the hypothesis first proposed by Eichhorn and introduced with modifications to the English public by Dr. Marsh-that there existed, prior to the composition of any of our canonical gospels, a document containing the principal facts of our Lord's life and ministry-that in passing through various hands it had received additions and had undergone translations from its original Aramaic into Greek, and that the coincidences of our gospels are to be ascribed to the writers' using materials substantially the same, their discrepancies to their possessing copies more or less enriched by subsequent additions, or to the variations in phraseology which must exist in the translation of the same original by different hands. This subject underwent a long and angry discussion in England soon after the publication of Marsh's Michaelis, and since that time appears to have slept in peace. The orthodox regarded with horror the suggestion that our gospels should have owed their origin to an assemblage of anonymous fragments, while those who form their judgments rather from the evidence than the supposed consequences of an opinion, have, perhaps, generally assented to the apparent plausibility of the hypothesis without rigidly examining it in all its bearings. The translator has very clearly stated some objections to it, and Schleiermacher directs the reader's attention to them from time to time as they arise in the course of his Essay. In Germany, the controversy has gone on to the present time, and although neither the hypothesis of Eichhorn, nor any of those which have been proposed in its stead, has been supported with evidence amounting to any thing like certainty, many valuable results have been obtained from the accurate and extensive researches into Christian antiquities which learned men have instituted in the hope of solving the problem. The translator, who appears most accurately acquainted with the theological literature of Germany, goes on to state the opinions of Gratz and Bertholdt, who have considerably modified Eichhorn's hypothesis; of Hug, who has returned to the ancient opinion that the evangelists copied each other, and of Gieseler, who supposes an oral gospel, arising out of the united teaching of the apostles during their joint residence at Jerusalem, afterwards variously adapted by them to the respective objects of their separate preaching. We regret that our limits will not allow us to do more than refer the reader to this very interesting part of the book. Such was the state of the controversy respecting the origin of the three first gospels, when Schleiermacher, not satisfied with the result of any of these inquiries, and believing their fundamental assumption of a common document to be erroneous, undertook the examination of the Gospel of Luke, in order to discover what internal marks it contained of the manner in which its materials had been procured and combined. The work of which we are now to give an analysis is the result of this investigation. He thinks that he discovers in this gospel evident traces that Luke has only arranged a number of documents previously existing, in which detached events were recorded and discourses preserved, adding little of his own, except the introductory verses, and here and there a connecting particle or phrase. Two other objects are also kept in view throughout the Essay-to shew that the chronology and connexion of Luke are generally preferable to those of Matthew, and to point out those phenomena which are inconsistent with Eichhorn's hypothesis of a common document. We shall confine ourselves to the two first points. He thus endeavours to render probable the existence of these detached documents:

"The first source [of Christian history] was a reasonable and natural desire on the part of those who had believed in Jesus, without having had a know

ledge of his person. These individuals would undoubtedly be glad to learn some particulars of his life, in order to place themselves as nearly as possible on an equality with their elder and more fortunate brethren. In the public assemblies of the Christians this desire was of course only incidentally and sparingly gratified, when a teacher happened to refer to memorable sayings of Christ, which could only be related together with the occasion that had called them forth; more copious and detailed accounts they could only procure in familiar intercourse upon express inquiry. And in this way many particulars were told and heard, most of them probably without being committed to writing; but assuredly much was very soon written down, partly by the narrators themselves, as each of them happened to be pressed by a multiplicity of questions on a particular occurrence, respecting which he was peculiarly qualified to give information; for writing became in that case a convenience and a saving of time. Still more, however, must have been committed to writing by the inquirers, especially by such as did not remain constantly in the neighbourhood of the narrators, and were glad to communicate the narrative again to many others, who, perhaps, were never able to consult an eyewitness. In this way detached incidents and discourses were noted down. We need scarcely apprehend at this day, in opposition to this probable account of the matter, the objection that the first preachers of Christianity, as well as its friends, were sunk in such a depth of barbarism, that but very few of them can be supposed capable of thus committing facts to writing. Not even with respect to the retaining and reporting of the speeches, do I conceive it necessary to enter into a refutation of this objection. For though, perhaps, this facility in itself existed in a less degree among the Jews than among the Greeks, yet, on the other hand, the task was considerably lightened by the method of instruction in parables and aphorisms, and by the constant allusions and references to parts of the sacred writings universally known. Notes of this kind were at first no doubt less frequently met with among the Christians settled in Palestine, and passed immediately into more distant parts, to which the pure oral tradition flowed more scantily. They, however, appeared every where more frequently, and were more anxiously sought for, when the great body of the original companions and friends of Christ was dispersed by persecutions, and still more when that first generation began to die away. It would, however, have been singular if, even before this, the inquirers who took those notes had possessed only detached passages: on the contrary, they, and still more their immediate copiers, had undoubtedly become collectors also, each according to his peculiar turn of mind; and thus one, perhaps, collected only accounts of miracles, another only discourses, a third, perhaps, attached exclusive importance to the last days of Christ, or even to the scenes of his resurrection. Others, without any such particular predilection, collected all that fell in their way from good authority."-Pp. 12–14.

Dr. S. begins his analysis by the obvious division of the gospel into four sections (not assuming, however, what must of course be the object of examination, their original separate existence). 1. What precedes the public life of Jesus, ch. i. ii. 2. Accounts of his baptism and of his actions and discourses in the vicinity of Capernaum, extending to ch. ix. 49. 3. Narratives and discourses relating to a journey to Jerusalem, the end of which is to be ascertained by more minute analysis (afterwards fixed at ch. xix. 48). 4. An account of the last days of Christ, his sufferings and death, his resurrection and ascension.

'Passing over the introductory verses, in which no one can fail to recognize a style wholly different from that of the succeeding part of the section, our author finds in the eightieth verse of the first chapter a decisive mark of the termination of the first of those originally independent narratives which have been put together to frame this Gospel. His reason for so considering it is, that a conti

nuous narrative never goes back from the particular to the general, unless when it totally drops its subject; while on the other hand, as a particular incident related by itself presents no satisfactory conclusion, the relater of such an incident always adds some general clause. He instances in our popular stories, where, having conducted the hero and heroine through the detail of their difficulties to the period of their marriage, the author never finally dismisses them, without some general assurance to his readers of their subsequent happiness, p. 22. The remark is certainly both acute and just, and it is a principal test by which Dr. S. endeavours to detect the termination of those separate narratives of which he thinks the Gospel was composed. In applying it, however, there are two limitations which we think will take this passage at least from under its operation, namely, that this summing up of the subsequent history of a subordinate personage is by no means inconsistent with the continuity of the narrative as regards the leading character: and, secondly, that such a return from the particular to the general is by no means unnatural, when such a subordinate personage is dismissed even for a time, if the manner of his dismissal indicate the intention of recalling him at some future opportunity. Such appears to be the case here. The history of the birth of John is connected almost from the first with that of Jesus, and it is difficult to conceive that any narrator, after the mention of the circumstances, ch. i. 26—38, 42, should have concluded with the eightieth verse. The very words too," and was in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel," indicate the intention of resuming his history at a future period. In what sense Dr. S., who seems to have anticipated this objection, says, that the clause only breaks the chain of the narrative, (p. 23,) we are unable to discover. Again, to prove that the second chapter cannot have been originally composed continuously with the first, he observes, (p. 24,)" that Joseph and Mary's residence in Nazareth and Joseph's descent from David are both mentioned a second time, (ch. ii. 4,) in a manner evidently implying that we did not know those facts before." Let the reader compare this mention of them with the first. "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of Galilee whose name was Nazareth, to a virgin whose name was Mary, betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David," ch. i. 25. “And Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and family of David,) along with Mary his betrothed wife," ch. ii. 4. Is not the distinction here evident between the manner of introducing objects and persons, in the first passage, and that of referring to them when already introduced, in the second? How strange, too, in an independent narrative the mention of the circumstance, σὺν Μαριάμ τῇ μεμνηστευμένη αὐτῷ γυναικὶ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύψ, which, however, was quite natural from an author who had already given us the words of Gabriel, ch. i. 35. All the remainder of the first division he thinks separates itself into a series of originally unconnected narratives; the birth and vision of the shepherds, ch. ii. 1-20; the presentation in the temple, ch. ii. 22— 40; the dispute with the doctors in the temple, ch. ii. 41-52; observing that each of these terminates with clauses resembling that at ch. i. 80. We readily admit that such clauses as the two last might have appeared unnatural in a biography of our Lord, which pursued the growth of his character and the history of his life from month to month and from year to year; there would have appeared then no reason why the particular detail should be anticipated by a general remark: but the actual case is very different. The

incidents which are recorded are separated by wide intervals in the life of Jesus; assuming for the present their authenticity, they are insulated events, which have escaped the oblivion that covers the rest of his early years; and was it unnatural that a narrator, compelled by the want of traditions or documents to pass from one of these events to another, should give such a general summary of the progress of our Lord's life in the interval?—a summary which needs no external proof, because the recorded events of the succeeding period sufficiently attest its correctness. Dr. S. himself has been aware that ch. ii. 21, as it connects itself both with the previous and the subsequent history, threatens to overturn his opinion of their original distinctness, and he supposes that they had been previously united by the interposition of this verse when our Evangelist incorporated them with his work, alleging the improbability that in a continuous narrative the phrase TE ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι should have been repeated in two successive verses (ch. ii. 21, 22). Had these words merely denoted a lapse of time, we should have thought that there was some ground for the remark, but they are always used of the expiration of a term; (Luke i. 23, ii. 6;) they are, with the substitution of Angora, the very words in which the expiration of a legal term is described; (Lev. xii. 4, Numb. vi. 5;) they may therefore fairly be considered as technical; and surely the most fastidious critic must allow the repetition of a technical phrase when a technical occasion calls for it. We may further remark, that these words occur four times in the two first chapters of Luke, and no where else in the New Testament—a circumstance which furnishes presumption, we think, not altogether to be overlooked, in favour of the original identity of the author or translator of these chapters. Of the history contained in them, Dr. S. expresses his opinion (pp. 44-51), that it is much mixed with poetical embellishment, that the taxing by Cyrenius (ch. ii. 1) is inconsistent with history as referred to the days of Herod, and that the two accounts of Matthew and Luke are utterly irreconcilable yet, even with these deductions from their historical credibility, he observes how far superior they are to "the extravagance and romance of the exploded gospels, the compilers or authors of which were possessed with the confused spirit of Rabbinical Judaism.” This is a view

of the matter which has hardly been taken by English critics, who have either received the whole as inspired, or rejected the whole as a forgery; a few, however, acknowledging the genuineness of Luke to the exclusion of Matthew. The opinion of Schleiermacher, we think, will gain ground, as theologians accustom themselves to consider the question critically rather than dogmatically. At the lowest computation, half a century must have elapsed from the birth of Jesus to the publication of this history-a still longer period to the composition of the introductory chapters of Matthew, supposing them to have stood from the first in the Greek. Unless then we are to lay aside all ordinary rules of evidence in judging of the records of Christianity, (which is in other words to say, that the truth of Christianity cannot be historically proved at all,) we are justified in allowing only a limited credibility to accounts of events, some of which were known originally only to one or two individuals, which were so completely forgotten in our Lord's mature age, that neither friend nor enemy ever alludes to them, and which bear in parts such strong internal marks of improbability. How different from the evidence of those events, the knowledge of which was sufficient for an apostle, "which began from the baptism of John, to that day on which the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven"! Acts ii. 22,

Second Division, ch. iii. 1-ix. 49. Here again Dr. S. discovers, at ch. iv. 15, the mark of the termination of an independent narrative.

"Here we find at the outset a close connexion down to iv. 15. But then comes another form of conclusion as marked as any of the preceding, which it is wholly impossible to consider as a transition from one subject to another, such as must occur even in a continuous narrative. How could one whose object was to write a connected history of the life of Christ, and therefore to relate, as far as lay in his power, the events on which Christ's reputation was grounded, speak in this place already of his reputation, and thereby give occasion only to the mistaken notion, that he had knowingly passed over a whole period? It is not even possible to explain verses 14 and 15 as a transition to the narrative which immediately follows of the scene in the synagogue at Nazareth. In that scene Jesus appears, indeed, as already celebrated; but not only so, for he appeals no less plainly to the miracles which he performs. Had then verses 14 and 15 been added in order to intimate the circumstances in which Jesus stood when he made his appearance at Nazareth, mention would in that case have been made, not only of his reputation as a teacher, but also of his miracles. As the words now stand, they can proceed only from one who here concluded his account of the commencement of Jesus's public life, and did not choose to add any thing farther. He naturally concludes in this way, that from this time forth Jesus taught publicly in his country and became celebrated."-Pp. 53, 54.

Admitting this to be really a mark of termination, it might be accounted for as well by Dr. Priestley's supposition, that our Evangelists wrote their Gospels in detached portions, (Observations prefixed to Gr. Harm. p. 72,) as by Schleiermacher's. To us, however, it appears nothing more than a brief summary of the events of a period, of which the writer possessed not, or did not mean to communicate, any more precise account. Accordingly it is evident, both from the other Evangelists, and from the speech of our Saviour in the synagogue at Nazareth, which Luke immediately subjoins, (ch. iv. 33,) that a considerable interval had elapsed, during which Jesus had obtained that celebrity which is the ground of the reproach which he supposes that his townsmen will address to him; "Do here also in thy own country, what we have heard to have been done at Capernaum." In this document, then, from ch. iii. 1—iv. 15, Dr. S. supposes that all but the genealogy of Jesus (which Luke inserted) was found by him in its present united form; but that ch. iii. 1-20, was originally part of a memoir, relating exclusively to John; and hence he ingeniously explains the circumstance, that the chronology of John's ministry, not that of Jesus, is given, ch. iii. 1, and that the imprisonment of John is mentioned before the baptism of Jesus. The following are his remarks upon the temptation:

"As to the thing itself, I can neither consider it as an ecstacy-for we have no instances of states of ecstacy in the history of Christ-nor as a figurative representation of what took place inwardly in Christ. For had he enter

tained, even in the most transient manner, thoughts of such a nature, he would have ceased to be Christ, and this explanation appears to me the grossest outrage that has been committed in modern times against his person. Since, however, we can as little allow it to pass for matter of fact, the most natural alternative remaining is to consider it, as others have done already, as a parable. Three leading maxims of Christ, for himself and for those who were invested by him with extraordinary powers for the promotion of his kingdom, are therein expressed: the first, to perform no miracle for his own advantage even under the most pressing circumstances; the second, never to undertake, in the hope of extraordinary divine aid, any thing which, like the dropping