simple differences in modes of expression which are personal and inbred, if not inborn; and differences like to these, are always found, at all times and in all ages, between the modes of expression in different individuals.

Were I not afraid of wearying out the reader, I would now proceed to show how little of correctness there is in the other part of Mr. Norton's theory and that of Bishop Marsh, in relation to the general subject before us, viz., that Matthew and Luke fall into striking coincidences, where they are the only two narrators.

Let the reader turn to p. 16 of the Greek Harmony, and compare the minute history of the temptation of the Saviour, in the two Evangelists. Let him notice not only the difference in style and manner of these narrations, but also the fact that even the order of two of the cases of temptation is reversed in one of these historians.

Let him next turn to the Sermon on the Mount (p. 40 seq.) and see what striking diversities there are in the narrations there. Then let him cast his eye on the history of the healing of the Centurion's servant, p. 47; where the diversity is so great, that even contradiction has been not unfrequently alleged against it. Go next to the conference between Jesus and some of John's disciples (p. 49), and, if we except the words of Jesus as repeated by both Evangelists, how little of exact coincidence shall we find! And thus might I proceed until I should point out every section of the Gospel history which is peculiar to these two writers. The whole amount, however, is but comparatively small.

I do not, therefore, and I cannot, after such an examination as I have made, admit at all the statements in question of Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton. Facts do not support them. Of course I cannot admit that any of the deductions which Mr. Norton draws from them, are at all substantiated on this ground.

I have only one more remark to make on this already protracted topic. This is, that the very reasoning which Mr. Norton has employed with so much power and success in overthrowing the general theory of a Protevangelium, may be employed against his own view of what the Greek translator of Matthew must be supposed to have done. Nothing can be more certain to my mind, than that the characteristics of the present Gospel of Matthew do not admit of the idea, that a translator reduced this book to its present form, by partly adopt

ing Mark, partly leaning upon Luke, and then again depending on himself. My own belief as to the style of the book, is, that it is such as not even to admit the supposition of its being a version at all. But of this more in its proper place.

"

As to some other allegations made by Bishop Marsh, and stated by Mr. Norton in a Note on p. clxxiv., viz., that the proportional coincidence is greater between Matthew and Luke, when they are the sole narrators, than exists elsewhere in case all three are the narrators; that in those portions of Matthew's Gospel which occupy different places" from the corresponding ones in Mark, there is no verbal coincidence between them; and that in portions common only to Mark and Luke there are but two instances of verbal agreement between them; Mr. Norton himself doubts the first and last. I can only add here, that I do not think there is any good foundation for either of the three assertions; and if in any particular case the facts be as stated, they arise from a cause very different from that stated by the Bishop.

Mr. Norton next goes into an examination of the questio verata respecting the discrepancies in the chronological order of events as stated by the Evangelists. He speaks familiarly here, as I observe with regret, of mistakes and misarrangements of Luke and Mark, in some well known cases where they differ from Matthew in the respect just mentioned. The general principle for solving the difficulty in question Mr. Norton thinks to be, the fact that Luke and Mark only heard oral accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus, where like things were naturally often grouped together; while Matthew, being an eye and earwitness of the whole, followed an arrangement that comports with the order in which every thing actually took place.

But how, I ask, comes it on this ground, that Matthew, more than any other Evangelist, should have grouped together discourses evidently delivered at different times? For example; the parables contained in chap. xiii. of his Gospel. According to many critics, the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v-vii., is made up in the same way; and although I doubt this, yet I cannot but admit that in many cases Matthew has grouped events in a matter not usual in the other Gospels. The contrary of this must have happened, if Mr. Norton is right in his conjectures.

My own apprehension of this whole matter is indeed quite different, it would seem, from that of Mr. Norton. The first

question which presents itself to my mind, in the investigation of this subject, is, whether the Evangelists ever intended to give a narration of events in the life of Jesus, in such a manner (as to arrangement) as that in which biographical narrations are mostly conducted in modern times, i. e. following the chronological series of events? That they did not design this, I am fully persuaded, from the fact that it would have been easy to accomplish such a task at the time when the Gospels were written, inasmuch as many eye-witnesses, and apostles among these, were still living. But they were more occupied with the sayings and doings of Jesus, than with the exact order of them.

Why need this be accounted strange? There are four books extant, respecting the sayings and doings of the greatest moral philosopher that the heathen world has ever produced; and these were written too by a consummate master of rhetoric and history; yet these partake, in no degree, of a regular and chronological arrangement. I refer to the Memorabilia of Xenophon. Would it add any thing important to this peculiarly interesting book, if it were all digested according to the rules of chronology? I think every discerning reader will say: Nothing.

Such then was the fashion, if any please so to name it, of writing in ancient times, among men of the most cultivated minds and enlightened understanding. Should this offend us, when we meet with it among the Jewish writers ?

There are, indeed, some circumstances in every case of this nature, which will not bear an arrangement that is not chronological. Such are the occurrences of birth and early life, and also of death. It could be only a perverted taste, which would intermingle these with an account of what was done and said in the midst of active life. But when the period of action is so short as that of Jesus-only about three and a half yearswhen this was a period of unintermitted preaching and benevolent action and miraculous cures; when an account of this is given simply for a religious and moral purpose; when nothing of the effect to be produced by the narration depends on exact chronological arrangement, but simply on the evidence and truth of facts themselves; and particularly when all these circumstances meet and combine in any particular case; why should we be stumbled by the fact, that a narration is not in keeping with our modern and occidental maxims of criticism with respect to writing biography.

That Matthew naturally followed the general tenor of events VOL. XI. No. 30.

43

as they occurred, may certainly be admitted; or rather, it should be admitted, for it seems to be quite probable that he did. Having been present as an eye and ear-witness, nothing would be easier than for him to present the great outlines of facts as they originally succeeded each other. Yet even he, in some cases where he evidently groups things of a like kind, did not think it at all important to be bound in chronological chains. He has narrated in a free, and also in a natural, manner.

As to Luke and Mark, I suppose it will not be now contended that either of them were eye or ear-witnesses. Their condition, then, was evidently different from that of Matthew, to whom a clue had naturally been given by the circumstances in which he had been placed. They had heard a multitude of accounts respecting the life and actions of the Saviour, many more, no doubt, than those which they have recorded; out of these they were to choose; and unless chronological order had been before their minds as an important circumstance, one could not expect they would be solicitious to preserve it in respect to minute circumstances. Nothing depended on it, in regard to the objects which they laboured to accomplish. They differ, therefore, as we might naturally suppose, not only from Matthew in some respects, as to the order of events, but also from each other. (See Mr. Norton's Addenda, p. cxII. in the Note at the bottom.)

I would appeal now to the candour of every considerate reader, and ask him, whether, in such a case as that before us, where it would have been easy for each writer, had he deemed it to be of any importance to his design, to make such inquiries as would produce the same order in all-whether it does not lie upon the very face of the compositions before us, that particular and minute chronological order was not at all a matter of design?

If this be conceded, then I would ask, whether the alleged mistakes, or contradictions, or misarrangements, of the writers in question, in regard to the point before us, can properly be spoken of as being plain and certain? If a writer has placed events out of the actual order in which they occurred, and for purposes satisfactory to his own mind; and if, at the same time, be made it no object to follow chronological order; where is his mistake in this matter? What seems now to be plain is, that the Evangelists had not the matter of chronology in their eye, in any other manner than the general one stated above; and

that even Matthew himself, who has adhered more closely to it than the others, did so simply on the ground that his circumstances more naturally led him to do so, and not because it was a matter of special design on his part.

Mr. Norton has gone into a long disquisition in relation to some of the narrations of Luke, which he deems to be "misplaced," and to be deprived of more or less of their appropriate meaning by this circumstance. It would occupy too much room here to follow him through these remarks. While they shew that he has vigorously applied his mind to the subjects discussed, many of his exegetical remarks will not, so far as I am able to judge, give satisfaction to some of his exegetical readers. I must regard most of this discussion as unnecessary, because my views on the subject of chronological arrangement are so widely different, as it would seem, from those which he entertains.

Note E. is a long and able one, on the question, whether Justin Martyr has actually quoted our canonical Gospel? a subject already discussed at some length in the text of his book, but here more particularly and minutely examined. Mr. Norton gives us many specimens here of Justin's quotations, with a comparison of the Gospels from which he quotes; also of his quotations from the Septuagint; of his repeated quotations of the same passages in the Gospels; and of coincidences between him and the Greek text of Matthew, where Matthew deviates in his quotations from the Septuagint. To these the author has added remarks on the mode of quoting Scripture generally among the ancient Fathers of the church; and finally he has examined the new hypothesis of Credner, viz., that Justin used the Gospel of Peter as the source of his quotations. The objections which he makes to Credner's views are certainly of much weight; nor can I deem it possible, that Credner should render the main propositions comprised in his theory probable to the mind of any impartial critic well versed in the literature and criticism of the early ages of Christianity.

Mr. Norton will not complain that his book has been treated with neglect, and brought before the public as worth only a passing and hasty notice. He will rather complain, I fear, that I have almost interfered with his rights as an author, in extracting so largely from it. But I can assure the reader of this review, that Mr. Norton's book contains a great many passages which are excellent, that I have not thought proper to copy;