lation from the Greek. Had there been a Hebrew original, such a translation would not have been made at all. At least it would not have been based upon the Greek, had not that been regarded as the original.

4. The Greek Gospel contains evidence in itself that it is not a translation, but the original. This internal testimony cannot be fully presented here. An example or two, however, will show its weight and import

ance.

The verbal coincidences of the Greek Matthew with the Gospels of Mark and Luke are many and remarkable. Supposing the Greek of Matthew to be a translation, these coincidences, particularly in the reports of what was said by Jesus and his disciples and others, it is difficult to account for. Alford remarks: "The translator must have been either acquainted with the other two gospels, in which case it is inconceivable that, in the midst of the present coincidences in many passages, such divergences should have occurred; or unacquainted with them, in which case the identity itself would be altogether inexplicable."* Says another eminent scholar: "There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels-in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all-or our Greek Matthew is itself the original."†

In connection with verbal correspondences with Mark and Luke may be viewed the numerous quotations from the Old Testament. There are in Matthew's Gospel not less than forty-three verbal citations from the Old Testament Scriptures, besides some twenty-two references and allusions. This unusually large number of quotations and references corroborates the statements of early writers, that this Gospel was written to the Jews-a fact which it is important here to bear in mind. The citations in Matthew are of two kinds: first, those introduced into the narrative by the evangelist himself to point out the fulfillment of prophecy, &c.; and secondly, those made use of by persons introduced into the narrative as speakers, especially our Lord himself. Now, since this Gospel was addressed to Jews, we would expect the author, if writing in Hebrew, to make his own quotations from the Old Testament, not in the Greek of the Septuagint version, but in the original Hebrew, or its Syro-Chaldaic equivalent; or, if writing in Greek, to translate directly from the Hebrew. Thus direct quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures would be substantially the same in the Greek Matthew, whether it were a translation from a Hebrew gospel, or itself. the original. But not so with indirect quotations, or quotations made use of by Christ and his disciples as reported by the evangelist. For, on the ground most strenuously maintained by the advocates of a Hebrew original, that the Saviour and his disciples spoke mainly if not entirely in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, we would naturally look for these quotations to be given, in the case of a Hebrew original of the Gospel, just as the other quotations, in the original language of the Old Testament; but on the other hand, in the case of a Greek original, we would

* Greek Tetament, Vol. I, Proleg. p. 28.

† Dr. David Brown, in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Gospels, p. 31.

expect these indirect quotations to conform to similar quotations in the other Greek Gospels, where they follow the Septuagint in nearly every instance. Were the Greek Matthew a translation, then both the above mentioned classes of citations, direct and indirect, would correspond in being immediately rendered from the Hebrew. But these two classes of citations do not so correspond in fact. For while those made by the evangelist himself instead of following the Septuagint appear to be translated directly from the Hebrew, on the contrary,, the citations recorded as made by our Lord and his interlocutors do follow the Septuagint, even where it departs from the Hebrew; and in the instances in which the Septuagint version is not followed, the deviations from it, except in two cases ch. 11:10 and 26: 31, are not the result of a closer adherence to the original Hebrew, while even in the two cases mentioned the verbal correspondence with the synoptic parallels is most remarkable. This difference of treatment in regard to quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospel of Matthew can be satisfactorily accounted for only by accepting the Greek text as no translation, but as the independent original document which the inspired author addressed primarily to Hebrew brethren, and in which, for this reason, he translates all his own quotations directly from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, while in other cases he employs the commonly used Septuagint version, uniformly, drawing for the historical part of his narrative from the same oral ground-work made use of by the other evangelists.*

In addition to all this may be added, before closing, as confirmatory of the evidence given, a threefold a priori probability: 1st. It is natural to look for uniformity of language in the books of the New Testament revelation. 2d. It is difficult to believe that the Head of the church would have permitted an inspired document given for the use of his people to be so soon and so irretrievably lost, as the so-called Hebrew original is acknowledged to have been. 3d. The presumption is perfectly fair that, as the Greek Gospel has always filled the place of an original, and still fills it, as much as any other book of the Scriptures, there neither is nor ever has been any necessity for another.

And now, in conclusion, while the weight given to the opinion of a Hebrew original by such names as Grotius, Michaelis, Lange, Davidson, and Tregelles, is acknowledged, it is still believed that sufficient has been said at least to disprove the statement of the last-named scholar, that "there is no testimony direct or indirect for a Greek original;" and in support of the view taken in this paper may be mentioned, notwithstanding Dr. Lee's strange assertion mentioned near the middle of this article, the names of such scholars and critics as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Hug, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, and Alford-the last of whom, though supporting the theory of a Hebrew original in the first edition of his Greek Testament, afterward, on more careful examination, changed his ground; and accordingly in the second and subsequent editions he candidly says: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original.”

*Compare the articles on the Gospel of Matthew in Kitto's Cyclopedia and Smith's Dictionary.

ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR WITHDRAWING FROM THE ASSOCIATE SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA.

Continued from Dec. No. 1867, page 345.

5. THE Synod is chargeable with the unwarrantable exercise of ecclesiastical power. (1) In merging one presbytery into another without consulting the wishes of the presbytery merged, or giving it any notice of that despotic measure; it being opposed to the order of the church to act on any matter affecting the integrity of a presbytery at the same meeting at which it is proposed, except by consent of parties. Minutes of Synod, 1865, pages 44 and 50; Book of Discipline, page 48.

(2) In sending a commission into the bounds of Clarion presbytery, "to visit the presbytery, with authority to settle all matters of difficulty presently existing in the bounds of that presbytery; particularly to inquire into the conformity of the members of the congregations of Unity, Clintonville, Rimersburg, and New Brighton, to the Standards of the Associate Church." Minutes for 1866, p. 58. This commission was sent into the bounds of presbytery, not to assist it, but to act independent of it-to do its work, and that too without its consent. This. was robbing the presbytery of that rightful jurisdiction which is given to it in the Book of Discipline, and placing this jurisdiction in the hands of those who had not a right to exercise it--not even allowing the presbytery to act in conjunction with the commission; if indeed, they had been so lost to a sense of duty as to do so. But they were sent "especially to inquire into the state of the congregations above named, and to exercise discipline over them." Thus this irresponsible commission was empowered to usurp the jurisdiction of the session, though the Book of Discipline says "to this court (the session) belongs the whole management of the spiritual government and discipline of the congregation over which they preside," page 10. The session is responsible, for they are regularly ordained and installed to exercise government and discipline in a particular congregation. The commission is neither ordained nor installed to exercise these powers in a particular congregation, and of course the session cannot tamely yield up their jurisdiction into the hands of intruders, without proving recreant to the trust committed to them at their ordination. Neither can a presbytery, without a flagrant violation of their ordination vows, yield up their jurisdiction into the hands of intruders-who were never ordained nor installed to exercise jurisdiction over it, or the sessions over which it presides. Before a presbytery or session can be deprived of that jurisdiction which the Book of Discipline gives them, they must be convicted of such maladministration as to forfeit their jurisdiction over their respective charges. But neither the presbytery nor sessions of the congregations above named had ever been convicted of maladministration; yet the Synod treated them as though they had; she does not seem to discern the difference between being suspected of maladministration and being convicted of it.

But the commission never became a commission in fact, but only on

paper.

The persons appointed to constitute this commission suffered the time appointed by Synod (the 1st of Sept. 1866) to pass by without convening, and then the person (Rev. Wm. Ballantine) appointed as chairman of the commission, assumed the responsibility of appointing another day, some two months later, for convening and constituting the commission. But neither did they meet on their own appointment.

And, because the writer wrote sundry letters to the convener of the commission, endeavoring to show that the appointment of the commission was unconstitutional, and ought not to convene, nor be submitted to, he is held guilty of the very grave offense of resisting the commission, and resisting the commission was regarded a resisting of the Synod.

Now, if Mr. Ballantine is equal to the commission and the commission is equal to the Synod, then to resist Mr. Ballantine is to resist the Synod, because things that are equal to the same are equal to each other. But the fact is, Mr. Ballantine is neither the commission nor the Synod, and to resist him is neither to resist the commission nor the Synod. And he could be invested with no authority at all until after the commission had constituted, and where there is no authority there is none resisted. Mr. B. was manifestly over sensitive about maintaining that authority which he had never obtained. But he did, without the commission constituting, assume the authority of citing the pastor of a congregation, and his congregation, to appear before a tribunal that possibly might have an existence at some future day.

This citation did not specify any charge against either pastor or people. It was manifestly the dseign of the chairman of the commission to hunt-to inquire after charges against both pastor and people when they would appear before him; and then to exercise the powers of a presbytery in judging the pastor, and the powers of a session in judging the people, in utter disregard of all church order, as set forth in the Book of Discipline, page 56, which says, "process against a minister must always commence before the presbytery of which he is a member, unless for an offense committed in the presence of a superior court, &c.' Again, page 10, "To this court (the session) belongs the whole management of the spiritual government and discipline of the congregation over which they preside. Thus it is manifest that such an anomalous and monstrous tribunal has no jurisdiction over either a minister or congregation, and if not, they owe it no subjection, but on the contrary are bound to resist its highhanded encroachments on the jurisdiction both of the presbytery and session. The effect of the exercise of this unlawful authority is to set aside the lawful authority both of the presbytery and the session. It does not follow, that because ministers and people are bound to be subject to lawful, that they are bound to be subject to unlawful authority-it is not true that it is a duty to be subject to unlawful authority, under protest.

Mr. Sawyer, the clerk of the presbytery that suspended the writer, in a letter addressed to the writer, Aug. 29, 1866, says, "I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty to prosecute my protest (against a decision Synod refusing to sustain his reasons for the non-fulfillment of appointments,) vigorously, and if I cannot get redress the Synod will

have to go on without me. I cannot with freedom submit myself to the authority of the Associate Synod, thus carrying on a course of defection. The appointment of the commission that is soon to meet to settle all matters in the bounds of the Clarion Presbytery, I look upon as a despotic exercise of ecclesiastical authority; and altogether of a piece with the riding commissions of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. A synod has no right to send a commission into the bounds of a presbytery, to act independent of the presbytery. Such tyrannical proceedings as these cannot but create disgust and disaffection among the best friends of the Associate Church."

(3) The Synod exercised a power not warranted by the laws of the church, in commencing process against the writer for an alleged offense, "not committed in her presence, nor while she was in session," page 56. The Synod is the proper tribunal before which to try all offenses of ministers committed in her presence, for the minister is then under her jurisdiction, and not under that of the presbytery, for no one can be under the jurisdiction of two courts at the same time; but as soon as the Synod adjourns the minister falls back under the jurisdiction of the presbytery, and then the jurisdiction of the Synod ceases, and all such cases as may arise from one meeting of the Synod to another fall under the jurisdiction of the presbytery, and to this rule there can be no exception, for "process against a minister must always commence before that presbytery of which he is a member, except for an offense committed before a superior court," page 56; and page 81, it is said, "No judicatory has any jurisdiction over any church member or minister who is under the jurisdiction of any co-ordinate judicatory, ** and that (process) which is without authority, or right of jurisdiction, must be null and void from the beginning. Again, the Synod violated the order of the church in taking up and issuing the case in the absence of the accused, and in specifying neither time nor place, when the case would be taken up and tried, and I was told that a spectator insisted that the Synod would not take up the case in my absence, stating that the accused would be present in a few minutes. This same person states that the case was taken up and issued in ten minutes; thus affording the accused no opportunity for self-defense.

(4) The Synod is chargeable with the tyrannical exercise of authority, in placing W. R. M'Auley, a licentiate, under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Northern Indiana, while the Book of Discipline places him under the jurisdiction of Clarion Presbytery; to try him for an alleged offense, said to be committed in the Presbytery of Clarion, and which first became public in that presbytery; and the Book of Discipline says, "process against a licentiate must either commence before. that presbytery in whose bounds the scandal charged was said to be committed, or in that presbytery where it first became public," page 56. Then the Book of Discipline places W. R. M'Auley fairly under the jurisdiction of Clarion Presbytery, because the offense charged was said to be committed in that presbytery, and it was in that presbytery that it first became public.

And when he is under the jurisdiction of that presbytery, he can be under the jurisdiction of no other; for it is said, page 81, "no judi