| ' 
| MARGH’S ILLUSTRATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS, KC. 
| 
So also Tertullian: * /egimus omnem 
toripturam edificationi habilem divinitus in- 
pirari ;’? which seems to us no other 
han the converse of the proposition, 
enn Ocomvevsos ess wOeripos. ‘This pas- 
Sage is misquoted by Dr. F. It occurs 
‘not in the treatise ‘‘de Cultu Faminarum,” 
butin that entitled, “ de Aabitu muliebri.” 
Cap. iii In the treatise to which 
Dr. Findlay has erroneously referred, 
there is a passage which seems to have, 
at least, a remote allusion to the text 
before us: “ Nulla annunciatio spiritus 
sancti, ad presentum tantum materiam et non 
| ad omnem utilitatis occasionem dirigi, ef suscipi 
| potest.” Edit. Heins. p. 165. 
| Though we do not deny that yea¢n may 
mean in some passages, the whole Jewish 
canon, we do not think that in all the 
instances which our author has quoted, 
it has necessarily that extensive import. 
| The term in John xix. 37, in our opi- 
hion, signifies nothing more than fas- 
fage, “ locus unus ¢ libro quodam sacro 
Judaeorum ; dictum scripture sacre.” . Vide 
| containing Miscellaneous Matters. 
F THE hypothesis proposed in the dis- 
sertation, and here most strenuously and 
ably vindicated, we cannot but consider 
Fe now so firmly established, that any 
further attempts to overthrow it, must 
be as unsuccessful as those of the author 
of the Remarks. There may be many 
| who from want of time, or of inclination, 
have not made themselves acquainted 
)) with this curious subject of inquiry ; we 
cannot, therefore, as it appears to us, 
orm a service more acceptable, than 
e devoting of a few of our columns to 
an abridged view of this interesting dis- 
‘covery. And that we may be in less 
‘danger of mis-representing, we shall, 
‘for the most part, employ Mr. Marsh’s 
words. ~ 
_ Whoever has read a Greek Harmony 
ef the Gospels, must have been struck 
by the remarkable similarity which pre- 
ils throughout the three first Evange- 
» who agree not only in relating 
same things in the same manner, but 
likewise in the same words. This extra- 
| ordinary agreement could not be found 
atween three historians, who had not 
connexion with each other, either 
" Mediate or immediate. ‘“ For even eye- 
‘Witnesses to the same facts, if they make 
\their reports independently of each other, 
) Awn. Rey. Vor. Il. 
129 
Schleusner in verb. The adjective irsea 
most clearly demonstrates that its signi- 
fication must here be restricted. Nor is 
the instance from Josephus, Antiq. Lib. 
iii, c. 1. more satisfactory. The word 
may be considered as signifying no more 
than the Pentateuch, or even that parti+ 
cular book of the Pentateuch which 
contained the history of the miracle cited 
by the historian. 
But we do not mean, nor is it omr 
province, to examine every positi 
in the work before us. The candid an 
ingenious examiner, will perhaps think 
with us, that some of Dr. Geddes’s ar- 
guments are here ably controverted; 
that Dr. Findlay has not succeeded in 
all his positions ; that if the present 
reading be retained, Qconveeses must have 
a meaning different from that which is 
usually assigned to it; and that divine 
inspiration cannot be proved to belong 
to every part of the Jewish canon, from 
a text of such dubious import. 
jArr. VIII. An LMlustration of ihe Hypothesis proposed in the Dissertation on the Origin 
and Composition of our Three first Candnical Gospels. With a Preface and an Append 
; The Whole being a Rejoinder to the anonymous Author 
’ ¢ the Remarks on Michaelis and his Commentator. 
F.R.S. Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 8vo. 
s LS 
By Herzert Marsu, 
will never relate them in the same man- 
ner, and still less in the same words.”— 
The verbal harmony of the three first 
Evangelists, is therefore inexplicable on 
any other than one of two suppositions, 
either that St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
St. Luke copied the one from the other, 
or that all three drew from a common 
source. Of these the former has been 
generally maintained, and it resolves 
itself into. six possible cases; four of 
which have been adopted by different 
harmonists. 
I. Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke. 
from both. ‘ 
2. Matthew copied from Luke, and Mark 
from both. 
8. Mark copied from Matthew, and Luke 
from both. 
4. Mark copied from Luke,and Matthew 
from both. 
5. Lukecopied from Matthew, and Mark 
from both. 
6. Luke copiedfrom Mark, and Matthew 
from both. 
The fourth and the sixth cases have 
been used by no writer: The first, has 
been partly assumed by Storr. The se- 
cond has been assumed by Busching. The 
third, by Gretius, Mill, Wetstein, Town- 
K 
