of transactions; but Matthew is both a historian and an eyewitness. In the former capacity he makes use of the same original authorities as Luke; in the latter case, he is himself the authority.

We can thus explain all the phenomena of the connection of these two evangelists, and, as it appears to me, some of the apparent contradictions. Take that in the present section, where St Luke appears to speak of physical hunger, vi. 21; but, in the corresponding passage in Matt. v. 6, it is expressly stated to be in a spiritual sense. Upon the passage in Luke, Mr Alford makes the following just remark: "Comparing these expressions with other passages in Luke himself, we must have concluded, even without Matthew's report, that they bore a spiritual sense." Now, the result of our former examination is to show that Matthew is a paraphrastic translator, who takes care to bring out the meaning of his original broadly, as he does in the present instance. Again, in the following,

SECTION V.,

THE CURE OF THE CENTURION'S SERVANT,

we have another apparent contradiction, which Matthew's peculiar style of narrative perfectly explains. According to his account, the centurion applies directly to our Lord; but according to Luke, he does it by messengers. Now Matthew, as a historian, condenses the narrative portion much more than Luke does, and, acting on the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se, he leaves out, as not necessarily connected with the miracle, the details of the message.

There is, I apprehend, an amount of verbal agreement in the succeeding sections, sufficient to prove that St Luke must have made use of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew. We must remember, that although St Luke transcribed when it suited his purpose, he was not a transcriber, but a historian, using an original authority in the same language. Certain passages have been pointed out which are supposed to be inconsistent with this view, but these occur in the sermon on the mount, which I suppose Luke to have derived from the same authorities as Matthew, but making use occasionally of Matthew's previous translation. Thus, we have in chap. xii. ver. 24, "Consider the ravens;' but in the corresponding passage of Matthew, chap. vi. ver. 26, it is, "Behold the fowls of the air." St Matthew here, translating paraphrastically, generalises the expression; St Luke, most probably, adheres more closely to the original.

GENERAL INDEX.

Disciples, call of, 35.

contention, 121-note, 296.

pluck ears of corn, 29-note, 276.
see Apostles.

Diversity of accounts, causes of, xlvi.
Documentary agreements, what, xxii.

John the Baptist, his designation, 262.
mention of his humility, 263.

the Apostle, an eyewitness, xv.
Gospel remarks on, xxv.

connection of Gospel with that of
Luke, xlix.

Josephus wrote in Hebrew and Greek, lxii.

EDINBURGH REVIEW on agreements in Gos- Judas, treachery of, 185.

pels, xi.

rebukes the Pharisees, 225.
sends disciples to Jesus, 237.

imprisoned, 75-note, 293.

advent, 263.

- when written, lxix.

remarks on, by Tertullian, lxxii.
on the style of, lxxix.

professionalisms in, 266.
provincialisms, 267.

used Greek of Matthew, xxvi.

preface or title to Gospel, lxxiii., 3.

why not called Gospel of Peter, lxxi.
the author of the Gospel, the Mark of
Papias, note, lxx.

on conclusion of, 302.

remarks on authorship by Pearson,
lxxii.-by Gleig, 266.

Marsh, bishop, quoted, 290.

objections answered, xxxvii.

on the agreement of Matthew and
Luke, 268.

Matthew, St, call of, 23-note, 275.

origin of Gospel, lx.

style of, lxiv.

wrote in Hebrew and Greek, lxi.
agreement with Luke, xxv.

made use of Peter's memoir, xxvi.

NAPIER'S History, connection of, with Alison
and Suchet, xxviii.

differences in the accounts of his Nazareth, Christ rejected at, 69-note, 293.

Newspapers, on the connection of, xxvii.

new and old clothes, 27-note, Strauss's Life of Jesus, remarks on, xi, xii.