182 
compound can appear either in the text 
of Matthew or of Luke. 
In the additional matter of these 
forty-two sections in Matthew and Mark, 
‘there are several instances of verbal 
agreement, but some of the longest ad- 
ditions are made in totally different 
words. In the additions common to 
Mark and Luke, though very numerous, 
there is only one instance of verbal 
agreement ; whereas, in those common 
to Matthew and Luke, the verbal coin- 
cidence is very remarkable, and the 
more so as in the general matter they 
disagree. ‘ 
In the whole sections, which are found 
only in Matthew and Mark, the verbal 
agreement is very general. In the 
whole sections contained in Mark and 
Luke, but not in Matthew, the verbal 
agreement is confined to one single 
assage. In the sections peculiar to 
Risesiase and Luke, the verbal coinci- 
dence is very remarkable. 
Such are the facts which Mr. Marsh 
discovered ; and upon these facts he 
framed the following hypothesis : 
«St, Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, 
all three, used copies of a common Hebrew 
document ; the materials of which St. Mat- 
thew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in 
the language in which he found them, but 
St. Mark and St. Luke translated them into 
Greek. They had no knowledge of each 
other's gospels: but St. Mark and St. Luke, 
besides their copies of the Hebrew document, 
used a Greek translation of it, which had 
been made before any of the additions had 
been inserted. Lastly, as the gospels of St. 
Mark and St. Luke contain Greek translations 
of Hebrew materials, which were incors 
porated into St. Matthew’s Hebrew gospel, _ 
the person who translated St. Matthew's 
_ Hebrew gospel into Greek frequently derived 
assistance trom the gospel of St. Mark, 
where 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 fre- 
gucatly recourse to St. Luke's gospel.” 
In addition to this, Mr. Marsh sup- 
poses that beside the Hebrew document, 
which was used by all the three Evange- 
lists, there was another which he calls 
supplemental, containing a collection of 
precepts, parables, and discourses, placed 
without any regard to chronological 
order, used only by Matthew and Luke, 
and from which they derived those sec- 
tions peculiar to themselves, and which 
are inserted in places that do not corre- 
spond to each other. 
This system might be thought to ren- 
der the Evangelists mere translators 
THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS, 
and transcribers, and this has actuall 
been objected to it, but without suffict- 
ent ground. Mr. Marsh has represented 
“ each of them as acting with the frees 
dor of authors, and augmenting the coms 
mon matter by frequent insettions of 
circumstances, or explanatory afnota- 
tions which are not inserted by the other 
two.” 
Having, with great labour and iriges 
nuity, framed this hypothesis, ‘which 
does not pretend to rest upon historic 
evidence, the author rigidly submitted 
it to the only test by which its real 
value can be tried ; he applied it to the 
solution of the various phenomena whi 
in his laborious analysis of the three 
first gospels, he had discovered; and 
the end to be obtained was answered, 
The difficulties which upon every pre- 
ceding system still remained, were upon 
this removed; and every instance of 
verbal agreement, or of verbal disa . 
ment, satisfactorily accounted for. But - 
it had not been long before the public, 
when an anonymous writer (now sup- 
posed by some to be the Bishop of Ox- 
ford) published * Remarks on Michaelis 
and his Commentator, by way of Caution 
to Students in Divinity,’” in which this 
new hypothesis was attacked with much 
animosity, and no little unfairness. To 
these Remarks Mr. Marsh very shortly 
returned an able, and to ws a satise 
factory answer. His anonymons * ad- 
versary,” as he uniformly stiles him, ~ 
republished his * Remarks,” with a 
short preface prefixed, and 70 pages of 
notes, subjoined by way of reply to Mr. 
Marsh’s answer.» This has called forth 
the * Illustration of the Hypothesis’? 
now before us, and which we hesitate 
not to pronounce a complete vindication 
of himself and of ‘his system, from 
some very illiberal charges, and some 
totally unfounded objections, brought 
by the remarker ; and, at the same time, 
a justification of all the charges which 
he had advanced against that writer. 
The anonymous objector to Mr. M.’s 
hypothesis says, that he “ must main- 
tain that it derogates, or at least advise 
others to consider whether it doth not 
derggate, from the authenticity, inte- 
grity, credibility, and inspiration of the 
gospel.” How any one, who pretended 
to understand the hypothesis, could thus 
speak of it, we are at a loss to discover; 
but we suspect that the,remarker is not 
even yet fully master of the subject 
which he has laboured to controvert. 
The authenticity of the gospels, espe- 
