it, or merely an abstract of such portions; and what it embraced, whether the whole or a part, it might present in all its bearings, or only in one or some of them. Thus, in two truthful reports considerable diversity may occur; and where each reporter, instead of intending simply to furnish a report, is engaged in executing a specific design, and produces his report for the sole purpose of fulfilling its requirements, such diversity will necessarily obtain. Accordingly, in the case before us, which is exactly a case of two reports produced to fulfil the requirements of two different designs, we meet with considerable diversity; but at the same time with far less diversity than would be perfectly consistent with the view that the two reports are reports of one and the same discourse. Matthew's design required that he should illustrate Christ's teaching; and, to illustrate it under one of its phases, he adduces the sermon on the mount. It was necessary for him, therefore, to report this sermon somewhat fully, and to place it prominently in view. Accordingly, he does not throw it into the current of a chronological narrative, in which it might seem to find a place, rather from a regard to the order of events, than from any peculiar claim which it had to consideration; but introduces it at once as an illustration of Christ's teaching, and by avoiding all circumstantial details, challenges and seeks to secure for it undivided and exclusive attention. He intimates, indeed, that it was addressed to * Just views of the inspiration of the Scriptures will not permit us to regard diversities in the corresponding portions of the different gospels as in any degree fortuitous. They were doubtless designed. We can easily perceive that they serve to discover that each of the gospels is an independent narrative, and thus to prove that their agreement and concurrence, in recording one history and delineating one character, arise wholly from their authenticity, and not from collusion. The argumentative use, however, that may thus be made of the diversities in question, does not account for their existence; and their origin, therefore, must be sought elsewhere. While all the gospels have one common object, each of them has also its own specific design; and this diversity of design, we conceive, is the source, as stated in the text, of the diversities to be met with in their narratives. great multitudes, and delivered upon a mountain; but this information, broadly conveyed, and unencumbered with minute particulars, and it is thus he conveys it,-serves, simply and very effectually, to bring the reader under the influence of the impressive and arresting circumstances under which the discourse was delivered.* For Luke's purpose, again, it was sufficient to relate the delivery, and indicate the leading, or some of the leading, topics of the discourse. 13. And, while the diversity of the reports is thus fully accounted for by difference of design, their agreement is such as can be accounted for on no other view than the one to which we have been led by the examination of the historical connection, -the view that it is one and the same discourse that is presented in both. All, however, that our argument requires is, that they exhibit no disagreement inconsistent with this view. But, in determining the amount of disagreement that would not be inconsistent with it, it is to be borne in mind that Matthew's report bears very much the character of a comprehensive digest of the whole discourse, and that it is to be. expected, therefore, that Luke's shorter and more fragmentary report, though differing from it by presenting less, should agree with it in what it presents. If Matthew gives an abstract of the whole discourse; what Luke reports, if he reports the same discourse, must correspond with some portion of this abstract. Now, such is exactly the state of the case; and thus the actual amount of agreement is as great as it could be expected to be simultaneously with difference of design and the diversity arising from it. It is far greater than it could well have been if both reports were fragmentary. In that case, the fragments preserved by the one report might all be different, and some of them could scarcely fail to be different from the fragments preserved by the other. * Here we see the reason why Matthew does not mention the election of the apostles, or the descent to a "level place." 14. Luke's report begins with the beatitudes, which, so far as his report goes, are the same as the beatitudes with which the sermon on the mount begins in Matthew.-(Comp. Luke vi. 20-23 with Matt. v. 3-12.) He uses, indeed, the second person; but this is accounted for by observing the point at which his report begins. He seems to omit the enunciation of the theme (Matt. v. 3-10); and thus his report begins at the point reached by Matthew in chap. v. ver. 11; and the first seven verses of it are to be regarded as parallel with Matt. v. 11-20, setting forth, like that section of Matthew's report, the unfailing and exclusive connection of blessedness with righteousness. From this topic Luke proceeds, as Matthew does, to the discrimination of righteousness (comp. 27-36 with Matt. v. 38–48), introducing in continuous connection what forms the resumption of this head in Matthew's arrangement.-(Comp. 37, 38 with Matt. vii. 1, 2.) Verses 39 and 40, and the resumption of them in verses 43-45,-for it is in this light we regard these latter verses,- -are parallel with Matt. vii. 15–20; and, then, verses 41, 42 resume verses 37, 38, being parallel with Matt. vii. 3-5. Ver. 46 is parallel with Matt. vii. 21. In both reports the peroration is given.-(Comp. Matt. vii. 24-27 with Luke vi. 47-49.) 15. That the reader may the more easily and fully appreciate the agreement now traced, we shall present it in a tabular form, taking as a basis the view already given of the plan and structure of the sermon on the mount: MATTHEW. LUKE. b. | 13-20, C. | 21-48, e. c. vii. 1-6, d. {e. 17-12 *See Intro., sect. ii. par. 14. 16. It appears, from this comparative view, that in both reports we have the same topics in the same order; and due attention to the structure of Luke's report will discover that it agrees with Matthew's, even in those passages which it has been supposed to introduce in a different connection and with a different meaning; and also in those which are peculiar to it. Regarding even Matthew's fuller report as presenting only an abstract of the sermon, we are not surprised that Luke's report, brief as it is, preserves additional passages of illustration or enlargement. Of such passages, however, there are only four,-ver. 24-26, 38–40, 45, and 46; and, when they are viewed in the connection in which they are presented in the preceding table, it is evident that, in preserving them, it does not deviate from Matthew's report, but only supplements it by giving additional portions of the illustratrative or discussion,-a species of supplement for which an abstract, from its very nature, will leave ample room. In like manner, when verses 43, 44, are viewed, not as connected with what immediately precedes, but as a resumption of verses 39, 40, they are seen to be exactly parallel with the corresponding passage in Matt. vii. 16-18. The latter portion, however, of ver. 44 is rather to be classed with passages peculiar to Luke; and, by combining it with the corresponding passage in Matthew vii. 16, we obtain a full report, or a fuller report than is given by either evangelist, of the illustration employed by our Lord, "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? or do they gather figs of thorns, or grapes of a bramble-bush?" This variation of the question might have been intended to bring out, that universally, and not in some cases only, men are known by their works, as, universally, and not in some cases only, trees are known by their fruit. 17. In Matthew's report, v. 38-47 forms but one para graph, of which the subject is retaliation. This paragraph consists of two members, 38-42 and 43-47. In Luke's report, the second of these, or, rather, the member corresponding to it (27, 28), stands first, and the member corresponding to the first (29-31) second. The origin of this diversity may have been, that this portion of the sermon, as delivered, formed an introverted parallelism, and that Matthew follows the order of the two first, and Luke that of the two last members of it. In what immediately follows in Luke (32-36) the injunctions in 27, 28, and in 29–31, respectively, are alternately enforced. In ver. 46 of Luke's report we have, probably, the words in which our Lord introduced the section of the sermon reported in Matthew vii. 21-23. 18. It is held by some that, in reporting the sermon on the mount, Matthew has introduced extraneous matter, derived from our Lord's discourses and sayings on other occasions. * If this view were well-founded, it would evidently follow that the discourse reported by Luke is different from that given by Matthew, the former alone having been delivered by Christ, while the latter is the compilation of the evangelist. Matthew, however, distinctly intimates that the discourse which he records was, the whole of it, delivered by Christ on the occasion to which he refers it. He introduces it with the announcement, that, on the mountain, after his disciples had come to him, great multitudes being present, "He opened his mouth, and taught them saying "—what then follows; and, at the close of the discourse, he represents Christ as having "ended these sayings" the sayings just recorded. How, then, can any one hold, and yet regard Matthew as an inspired or even a trustworthy writer, that some of the sayings were not at all uttered by Christ on the mountain? * Among recent writers, Olshausen in his Commentary, Neander in his "Life of Christ," and Da Costa in his "Four Witnesses," adopt this theory. |