This is but slender ground to prove a negative. I do not admit the correctness of the inferences; but, without stopping to controvert them, would merely remark, that because we think it is not likely Mark would have written a Gospel if he had known of Matthew's, therefore "it is evident he did not;" and, as I understand the preface, Luke did say that some of the memoirs of the sayings and actions of Christ, with which he was acquainted, were written by apostles such as Matthew was.

“IV. The seeming contradictions which exist in the three first Gospels, are an additional evidence that the evangelists did not write by concert, or after having seen each other's Gospels.”

"V. In some of the histories recorded by all these three evangelists, there are small varieties and differences which plainly show the same thing."

Answer. When Luke makes use of any of the preceding Gospels, he does not differ from them. The so-called differences occur in cases taken from independent sources.

"VI. There are some very remarkable things related in St Matthew's Gospel, of which neither St Mark nor St Luke has taken any notice.

"VII. All the first three evangelists have several things peculiar to themselves, which show that they did not borrow from each other, and that they were all well acquainted with the things of which they undertook to write a history."

To these two last objections, which are in effect the same, I answer that it is no proof that a historian is ignorant of the existence of a previous history, because he does not include the whole of it in his own. We may not be able to explain why he should select one portion and omit another, nor is it reasonable to expect that we should. With regard to the Gospels, I would merely observe that selection is the rule of them all; and when St John, at the end of his Gospel, tells us that "there were many other things which Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, the world itself would not contain them," it is but saying, in the language of oriental hyperbole, that for all practical purposes it was impossible to record them all. It is only necessary to read

the Gospels, to see that this was truly the case, when Mark tells us of the great multitudes from all the adjoining countries who thronged around our Lord with their sick, iii. 7, and when Matthew tells us that on this occasion he healed them all, xii. 15, we must admit that it was impossible to detail all the miraculous cures. Bishop Marsh, who maintains the same views, thus expresses himself:

"All the arguments are reducible to this principle, that if one evangelist had used the Gospel of the other, the contents of his own Gospel would in many places have been very different from what they really are—namely, that apparent contradictions would have been avoided, and that remarkable facts, circumstances, determinations of time, &c., observable in the one, would not have been omitted in the other." *

The answer to this is, that it is founding an argument upon the opinion of the critic as to the manner in which the evangelists. ought to have made use of the labours of their predecessors, if they had been acquainted with them; it is opposing a negative argument to a positive one, and, to be of any value, we must have proof that the important " determinations of time," &c., are omissions on the part of one evangelist, and not additions by the other. Let us, therefore, follow in detail Bishop Marsh's objections to the supposition in question. He goes on to say :—

"But since the supposition that one evangelist copied from another has been adopted by so many critics, in consequence of the verbal harmony of the evangelists, it cannot be tried by a fairer test than the phenomena of that very harmony which it is assumed to explain. For if these are such as cannot be explained by it, the chief reason for our adopting it ceases to exist; and if they are likewise incompatible with it, we must conclude that the supposition is false."

Bishop Marsh, in the first place, combats the supposition that St Mark made use of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke in the composition of his own Gospel he observes that they sometimes agree in words, and sometimes only in matter. I am not called upon to answer the difficulties in this case, because I agree with the author that Mark did not derive any of the matter of his Gospel from Matthew or Luke; but he adds

* Dissertation on the Origin of the Three First Gospels, p. 154.

B

"If, instead of supposing that St Mark copied from St Luke, we suppose, as was formerly imagined, that St Luke copied from St Mark, we are exposed to the same difficulties as before." *

Let us see what these difficulties are. There is but one stated, namely, that with one short exception the instances of verbal agreement occur only in cases where one or both of the other evangelists agree with St Matthew. This would, no doubt, be conclusive against the supposition that Luke made use of a Greek version of Mark, or vice versa, but is perfectly easily explained upon the supposition that the Gospel of Mark is translated from a Hebrew original previously used by him.

The argument against the possibility of St Luke having made use of the Gospel of St Mark is thus stated :—

"Further, since neither St Mark copied from St Luke, nor St Luke from St Mark, St Luke cannot have copied from St Matthew, because St Luke has in no instance a verbal agreement with St Matthew throughout all (i. e., where all the three agree), except where St Mark likewise agrees verbally with St Matthew."

I admit neither premises nor conclusion. There are cases where Luke agrees verbally with Matthew, but not with Mark ;+ but even if there had been no cases of such agreement in the Parallel Passages, it would have proved no more than that Luke had adopted the same rule in making use of the original of the second Gospel, which Mark had in translating it, by availing himself of the translation of Matthew.

The next argument adduced by this author is founded on a statement quite as loose and inaccurate as the preceding, and is, moreover, according to his own admission, "not incompatible with the supposition" which he is attempting to refute. He says:

"But there is another phenomenon in the verbal agreement and disagreement between St Matthew and St Mark, which, though not absolutely incompatible with the supposition that St Matthew made use of St Mark's Gospel, is not very easy to be reconciled to it, and at any rate cannot be explained by it. This phenomenon is, that though St Matthew and St Mark have in so

* Dissertation on the Origin of the Three First Gospels, p. 158.

+ Mark, i. 7, v. 27, &c.; and Notes, p. 289.

many places a very close verbal agreement, not one of those sections which in St Mark's Gospel occupy different places from those which they occupy in St Matthew's, exhibits a single instance of verbal agreement. Thus, beside sections v. and xi. there are not less than five successive sections in St Mark's Gospelnamely, sections xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix., throughout all of which there is not a single instance of verbal agreement in any one sentence, though in sect. xiv., which immediately precedes, and in sect. xx., which immediately follows, we meet with examples of verbal agreement-especially in sect. xiv., where there is a very remarkable one. The five sections, xv.-xix., include that portion of St Mark's Gospel which begins with ch. iv. 35, and ends with ch. vi. 29.”* It is always satisfactory to deal with particular examples instead of general statements. Bishop Marsh has cited seven sections of St Mark's Gospel (xiv.-xx.), but which, in fact, form but one passage of the Gospel-(chap. iv. 1 to vi. 44).

In this passage we find both verbal and translational agreements. Besides, Matthew, although in part of it he uses the original of Mark's Gospel, adds important matter of his own; and in other parts, such as the storm on the lake, his account is independent.

Mr Alford, in his valuable edition of the New Testament, in arguing against the supposition that the present text of our Gospels could have been derived from pre-existing documents, dwells upon the difficulties arising from "the more important discrepancies of insertion, omission, and arrangement." And as similar objections are urged by Dr Davidson, and other modern commentators, I shall examine each of these objections in detail.

I apprehend that there can be no difficulty respecting the insertions, which, according to my view, can only have been made by Matthew and Luke; but Matthew, himself an eyewitness, must, when he made use of the writings of other apostles, have from his own knowledge been able to add information which he thought of sufficient importance to be inserted in his narrative. St Luke, although not himself an eyewitness, had personal intercourse with those who were, and had "carefully investigated everything from the beginning,” “ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς.”

* Dissertation on the Origin of the Three First Gospels, p. 168.

The argument drawn from omissions cannot, from the nature of the case, receive so ready and satisfactory an answer as that from the insertions, simply because the data which would afford the desired information are in the former case generally wanting. As, however, it is much dwelt upon by those who do not admit that any of the evangelists made use of the writings of their predecessors, I feel called upon to give such an answer as the circumstances of the case appear to warrant.

In the first place, the argument is purely negative, and therefore never can outweigh positive proof. If I can point out passages word for word the same in the Gospels of Matthew and of Luke, and if I can show that Matthew wrote before Luke, I must infer that Luke made use of Matthew's Gospel; and it is no answer to say that there are many passages in Matthew not to be found in Luke. I may not be able to explain why Luke did not include them in his Gospel, but I do not admit that inexplicability is in itself a just cause of disbelief. Although, however, we cannot, in a case like the present, expect to be able to discover with certainty in every instance the motives which may have induced an author to have selected one portion of a pre-existing document and omitted another, yet I think there are cases in which we can. One class of omissions is easily accounted for-namely, autoptical details, naturally given in the account of an eyewitness writing with the first intention, but usually omitted by subsequent historians. Mark abounds in such details, which are left out by Matthew and Luke because they write historically.

Mr Alford has only cited one case of an omission, which, if St Luke had made use of pre-existing accounts, "must necessarily have formed a part of it" (his account). The passage in question relates to the unction of our Lord in the house of Simon.

To me it appears that the reason why Luke omitted mention of the event here, is that he had already related it in a former part of his narrative (vii. 36). Mr Alford does not, indeed, think the events the same. He says, in his note on the passage, "The only particular in common to the two is the anointing itself; and