text. Of those which remain a very great majority are entirely unimportant. They consist in different modes of spelling; in different tenses of the same verb or different cases of the same noun, not affecting the essential meaning; in the use of the singular for the plural, or the plural for the singular, where one or the other expression is equally suitable; in the insertion or omission of particles, such as av and de, not affecting the sense, or of the article in cases equally unimportant; in the introduction of a proper name, where if not inserted, the personal pronoun is to be understood, or of some other word or words expressive of a sense which would be distinctly implied without them; in the addition of "Jesus" to "Christ" or "Christ" to “Jesus"; in the substitution of one synonymous or equivalent term for another; in the transposition of words leaving their signification the same; in the use of an uncompounded verb, or of the same verb compounded with a preposition, the latter differing from the former only in a shade of meaning; and in a few short passages, liable to the suspicion of having been copied into the Gospel where we find them from some other Evangelist. Such various readings, and others equally unimportant, compose far the greater part of all, concerning which there may be or has been a question, whether they are to be admitted into the text or not, and it is therefore obviously of no consequence in which way the question has been or may be determined; pp. xxxviii. seq.

Mr. Norton then proceeds to shew in what way we may, al most with certain success, detect any considerable passages in the Textus Receptus which are of spurious origin. Some such he believes there are. He mentions three which he deems to be of this character, that have been regarded as having relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. But of these he particularizes only 1 John 5: 7. I suppose the other two are 1 Tim. 3: 16, deos ¿qavegán x. t. λ., and Acts 20: 28, "Feed the church of God," etc., where so is the common reading, and xvpiov is the one more recently preferred by most critics. The first passage of these three seems to be plainly destitute of the critical evidence requisite to establish it; the second, as Dr. Henderson in his Essay upon it has most clearly shewn, has an overwhelming mass of testimony in its favour; and the third (coυ) I would gladly view as a textus emendandus, and cheerfully substitute κυρίου for θεοῦ, inasmuch as αἵμα θεοῦ (which the common reading would imply) is an expression utterly foreign to the Bible. A God whose blood was shed, must surely be a Deos deurEpos as the Arians would have it, and not the impassible and eternal God, which I believe the Logos to be.

The value of all the immense labour which has been bestowed on the lower criticism of the New Testament, is not to be estimated, then, by any important new light which has been thrown by it upon the doctrines or facts which pertain to our holy religion. Not one new doctrine is brought to light; not one old one shaken; and no important fact is varied, or even obscured, by all that criticism has done. I speak now of what I believe to have been the actual result of criticism, on stable grounds of evidence; not of some results to which some critics have now and then laid claim. For even Mr. Norton has cut off from us the two first chapters of Matthew, (not to speak of other and smaller passages), which certainly would be taking from the circle of our credence some important, or at any rate highly interesting, matters of fact. How far he may be deemed correct in his view of this case, I shall, if providence permit, endeavour to examine at a future time.

Mr. Norton makes a very brief but judicious summary of what has been achieved by the labours of lower criticism.

All those [improvements in the New Testament text] of any im portance might have been made at a much less cost. Its chief and great value consists in establishing the fact, that the text of the New Testament has been transmitted to us with remarkable integrity; that far the greater part of the variations among different copies are of no authority or no importance; and that it is a matter scarcely worth consideration, as regards the study of our religion and its his tory, whether, after making a very few corrections, we take the Received Text formed as it was, or the very best which the most labo rious and judicious criticism might produce; p. xl.

In order to afford the most ample means of satisfaction in respect to what criticism has achieved, Mr. Norton presents his readers with a synopsis of all the various readings which Griesbach has thought worthy of notice, in the first eight chapters of Matthew. These are placed in one column, and the received text in another over against them, so that the eye catches, at a glance, the whole of the result. It would be out of place to insert this table here, but the reader will find it in pp. XLI—XLIV. of Mr. Norton's book; and he will also find, upon close examination, that there is scarcely one among the whole of these readings which is worth a passing notice, excepting perhaps the de in Matt. 3: 1, and the omission of the doxology in 6: 13. The triumphant result, then, of modern criticism with its im

measurable and almost incredible labour, is, not the change of our text in any important respect, but the settling of the great question, whether it needs to be changed, IN THE NEGATIVE; and in the negative on an immoveable basis. I do not mean, of course, to assert this of every particle of the Textus Receptus, but to apply it to every thing which it contains that is of any serious importance. Who, that is of an investigating temperament, will not thank God and take courage from such a result as this, after so 'fiery a trial!'

The next section of Note A. is employed in an effort to shew that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew; although Mr. Norton admits that it must have been very early translated. The next following section assigns reasons why he considers Matt. i. ii. to be supposititious; also Matt. 27: 3-10, and likewise vs. 52, 53. To these he adds Mark 16: 9—20. Luke 22: 43, 44. John 5: 3, 4. 8: 3-11. 22: 24, 25.

By far the most important of all these supposed interpolations is the first, viz. Matt. i. ii. The importance attached to the position which Mr. Norton has taken in regard to them, renders it proper that the subject should be discussed at length. A book so grave and weighty as his, and withal so candid for the most part and serious too, if it contain important error, should not be left without at least an attempt to point out that error. My belief is, that Mr. Norton errs in the position he has taken as to the original language of Matthew's Gospel, and also as to the spuriousness of its two first chapters. As he has connected these two subjects together in his views and reasonings, it seems to be necessary to examine both of his positions; which in due time I would hope to do.

As to the other passages the genuineness of which he calls in question, I shall be able to bestow on them only a passing notice, lest the readers of this work should be wearied with discussions of this nature. Still, I must enter my protest, at least, against some of his conclusions, and give some brief reasons for so doing.

In Note B. Mr. Norton has presented us with the various readings of Gospels compared by Origen, which readings that father recorded. The reader is referred to them, as affording complete evidence that the text of his day was even more uniform than it now is; and also as an exposition of facts in respect to discrepancies among ancient Mss., by which we are to explain the declarations of Origen, Jerome, and others, about this

interesting subject, which have so often been quoted and construed by the looser critics. He will find evidence in catalogue, also, of the same decrepancies among Mss. the now; which shews with what fidelity the Gospels have transmitted through so great a period of time.

Note C. gives us three well-known and acknowledged interį tions of the Gospels, to which I have had occasion before to vert, p. 284. The reader will find them fully exhibited in Note, and some very sensible remarks from Mr. Norton companying them.

Note D. introduces again the subject of the Correspon cies of the first three Gospels, and discusses at length and masterly manner all the essential parts of this subject. Sel indeed have I experienced greater pleasure in reading any cussion, than in following the clue which Mr. Norton has pro ed to conduct us through this labyrinth, not less perplexing that of the Minotaur in Crete. After wearying onesself years to put together some kind of garment made out of s complex and arachnaean filaments as the web contains that been woven by Eichhorn, Marsh, Gratz, and others, it is t comforting to light upon a piece of plain substantial cloth of texture and well adapted for hard service. To speak m literally; Mr. Norton has made the subject plain and intel ble; and to do this, he must have expended more labour on Note, than on any other part of his book; unless, indeed. has more of the renowned second-sight than most others, wh would enable him to spy out some shorter way than us in traversing the longae ambages of the theory in question.

My limits forbid me to follow Mr. Norton through all stages of his admirable discussion. I will only state enough enable the readers of this Miscellany to understand the nat of the question, and the general run of the discussion.

Mr. Norton states at the outset, in brief but comprehens terms, the nature of the subject.

The remarkable agreement among the first three Gospels, given occasion to many attempts to explain its origin. But, gene ly, in the hypotheses that have been framed, is has not been su ciently kept in mind, that its occurrence with so much that is a similar, is one of the principal phenomena to be accounted for; a that, though our ultimate purpose be to solve the problem of the c respondences among those Gospels, it must embrace likewise as lution of their differences. Together with this, the appearances be explained are as follows.

Many portions of the history of Jesus are found in common in the irst three Gospels; others are common to two of their number, but ot found in the third. In the passages referred to, there is generdly a similarity, sometimes a very great similarity, in the selection of particular circumstances, in the aspect under which the event is riewed, and the style in which it is related. Sometimes, the language found in different Gospels, though not identical, is equivalent, or nearly equivalent; and not unfrequently, the same series of words, with or without slight variations, occurs throughout the whole, or a great part of a sentence, and even in larger portions; pp. c. seq.

A very important statement of facts follows closely in the sequel to this passage. Mr. Norton designs by it to lay before his readers the general nature of the coincidences between the three first Gospels, and also to inform them in how great a proportion of each Gospel these coincidences may be found. As the passa ge is fundamental in the whole discussion, I must produce it.

By far the larger portion of this verbal agreement is found in the recital of the words of others, and particularly of the words of Jesus. Thus, in Matthew's Gospel, the passages verbally coincident with one or both of the other two Gospels, amount to less than a sixth part of its contents; and of this, about seven eighths occur in the recital of the words of others, and only one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative, in which the evangelist, -speaking in his own person, was unrestrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the proportion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel is about one sixth, of which not one fifth occurs in the narrative. Luke has still less agreement of expression with the other evangelists. The passages in which it is found amount only to about a tenth part of his Gospel; and but an inconsiderable portion of it appears in the narrative; in which there are very few instances of its existence for more than half a dozen words together. It may be computed as less than a twentieth part. These definite proportions are important, as showing distinctly in how sinall a part of each Gospel there is any verbal coincidence with either of the other two; and to how great a degree such coincidence is confined to passages in which the evangelists professedly give the words of others, particularly of Jesus; pp. ci. seq.

Having given these extracts, it becomes a matter of importance to give another which affords a kind of coup d'oeil of Mr. Norton's general grounds and course of thought, throughout his whole note on the subject before us.

As a preliminary, then, toward accounting for the agreement of language in the first three Gospels, we must divide each of them