The reader will of courfe understand us to mean Mr. Marsh's "Differtation on the Origin and Compofition of the Three firft Canonical Gofpels," a tract occupying by itself 243 pages, and forming much the larger divifion of the fecond part of vol. iii. It may be proper here to ftate, that the whole enquiry into the origin, as it is called, of the three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, takes its rife from a defire to account both for the verbal fimilarities, and for the occasional differences, which appear in the parallel accounts of these three Evangelifts, where they relate the fame difcourfes or tranfactions. This attempt has been carried on with great earnestness in Germany, like many other minute and curious enquiries, and Mr. Marth has manifeftly been led to form a new hypothefis upon the fubject, by being converfant with those which had been propofed before, and by the hope of being able to offer fomething not liable to the objections, which his fagacity naturally fuggefted to thofe of the German writers. An English critic, or student in theology, will be inclined to ask, whether it be neceffary that we fhould be able to account entirely for thefe appearances? Whether the teftimonies that we have to the authenticity, and authority of the Gospels, their early and univerfal reception by the church, which did not admit writings without full examination, be not fufficient to compel us to receive them, though there fhould be difficulties refpecting the arrangement and phrafeology of those narratives, which we fhould find ourselves unable to folve? The German critics feem not to think so; and Mr. Marsh, deeply verfed in their writings, appears fo far to have caught their fpirit, as to entertain no doubt that the folution is important, and even neceffary; but that it remained to complete the work, by a more fortunate or judicious conjecture than had yet been made. The opinion most commonly received has been, that one or two of the three firft Evangelifts had copied from the third, or one from the other two; but which was the original, and which the copyifts, has been variously conjectured. To this opinion (befides that it weakens the teftimony of the Evangelifts, by reducing three to two, or even to one) there are various objections, which are stated in the strongest manner by Mr. M. in the fecond chapter of his differtation. Le Clerc appears to have been the first divine who threw out an idea, that the Evangelifts might have used some common document or documents, which might have occafioned them to adopt fo frequently the fame terms, and forms of expreffion*. This idea, after

*Hift. Eccles. Sæc. 1. Ann 64. § 11, &c. cited by Mr. Marsh, p. 19. This opinion he mentioned alfo in the Bibliotheque ancienne et mo

derne.

after having been almoft unnoticed for a long courfe of years, was again taken up in Germany by Profeffor Koppe, by Michaelis, in his fourth edition of his Introduction, and by others, whom Mr. Marth has enumerated; but more particularly by Eichhorn, who, with great labour, went deeply into the inveftigation of the fubject, and with much ingenuity drew up a flatement of 42 fections of evangelical hiftory, which, being contained in all the three Evangelifts in queftion, he fuppofed to have been all in the original document. They form a tolerably well-connected hiftory of the Incarnation and Ministry of our Saviour. This common document, from which three Evangelifts drew materials, Eichhorn fuppofed to be in Hebrew or Chaldee. Mr. Marfh, after many preparatory fteps, affigning reafons for the rejection of other hypothefes, and various forms of this hypothefis, propofes his own in the following terms; marking the common Hebrew document by the fign & and certain tranflations of it, with more or lefs additions, by *, B, &c.

"St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, all three ufed copies of the common Hebrew document &; the materials of which St. Matthew (who wrote in Hebrew) retained in the language in which he found them, but St. Mark and St. Luke tranflated them into Greek. They had no knowledge of each others Gofpels; but St. Mark and St. Luke, betides their copies of the Hebrew document &, used a Greek tranflation of it, which had been made before any of the additions a, ẞ, &c. had been inferted. Laftly, as the Gofpels of St. Mark and St. Luke contain Greek tranflations of Hebrew materials, which were incorporated into St. Matthew's Hebrew Gofpel, the perfon, who tranflated St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently derived affistance from the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common with St. Matthew; and in thofe places, but in thofe places only, where St. Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he had frequently recourfe to St. Luke's Gofpel." P. 195.

This statement, it should be observed, is accommodated with great attention, to particular circumftances which the author has pointed out in the former parts of his Differtation; but it muft also be stated, that besides this firft Hebrew document, and its translations, Mr. Marth fuppofes alfo a fupplemental Hebrew document, which contained a collection of precepts, parables, and difcourfes, not in chronological order, which he

derne. "Pour moi, je fuis perfuadé que S. Marc n'avoit point vu l'Evangile de S. Matthieu, mais qu'il s'etoit fervi de quelques me moires communs; ce qui avoit fait qu'ils avoient fouvent employé les mêmes termes. J'en ai parlé dans ma differtation fur les quatre Evangeliftes." T. ii. p. 338..

3

calls

calls a voy. This he conceives to have been used only by St. Matthew and St. Luke, who had copies of it differing from each other.

Suppofing fuch a theory to be neceffary, for accounting for the verbal fimilarities and differences of the three firft Evangelifts, which we by no means adinit, the obvious fault of this hypothefis is its extreme complexity. Here are two Hebrew documents, and feveral Greek verfions with additions gratuitoufly fuppofed; which even the practice fo common with this author of using algebraical notations, can hardly enable the reader to diftinguith from each other. To defcribe the fources of St. Matthew's Gofpel by this method, he employs no lefs than feven of these marks; namely, &, a, 7, A, r', a, and r2. Befides thefe, there are the marks peculiar to St. Luke, or St. Mark, 3, B, and ; in all, ten different figns, flanding for feparate documents, or modifications of documents; and all thefe gratuitoufly fuppofed, without proof for the exiflence of one among the number. This hypothefis the author himself confiders as fimple; but we conceive that no other perfon whatfoever can coincide in that opinion. He fays, with respect to the steps of this hypothefis, that "there is no internal improbability attending any one of them: they are neither numerous nor complicated." Here we must certainly obferve, that altogether they are numerous, and confequently by the combinations fuppofed in their application become extremely complicated: and though no particular ftep may be in itfelf improbable, yet the difcovery of ten different fources to certain works, by mere analyfis, not one of them being clearly mentioned or alluded to in hiftory, is altogether of the very highest improbability, and forms fuch a difcovery as was never yet made in the world, and probably never will; because, if not abfolutely impoffible, it is fo near it, that the mind can hardly fancy a diftinction. Nor can we omit to fay, that the author of the hypothefis is rather too hafty in his mode of recommending it to general adoption. For, after fhowing how it is applicable to the cafe of the Gofpels, as ftated by himself, he concludes thus:

"It appears then, that the phænomena of every defcription, obfervable in our three firft Gofpels, admit of an eafy folution by the propofed hypothefis. And fince no other hypothefts can folve them all, we may conclude that it is the true one."

In this fhort fentence there are many things liable to objection. In the first place, that the hypothefis fhould folve the phænomena or circumflances, as conceived and flated by the author, is not at all extraordinary, fince it was framed by him

felf

felf with those views, and for that exprefs purpose, and confequently must have been altered and modified by him in the formation, till he had adapted it completely to his own view of the cafe. That it would equally adapt itself to an inde pendent view of the circumftances, taken by another perfon, is by no means clear. In the fecond place, it cannot, we think, be allowed, that the folution thus gained is eafy. On the contrary, it is fo difficult, that, without the fhort-hand marks which the author has borrowed from algebra, it would fcarcely be capable of explanation. But thirdly, that no other hypothefis can folve all thefe appearances, is an affumption of extravagant boldnefs, fince we well know how inexlrauftible imagination is, in forming hypothefes; and fince the truth, if ever it fhould be difcovered, will probably folve them all with real fimplicity and eafe.

Into the arduous attempt to difcover, by means of an affumed hypothefis, the fecret procefs employed by the Evangelifts in drawing up their Gofpels, Mr. Marth has evidently been led by his familiarity with the German divines; and particularly by the example of his author Michaelis, and Eichhorn; to surpass whom, in their own plan of interpretation, would naturally be an object of his ambition. That he has furpaffed them both in the fubtlety and ingenuity of his fyftem, and in the skill with which it is developed, cannot, we think, be denied. But we conceive that the attempt itself was fuperfluous, and one which in its very nature was fuch as could not poffibly be attended with complete fuccefs. He has failed, therefore, only by attempting impoffibilities; the only failure to which fo much ingenuity is likely to be expofed.

We fhall now fubjoin fome account of the pamphlets which this hypothefis has occcafioned, as we promifed in our former article on Michaelis. The account of the tract on the Apocalypfe we muft defer, for want of room.

43 PP.

25.

ART. XIII. Remarks on "Michaelis's Introduction to the New Teftament. Vols. III. IV. Tranflated by the Rev. Herbert Marfh, and augmented with Notes." By Way of Caution to Students in Divinity. 8vo. White, Hatchard, &c. 1802. ART. XIV. Letters to the anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his Commentator, relating efpecially to the Differtation on the Origin and Compofition of our Three firft Canonical Gofpels. By Herbert Marsh, B. D. F. R. S. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 39 PP, 1s. Rivingtons. 1802.

N

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXI. FEB. 1803.

ART,

ART. XV. Remarks on Michaelis's Introduction, &c. A Second Edition. With a Preface and Notes, in Reply to Mr. Marsh. 8vo. 114 pp. White, &c. 1802.

THE profefed object of the firft of thefe tracts, which, though anonymous, is well worthy of attention, is to offer a caution to ftudents in Divinity. The caution, as we underftand it, is this, that they fhould not fuffer themselves to be led by the example of Michaelis and his commentator, notwith landing the abilities of both, to give an undue weight to matters of minute refearch, concerning the hiftory of the Gofpels. That they fhould adhere to the abundant teftimony we have, for the authenticity and infpiration of thofe facred documents, though there fhould be fome particulars, refpecting their compofition, which they find themfelves unable to explain. Michaelis, on the contrary, is determined to find the Evangelifts exact and regular hiftorians, which feems to have been no part of their defign; and is much more ready to give up their infpiration (which, indeed, in one or two inftances he feems defirous to relinquifh*) than to believe that they could have written without fuch a plan as he is pleafed to afcribe to them. The author of the tract firft fpeaks of Harmonies (p. 8) which he allows to have their ufe; but contends, that the point is urged too far, when it is expected that we fhould be able to arrange every minute paffage in perfect confiftency, from fuch independent narratives.

He next fpeaks of St. Luke's Gofpel (p. 16) and oppofes with force the idea of Michaelis, "that inftead of being lofers we fhould be real gainers, if we were to confider St. Luke as a mere human hiftorian." This, he fays, is like expecting to add ftrength to a fabric by pulling down one of its main pillars. The teltiinonies of internal and external authority for the Evangelifts are equal, and if we uncanonize one, we put the reft in the fame danger. He then proceeds (p. 23) to confider Mr. Marth's hypothefis, refpecting the origin of the three firft Gofpels,which he maintains to be very far from fimple, and confiders as very degrading to the character of the Evangelifts, who are reduced by it to he" the mere copiers of copyifts, the compilers from former compilations, from a farrago of Gospels or parts of Gofpels, of unknown authority every one of them." He lays much freis on the total filence of the Chriftian Church refpecting the fuppofed documents; and points out that Juftin