been one of its most strenuous and ingenious supporters. We are sorry to have it also to say, that in England it has found in Bishop Marsh an apt disciple, and that it has wafted its dangerous and uprooting doctrines across the Atlantic. The chief feature in these

men's doctrines is, that the three first Gospels, as they are printed in our New Testaments, are not the pure productions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke's pens; John obtains high credence and honour from them. The following is their theory, as given in Mr. Norton's words, which for gratuitous assumptions, ingenious imaginations, and plausible sophistries, is quite worthy of a German parentage.

There was very early in existence a short historical sketch of the life of Christ, which may be called the Original Gospel. This was, probably, provided for the use of those assistants of the apostles in the work of teaching Christianity, who had not themselves seen the actions and heard the discourses of Christ. It was however but a rough sketch, a brief and imperfect account, without historical plan or methodical arrangement.' In this respect it was, according to Eichhorn, very different from our four Gospels. These present no rough sketch, such as we must suppose the first essay upon the life of Jesus to have been; but, on the contrary, are works written with art and labour, and contain portions of his life, of which no mention was made in the first preaching of Christianity.' This Original Gospel was the basis both of the earlier gospels used during the first two centuries, and of the first three of our present Gospels, namely, those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, by which those earlier Gospels were finally superseded. The earlier gospels retained more or less of the rudeness and incompleteness of the Original Gospel.

"But they very soon fell into the hands of those who undertook to supply their defects and incompleteness, both in the general compass of the history, and in the narration of particular events. Not content with a life of Jesus, which, like the Gospel of the Hebrews and those of Marcion and Tatian, commenced with his public appearance, there were those who early prefixed to the Memoirs used by Justin Martyr, and to the gospel of Cerinthus, an account of his descent, his birth, and the period of his youth. In like manner, we find, upon comparing together, in parallel passages, the remaining fragments of these Gospels, that they were receiving continual accessions. ***** By these continual accessions, the original text of the life of Jesus was lost in a mass of additions, so that its words appeared among them but as insulated fragments. Of this any one may satisfy himself from the account of the baptism of Jesus, which was compiled out of various gospels. The necessary consequence was, that at last truth and falsehood, authentic and fabulous narratives, or such, at least, as through long tradition had become disfigured and falsified, were brought together promiscuously. The longer these narratives passed from mouth to mouth, the more uncertain and disfigured they would become. At last, at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century, in order, as far as might be, to preserve the true accounts concerning the life of Jesus, and to deliver them to posterity as free from error as possible, the Church, out of the many gospels which were extant, selected four, which had the greatest marks of credibility, and the necessary completeness for common use. VOL. III. (1837.) NO. I.

E

There are no traces of our present Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before the end of the second and the beginning of the third century. Irenæus, about the year 202, first speaks decisively of four Gospels, and imagines all sorts of reasons for this particular number; and Clement of Alexandria, about the year 216, laboured to collect divers accounts concerning the origin of these four Gospels, in order to prove that these alone should be acknowledged as authentic. From these facts, it is evident, that first, about the end of the second, and the beginning of the third century, the Church laboured to establish the universal authority of these four Gospels, which were in existence before, if not altogether in their present form, yet in most respects such as we now have them, and to procure their general reception in the Church, with the suppression of all other gospels then extant.

"Posterity would indeed have been under much greater obligations, if, together with the Gospel of John, the Church had established, by public authority, only the first rough sketch of the life of Jesus, which was given to the earliest missionaries to authenticate their preaching; after separating it from all its additions and augmentations. But this was no longer possible; for there was no copy extant free from all additions, and the critical operation of separating this accessory matter was too difficult for those times.'

Many ancient writers of the Church,' Eichhorn subjoins in a note, 'doubted the genuineness of many parts of our Gospels; but were prevented from coming to a decision by want of critical skill.''

: Mr. Norton does not condescend to tread upon the heels of these theorists, merely to demolish a fallacy or an unsupported dictum the moment it is uttered, but he takes his own ground and upraises the results of archæological research and skilful criticism to such a commanding elevation, as will repulse these and all other impugners, whatever garb they may assume, that attempt to throw discredit upon the four Gospels, so familiar to us all. The great points which he undertakes to establish are these-that "the Gospels remain essentially the same as they were originally composed," and that they have been ascribed to their true authors."

66

Now, in support of the former of these points, our author maintains that the wonderful agreement which subsists among all the versions and manuscripts of the Gospels that have been collated, amounting in the Greek to nearly seven hundred of the whole, or of parts written since the fifth century, besides ancient versions in eleven other languages, Asiatic, African, and European-not to mention the works of the early fathers, such as commentaries in manuscript where the text of the Gospels is quoted, prove that there was one original for them all, and yet that it has not by almost innumerable transcriptions been mutilated or polluted. To be sure there are various readings found amongst them, and in the nature of things such occurrences were unavoidable and most probable; but these various readings are neither greater nor more abundant than what

befel the works of the ancient classics in the hands of early transcribers. Yet, who has ever maintained that Virgil's Georgics, or Cicero's Orations are not essentially the same as they were first written, because certain slight differences, as in the case of the Gospels, have been discovered in the extant early manuscripts of such admired productions?

But much more may be advanced to corroborate the proposition in question. For instance, it could not be but that the earliest Christians would be eager to possess themselves of a Life of their Master, as soon as one existed. Copying and re-copying must have been a great occupation among new converts. There was no universal church organised in the first centuries of our era to regulate these matters, so as to impose a set of books, whether spurious or not, throughout the countries where the Christians were spread. By the lowest computation three millions of Christians are held to have existed at the close of the second century. But these were greatly scattered, they were persecuted, they spoke different languages, and among them some opposite religious opinions prevailed. What then but an extreme eagerness to possess the faithful records of their Saviour's life, ascertained by means which must then have been accessible to the learned among them, could have preserved the uniformity which prevailed at that period in the Gospels?

Eichhorn talks of the Church as existing about the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century; but he should have known, that until the council of Nice in 325, there was no government or establishment that could be denominated a church, in the modern sense of a concerted and prevailing system. As to Irenæus again, who died in 202, and must have known if the Church, out of the many Gospels which were extant, had selected four which had the greatest signs of credibility-he wrote pointedly against heretics, and therefore must have been armed to defeat all unwarrantable authorities that might be quoted; yet the Gospels which we at present possess are referred to by him, as the only ones that then existed or were relied upon. Is it possible to conceive that among the devout, as well as the learned and pugnacious, Christians who trod close upon the era of the Evangelists would not make it one. of their most earnest and sacred duties to satisfy themselves regarding the true Gospels?

If we take up the inquiry in another shape, and in one which scholars will more fully estimate than the unlearned-most interesting and beautiful evidence presents itself of each of the Gospels being the production of one head and heart. To adopt Mr. Norton's precise words,

"Each Gospel is distinguished from the others, by individual peculiarities in the use of language, and other characteristics exclusively its own. one familiar with the originals, perceives, for instance, that Mark is a

Any

writer less acquainted with the Greek language than Luke, and having less command of proper expression. His style is, in consequence, more affected by the idiom of the Hebrew, more harsh, more unformed, more barbarous, in the technical sense of that word. If you were to transfer into Luke's Gospel a chapter from that of Mark, every critic would at once perceive its dissimilitude to the general style of the former. The difference would be still more remarkable, if you were to insert a portion from Mark in John's Gospel. But the very distinctive character of the style of the Gospels generally, and the peculiar character of each Gospel, are irreconcilable with the notion, that they have been brought to their present state by additions and alterations of successive copiers. A diversity of hands would have produced in each Gospel a diversity of style and character. Instead of the uniformity that now appears, the modes of conception and expression would have been inconsistent and vacillating."

We might abridge also for the consideration of scholars what is said about the Hellenistic Greek, and the Hebrew idioms which distinguish and proclaim the uninterpolated original of the assigned authorities. But this is a point that has frequently been handled before; so likewise is that which challenges a sceptic to instance an anachronism in the books of any of the four Evangelists; although had we space it might be shewn that Mr. Norton applies such arguments with singular cogency to the support of the peculiar line he has adopted.

There is another delightful theme for the consideration of every reflecting Christian prominently presented in the books that contain the history of Jesus, which is conclusive of itself to our minds, that these books are in every respect and particular authentic, and therefore essentially the same as they were originally composed, and which is most ably and appropriately brought forward by our author in these terms

"The character and actions of Jesus Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, are peculiar and extraordinary beyond all example. They distinguish him, in a most remarkable manner, from all other men. They display the highest moral sublimity. We perceive, throughout, an ultimate purpose of the most extensive benevolence. But this character of Christ, which appears in the Gospels, is exhibited with perfect consistency. Whatever he is represented as saying or doing, corresponds to the fact or the conceptioncall it which we will-that he was a teacher sent from God, endued with the highest powers, and intrusted with the most important office ever exercised upon earth. The different parts of each Gospel harmonize together. Now let any one consider, how unlikely it is that we should have found this consistency in the representation of Christ, if the Gospels had been in great part the work of inconsiderate or presumptuous copiers; or if they had consisted, in great part, of a collection of traditionary stories; and especially if these stories had been, as some have imagined, either fabulous accounts of miracles, or narratives having a foundation in truth, but corresponding so little to the real fact, as to have assumed a miraculous character, which there was nothing in the fact itself to justify. It is incre

dible, that under such circumstances there should be the consistency which now appears in the Gospels. On the contrary, we might expect to find in them stories, of a kind similar to those extant in certain writings, that have been called apocryphal gospels; which betray their falsehood at first view, by their incongruity with the character and actions of our Saviour, as displayed by the evangelists. We shall have occasion to notice them somewhat more particularly hereafter. Every one acquainted with the stories referred to, must perceive and acknowledge their striking dissimilitude to the narratives of the Gospels. A dissimilitude of the same kind would have existed between different parts of the Gospels, if they had grown, as has been imagined, to their present form, by a gradual contribution of traditional tales. On the contrary, their consistency in the representation of our Saviour is one among the many proofs, that they have been preserved essentially as they were first written."

Just to enable our readers to follow out for themselves the train of reasoning which recommends so strongly the last extract, let them suppose that some four honest and competent witnesses of a hero's life, or that of any other extraordinary personage, bethought themselves of recording his actions, his discourses, and the manner of his daily demeanour. Can any one suppose that if they did so without concert, or at distinct periods of time after the death of their hero, such a perfect consistency of character would appear from their united records as does in those of the Evangelists, even although they were all the time speaking of a being of like passions, and many other characteristics as they themselves carried about with them? Or suppose there was a ballad or popular tradition, that was familiar to the most minute degree to every one,that a Hamlet or an Achilles was its hero, and that a Homer, a Shakspeare, a Byron, and a Wordsworth, were requested to use their utmost efforts to give, in perfect accordance with the original tale, the most vivid, affecting, and arousing delineation of him,-does any one think that their joint offspring would be other than a monster?

Passing over a number of collateral arguments and beautiful suggestions, we come to the second proposition to be established by the author, viz., that the Gospels "have been ascribed to their true authors." Here much which is advanced and proved necessarily, goes to buttress and to place beyond all dubiety the former point, viz., that "the Gospels remain essentially the same as they were originally composed." Still there is a separate fact brought out plainly by this second inquiry, which is gratifying in no ordinary degree, but upon which we cannot, without far exceeding our limits, give an outline or analysis of Mr. Norton's argument, or do more than allude to some of his conclusions. This, however, should be enough to excite an eagerness in all who listen to these conclusions to study the complete work for themselves.

Mr. Norton's reasoning upon the second branch of his subject proves, we think, beyond the possibility of a sensible doubt, that