Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials, which were incorporated into St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person who translated St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently derived assistance from the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew: and in those places, but in those places only, where St. Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he had frequently recourse to St. Luke's Gospel."*

The hypothesis thus stated and determined, Mr. Marsh affirms, will account for all the phenomena relative to the verbal agreement and disagreement in our three first Gospels, as well as for the other manifold relations which they bear to each other; while it contains nothing which is either improbable in itself, or is inconsistent with historical evidence. That this may appear more clearly, he proceeds to trace the several steps which may be supposed to have been taken, from the first drawing up of the Hebrew document to the composition of our canonical Gospels. He then tries his hypothesis by the phe nomena in the verbal harmony of the Gospels, as well as in the contents and arrangement of them; and appears to have succeeded in demonstrating the sufficiency of that hypothesis to account for all the phenomena which he has stated.

We cannot, however, dissemble our opinion that, in the solution here offered, there is wanting that simplicity, which is necessary to produce the conviction that our present Gospels had the origin which Mr. Marsh ascribes to them; and when we consider the various adventitious and arbitrary circumstances, which frequently operate in affairs of this nature, we are disposed to think, that the real origin of our Gospels is among those historical facts, the knowledge of which we shall in vain attempt to recover. The phenomena, however, and the result of them, exhibited in the elaborate performance before us, are facts both of certain knowledge, and of a very curious and interesting descrip*The algebraic notations are omitted, and consequently a phrase or two altered; but without any injury to the sense.

REV.

tion; and the hypothesis which will afford a complete solution of them, may at least be admitted as the most probable.

We now return to the original Author. In the chapter upon St. Matthew's Gospel, Michaelis accedes to the assertion of Irenæus, respecting the time when this Gospel was written; and for the opinion of its being originally written in Hebrew, he professes himself satisfied with the testimony of Papias, whose competency as a witness he defends, together with the concurring testimony of subsequent writers, particularly Irenæus, whom he will not admit to have merely repeated the testimony of his predecessor. The intimacy of this latter author with Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostles, and an associate of many who had seen Christ, is sufficient, as Mr. Marsh has well proved, to put his testimony on every subject relative to the Apostles beyond all reasonable doubt. (Note 3, on p. 124.) The Professor then examines whether the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites was, in its primitive state, the same as that of St. Matthew. That in the third and fourth centuries it was not, is admitted, and indeed, from the fragments which remain, is too evident to be denied. In note 38, on p. 194, the reader will be pleased to find a complete vindication of the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, from the unfounded suspicions of Michaelis. Gospel this eminent Critic supposes to have been written at Rome. And in his inquiry into St. Luke's, which he inclines to believe was penned in Palestine during the imprisonment of St. Paul at Cæsarea, he mentions with approbation the curious, and not altogether improbable opinion of Theodore Hase, that the Theophilus, to whom the Gospel of that Evangelist is addressed, is the person of the same man, who, according to Josephus, was son of Annas, and himself nominated High Priest by Vitellius, in the place of his brother Jonathan. Michaelis is decidedly of opinion, that St. John's Gospel was written in direct opposition to the heresy of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, the technical terms of whose philosophy that Evangelist has applied to Christ.

St. Mark's

But in assigning to a Gnostic or Zoroastrian original the appellation by which our Saviour is principally distinguished, we feel ourselves obliged to differ from the learned Professor. The frequent recurrence of the term ', of which Aoyos, is the proper translation, in the popular commentaries in use among the Jews in the time of our Saviour, suggests a much more natural and rational origin of the appellation, as applied to the Son of God: and this, independently of the question, whether the term, in the Chaldee Paraphrases, is to be understood as a mere idiom, or a personal designation. We do not deny, however, that St. John, in his use of it, may have had a secondary respect to the philosophy which he was combating. Our Author likewise supposes it to have been an object of St. John's Gospel to confute the Sabians, a sect which acknowledged John the Baptist for its founder. The Acts of the Apostles he considers as intended, not for a general history of the primitive Church, but to record those two important events-the effusion of the Holy Ghost, and the vocation of the Gentiles. And we heartily concur with the Author in his recommendation of the study of Josephus, as the best means of understanding the historical books of the New Testament.

The fourth and final volume of this important work commences with an inquiry into the Epistles of St. Paul; of which he supposes, though on very insufficient grounds, the first written to be that to the Galatians. He proceeds to the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, the date of which may be ascertained from internal arguments. The Epistle to Titus is, with very little reason, placed next. In the chapter upon the two Epistles to the Corinthians, there is much important elucidation. The first Epistle to Timothy is very injudiciously made to succeed. But there is a considerable degree of probability in the

• We could wish to see this question, decided, or even well examined, by some person competent to the undertaking. Great names appear on each side: for the personal application of the term, Pearson, Allix, Witsius, Maurice; against it, Prideaux, Lightfoot, Simon, Basnage, Michaelis. In Allix's great work there are some arguments worth considering.

opinion that this, as well as the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Colossians, was particularly directed against the Essenes. In the chapter on the Epistle to the Romans, sufficient justice does not seem to be done to the extent and comprehension of the Apostle's argument. The Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians, are generally supposed to have been written during St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome; as was likewise that to the Ephesians, which Michaelis considers as a circular Epistle, intended for the Ephesians, the Laodiceans, and some other churches of Asia Minor.

See

For the ground of this supposition see Col. iv. 16. In the Author's remarks upon the Epistle to the Philippians, we find a complete vindication of the appellation given by St. Luke to Philippian appellation, the apparent impropriety of which has cost commentators so much pains to justify See Acts xvi. 12. Spanheim, however, has afforded a sufficient solution of the difficulty. Geog. Sac. p. 63. The second Epistle to Timothy contains strong internal evidence of its being the final Epistle of St. Paul. It appears, likewise to have been written during a second imprisonment at Rome, after he had paid a late visit to Troas, Miletus, and Corinth. See ch. iv. 13, 20. To this account of St. Paul's Epistles is subjoined a character of that eminent Apostle; in which, however, our noble countryman, Lord Lyttleton, has not left him much that is original to say.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, first ascribed to St. Paul by Pantænus, master of Clement of Alexandria, and concerning the author of which Origen expresses himself with uncertainty, Michaelis

seems inclined to consider as neither the Apostle's, nor canonical. St. James's Epistle he supposes to have been written to converted Jews; and endeavours, with more pains than are necessary, to reconcile his doctrine of faith with that of St. Paul. In his account of the first Epistle of St. Peter, he adopts the opinion of Benson, that it was addressed to Jewish proselytes, who had embraced Christianity; and contends successfully for the literal acceptation of the name Babylon. Many Jews resided at that place. It would be curious to compare

the conduct of the Bithynian Christians, as represented by Pliny, their persecutor, with the instructions given to them in this Epistle. The second Epistle our Author admits to be a genuine production of the same Apostle. To St. Jude's he is not so favourable. The object of the first Epistle of St. John he supposes to be the same as that of his Gospel. And here we meet with an interesting dissertation on the controverted passage, 1 John, v. 7; concerning which the reader may find more information to the same purpose in Marsh's Letters to Archdeacon Travis, preface, particularly p. xii. note 15. The second and third Epistles are admitted as both genuine and canonical. The Revelation he seems much disposed to reject from the canon, and shelters himself under the name and authority of Luther, who certainly did reject it, though on very insufficient grounds.

We are concerned that we cannot dismiss a work of such unquestionable merit with unqualified commendation. But some objections of a very serious nature have obtruded themselves upon us in the course of our perusal of it, which it is of the more importance for us to state, because the present publication may be the means of introducing into this kingdom a taste for works of the same description. German theology is not less formidable than German morality. That for profound and laborious investigation upon subjects of sacred criticism, the productions of that country stand unrivalled in the present age, none can deny who have any acquaintance with them. Such

persons, however, must at the same time be compelled to acknowledge, that neither are they exceeded in the general licentiousness with which theological researches are conducted by its most celebrated divines. The sacred writers are by those authors placed to all appearance precisely upon the same level with a heathen classic; and their writings are criticised with the same freedom. Now it is not merely a kind of habitual reverence, contracted for writings esteemed by us the repository of a divine revelation, which disposes us to take offence at such treatment of the sacred volume. Our objection is

better founded. We consider the truth of the general doctrines of Christianity, the miracles and resurrection of its Founder, as capable of being proved by evidence, entirely independent of the Scriptures of the New Testament. The existence, the antiquity, and the authenticity of these books may likewise be demonstrated by evidence equally external. Hardly any event in history is attested by so large a body of competent, and unexceptionable witnesses, as the general facts upon which the Christian religion is founded. Such being the case, we do not see how any person, who admits the truth of Christianity in the most general way, and who has the lowest conception of what is necessarily included in such an admission, can consider the principal agents in the propagation of this religion as having no assistance superior to such as is human, when they committed to writing the history and doctrines of the important dispensation which they had to announce to the world. We insist, therefore, that it is highly irrational and inequitable to treat such writers as merely human writers; and we desire to enter our most decisive protest against a procedure, replete with the most injurious consequences to religion, to morality, and to human happiness. It must candidly be acknowledged, that as every pursuit, however lawful or laudable, is attended with its peculiar temptations, and liable to its peculiar abuse; so neither is the cultivation of sacred criticism exempt from these dangers. There is something in its minute researches which has an unhappy tendency to contract the mind, and render it unfit for the contemplation of more enlarged objects. The critic, in his microscopic inquiries, forgets that there is a sun and a universe. In societies, likewise, where a general profligacy prevails, this study presents a point of junction, by which those,whose circumstances or profession require some regard to religion, may unite a course of irreligion or licentiousness with such a pursuit of theological science as neither alarms their own consciences, nor provokes the displeasure of the world.

Critics need to be reminded, that they have immortal souls like other men ;

THE first of these publications made its appearance, in its present state, originally in the year 1798, and is, therefore, here introduced, merely as it bears upon the work which immediately follows it. The first rule proposed by Mr. Sharp is given in these words: "When the copulative xx connects two nouns of the same case, (viz. nouns, either substantive or adjective, or participles, of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill) if the article , or , any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i. e. it denotes a further description of the first named person; except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number: in which cases there are many exceptions." From a variety of instances, produced as examples of the rule, we select the following; 'Oos KAI πατηρ το κυρίε ημών Ιησε Χρισ8.” 2 Cor. “ Εν επιγνώσει ΤΟΥ κυρίω ΚΑΙ Trupos Inc XP158," &c. 2 Pet. ii. 20. This rule is valuable, not merely in a philological view, but because it enables us to correct the translation of se

xi. 31.

66

veral passages in the New Testament, which, properly understood, afford "many striking proofs concerning the godhead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Under this idea we are referred to the following passages. Acts xx. 28. Eph. v. 5. 2 Thess. i. 12. 1 Tim. v. 21. 2 Tim. iv. 1. Titus ii. 13. 2 Pet. i. 1. Jude 4.

It

In

The Six Letters addressed to G. Sharp, Esq. (which we have heard attributed to the Rev. C. Wordsworth, M. A. and Fellow of Trinity Collège, Cambridge) may be considered as an important supplement to his work. seems reasonable to suppose, that if Mr. Sharp's rule be true, the ancient interpretations of any particular example by the Greek fathers must tend to therefore, is to examine, by actual refeconfirm it. The object of this work, rence, what were the opinions of the early Greek writers, upon those eight texts, which are mentioned above. the course of this learned and most laborious investigation, the author not only proves, by a great variety of quotations, in what sense the fathers understood these passages, but shews further, at what time, and amongst what writers, the interpretation began to be ambiguous. To any one at all conversant with the Latin and Greek languages, it cannot be a matter of astonishment, if, for want of the definitive article, an ambiguity frequently occurs in the Latin translation of a Greek sentence, where there is no difficulty whatever in the original. And to this source the author traces the uncertainty which has so long existed with respect to the true meaning of the texts cited by Mr. Sharp. Few of the Latin fathers were conversant with Greek; they quoted in general from their own translations; and, therefore, generally adopted that sense, which, to a mere Latin reader, would appear the most obvious. If then the Greek and Latin writers seem to differ with respect to the meaning of a Greek passage, the question to us becomes this: "Shall we take the explanation of a Greek passage from Greeks, or prefer from Latin writers, not the explanation of the Greek, but of a translation of it into their language; which translation, though