viz. that, in reducing the former from the rank hitherto assigned to them, we weaken the pretensions of the whole to divine inspiration;' for this the premises will not warrant upon the distinction last taken, any more than upon the other; since the credibility of every history depends upon the fidelity of the historian, and the conviction that he states the best information he possesses, from the pure desire of communicating truth. As to the question so confidently put-What do we gain but the solution of a few insignificant difficulties?'-we will answer by another :-Can any difficulty be insignificant which is not to be. solved upon the author's hypothesis?-We will affirm, not. No true history can be the more true from its being inspired; and if in any inspired history discordances occur which cannot be solved, we must, in such cases at least, give up the inspiration. As was remarked before, a detail of simple facts is not the object of inspiration; and it appears to us, that, however laudable the motive may be, it is certainly injurious to Christianity in the extreme to arrogate any claims to its records that are unnecessary, and which their own pretensions neither want nor warrant. the promised aid to his immediate disciples of the Holy Spirit, which our Lord vouchsafed, the object was to lead them into all truth, and to bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he bad said unto them. This, we conceive, simply relates to their qualification as to competency of doctrine, and firmly believe was fully accomplished; but strenuously deny that it is appropriate to a simple historical detail, or that there is any immediate evidence of its having been made to St. Mark or St. Luke.

In

The next division of these Remarks relate to Mr. Marsh's Dissertation on the Origin of the Three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. Some of the strictures offered are certainly pertinent, and materially clash with Mr. Marsh's hypothesis: others, nevertheless, are of vague application; and the same confusion of ideas in respect to inspiration recurs.-The inference drawn from what Mr. Marsh has advanced, is: 'I think it not too much to say that the hypothesis is contradictory to all history, as well as derogatory from the authority attributed to the evangelists, in all ages, as original writers.'

The Remarker, taking up the last idea, proceeds to offer an account of the verbal agreements exhibited by Mr. Marsh in his tables, and lays the chief stress of his objection on an observation which appears to us of essential importance; which is, that these agreements are all, or almost all, taken from the speeches or discourses of our Lord. Here,' as he justly observes, we are no longer concerned with the case of eye-witnesses who do not relate "facts in the same manner, and still less in the same words."Our historians,' he adds, ‘are of another description; they are those who are labouring to report accurately the speeches and discourses of another; in which case CRIT. REV. Vol. 36. September, 1802.

F

even common historians would endeavour to preserve the exact sense, or, as far as their memory would serve them, the same words. With regard to the sacred writers, it is natural to suppose them studious of this very circumstance; and we have also reason to think that they had assistance from above to the same effect: and yet it is not necessary to suppose that either their natural faculty, or the extraordinary assistance vouchsafed them, or both, should have brought them to a perfect identity throughout.' - There appears to us something objectionable in the statement of the sacred writers labouring to report accurately the speeches and discourses of our Lord, as this makes them no more than ordinary narrators in such parts of their narratives; nor does it accord with the idea of their having been aided by those inspired communications, either immediately or mediately, which were derived from the verification of the promise, that the Spirit of truth he would send them should bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them. To St. Matthew and St. John these reminiscences were immediate: St. Mark and St. Luke received them probably from others. Thus, then, were these four Gospels authentic and inspired, according to the respective natures of their contents, without the necessity of admitting all that the Remarker contends for, or of adopting, to its full extent, Mr. Marsh's hypothesis.

The conclusion of this pamphlet concerns what Michaëlis had advanced respecting the Apocalypse, and is of importance; though perhaps the statement in the Letters to Mr. Marsh on that subject (reviewed in our last number) represents the authorities for the Apocalypse to greater advantage.

ART. XII.-Letters to the anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaëlis and his Commentator, relating especially to the Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our three first Canonical Gospels. By Herbert Marsh, B. D. &c. 8vo. 15. Riving

tons. 1802.

THE anonymous author of the Remarks is said, and generally understood, to be the Lord Bishop of OXFORD. Whether Mr. Marsh had been told this, or not, does not appear; but as the author had not in his own name acknowledged them, he is ad dressed by Mr. Marsh as a person unknown. After a skirmishing prelude, which occupies greater part of the first letter, Mr. Marsh premises a view of what the rest will contain.

It will be the object of the following letters to inquire into the nature of your evidence, and to examine whether it be really such, as to warrant the judgement, which you have pronounced. With the exception of a few remarks on the Apocalypse, you have confined yourself to the Gospels; and you have assigned, as one reason for so

doing, that my Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our three first Canonical Gospels is one of the most objectionable parts. In fact it is against this Dissertation, that the principal, though not the largest portion of your pamphlet is directed; it is evidently the most laboured portion; and evidently that portion, to which you are desirous of drawing the chief attention of the reader. Here you have concentrated your main force; here you have gone systematically to work; whereas the former part of your pamphlet contains only desultory observations on detached passages. On this account, as well as on many others, I shall attempt a regular and systematic defence of the Dissertation: but to your desultory observations I must reply in the same desultory manner in which they were made. These desultory replies I shall put together in the next letter, according to the order of your observations; and in the third and following letters shall conduct the defence of the Dissertation.' r.4.

Beginning the second letter with animadversions which evi-` dently display a more exact mode of thinking than the Remarker has discovered, Mr. Marsh strenuously defends himself against the imputation of misleading his readers into by-paths; and retorts upon the Remarker, that the caution he would instil against minute inquiries is really injurious to the cause of which he professes himself the advocate. You are manifestly apprehensive that no good will come of such inquiries; as if the four Gospels, to which your pamphlet relates, could not stand the test of the most severe examination.-But,' adds Mr. Marsh, 'the more minutely we examine, the stronger will be our conviction, not only that they are productions of the apostolic age, but that they are the genuine works of those whose names they bear.'

Having corrected an egregious mistake of the Remarker, by which the reverse of what is fact had been imputed to Mr. Marsh, subjoined some pertinent observations in defence of the position that St. Luke was not an eye-witness of what he wrote, and charged his antagonist with making a parade with the learning of Raphelius, he thus closes:-This, sir, is an admirable specimen of your impartiality and candour, and shows how well you are qualified to write, "by way of caution to students in divinity."

The next letter, which commences a regular and systematic defence of the author's Dissertation on the three first Canonical Gospels, is employed in examining the various methods used by the Remarker to represent Mr. Marsh's hypothesis in an odious light, and persuade the reader that it is not to be commended. These positions are as follow:-1. Vanity in the author, on having discovered it. 2. That the hypothesis is of easy invention, and consequently has little merit attached to it. 3. That it is not probable, or consistent:-nor, 4. is it simple. 5. That it is a degradation of the evangelists, by making them 'mere copyers of copyists, compilers from former compilations, from a far

rago of Gospels, or parts of Gospels, of unknown authority." Lastly, That this hypothesis is inconsistent with inspiration; that is, with the inspiration which the Remarker has thought proper to adopt. What is urged on this head we transcribe.

Now, sir, your notions of inspiration may be best collected from that part of your pamphlet, which relates to apparent contradictions, or, according to your own words, to "differences in the minute circumstances attending upon the facts." In order to explain such differences, you make the following supposition in the following words; that "the evangelists were left in such to their own recollection, and to the common variations of memory amongst men." You allow therefore, in certain cases, an absolute suspension of supernatural aid, whereas my hypothesis, though it excludes verbal inspiration, admits a never-ceasing superintendence to guard the evangelists from error. Instead of blaming me therefore, you ought to take blame to your self. Besides, if we admit, that the same evangelist was inspired in some cases, but not in others; if we say, that in one place he was exempted from the danger of mistake, but abandoned in another to his own recollection, we shall involve ourselves in difficulties, of which you are not aware. You will not find it an easy task to draw the boundary line, and to say, thus far inspiration did extend, thus far it did not. Further, if in those places, where we are pressed by our adversaries, as in the case of apparent contradictions, we assert, that the evangelists were left to the common variations of memory, our ad. versaries will claim the same privilege, in regard to those passages, with which we endeavour to press them in our turn. But I forbear to push this subject any further; and I will conclude with observing, that, if my hypothesis does not agree with such notions of inspiration, I hope this want of agreement will not be considered as a blemish." r. 16.

In the fourth letter, Mr. Marsh begins with observing it as a fact, that his assailant has totally mistaken the ground upon which the hypothesis is founded, and that nothing can affect it till the following propositions are proved.

1. Either that I was guilty of error in my observations on the numerous and manifold appearances in the verbal harmony of the three first Gospels;

2. Or that my hypothesis will not account for those appear

ances;

3. Or that some other hypothesis affords as good, or a better solution of them.' P. F9.

As, however, nothing has been alleged to establish them, Mr. Marsh infers that his hypothesis is no more affected than if the Remarker had never written.

The fifth letter opens with recapitulating the last position, and observing on it that the controversy might here close; but lest the Remarker should be dissatisfied at an argument grounded solely upon what he has not done, Mr. Marsh proceeds to consider what he has done. With this view, he begins with pointing out a grand error which pervades the whole series of his

antagonist's Remarks, he having taken it for granted that the hypothesis proposed required historical evidence; whereas the main proof of its truth, as the term hypothesis implies, must be of a different description.' Whence it follows, that an argument proceeding from a false supposition cannot come to a right conclusion. And here we cannot help concurring with Mr. Marsh; for to us it appears, that the Remarker could only have made good his point by showing where the hypothesis was defective in its aim, or where, in using it as the test proposed, there had been aught of vicious argument in the application. The authoritative declaration of the Remarker-I deny the position, that testimony can be alleged for any part of it '-is unanswerably repelled; and the intimation, that the Remarker wrote by way of caution to students in divinity,' not ill retorted. After pointing out other misrepresentations and inaccuracies, and particularly in reference to the Απομνημονεύματα των Αποστόλων—some important observations on which are comprised in the note below*-Mr.

I will try however to crowd into the compass of a note some reasons, which may induce you at least to doubt, whether the Aquμonμata quoted by Justin were our four Gospels. First, amourμosyuara, though of the plural number, denotes in all other instances, of which we have any knowledge, not several works, each written by a different person, but simply one work. Thus we not only read of opreg Añoμmμevivμata, which are still extant, but of Пrokeμais Aμmμovevμaтi, &c, as you may see in H. Stephens. When Justin therefore quotes των αποςόλων απομνημονεύματα, we should argue from analogy, that he meant likewise a single work, to which the apostles in general had contributed. Secondly, if Justin had departed from the common use of this title, and had meant to describe four different Gospels written by four different authors, two of whom were not apostles, he would surely not have adopted the title Tv chav as applicable to all four: he would not have used the title "memoirs by the apostles," if only two out of the twelve were concerned in drawing them up. He says indeed in one place in his dialogues with Trypho, that the memoirs were drawn up ύπο των αποςόλων και των εκείνοις παρακόλυθησαν των : but "memoirs drawn up by the apostles, and the attendants of thei" (for you must not neglect the article) can never mean Gospels written by two apostles, and two attendants of apostles, whereas the title is well adapted to a single work drawn up by the attendants of the apostles from their comminunications. With regard to the passage ο γαρ αποςολοι εν τοις γενομένοις υπ' αυτών απομνημονεύμασιν, ὦ καλείται #payyidia, oùrns wapɛdxnav, it must be observed, that though Justin has so frequently quoted the armorsuara, this is the only passage in all his works in which we find the addition & nadestai suayyɛız. Even here it is an excrescence, as every one must perceive who reads the passage (p. 96, ed. Thirlby); and it looks so like a marginal gloss, which has crept into the text, that no critic will rely on it. But even if it be genuine, it will not prove that Justin meant the four Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John: for he has not mentioned the name either of Matthew, or of Mark, or of Luke, throughout all his works; and where he has mentioned the name of John, he has mentioned it only when he quotes the Apocalypse, but never when he quotes the Aquμvuuтa. Surely he would not have acted thus, if he had used our four Gospels. If, when he quoted from the Revelation of St. John, he thought proper to name the author, he certainly would have done the same with the Gospel of St. John. In fact, it is Justin's constant practice to name the author from whom he quotes: and if you consult his numerous quotations from the Old Testament, you will find that he does not centent himself merely with saying, as is written by the prophets, or by the prophet, but that he adds by what prophet. If then the quotations from the Aquμerpara, which correspond to passages in St. Matthew's Gospel, for instance, had been really taken from that Gospel, he would have added T MarSay, and not sev Amoschay. If hẹ