had preached in many synagogues and to many street crowds, and that a long enough time had elapsed for the Preacher to feel that His ministry had been to a large extent fruitless, and that to establish and perpetuate His influence He must now devote Himself to the careful instruction of a disciple-circle. The miscellaneous- ness of the parable-collection in chap. xiii. hides from us the fact that that day Jesus was sitting in judgment on His own past ministry and pronouncing on it the verdict: Much seed, little fruit ; so justifying Himself for attending henceforth less to the many and more to the few.
4. While the connections of Matthew's discourses are topical rather than temporal, and the sense of progress in his narrative is comparatively weak, there is a manifest correspondence between the discourses he imputes to Jesus and the whole circumstances of the times in which Jesus lived. This remark applies especially to the criticism of Pharisaism, which occupies so prominent a place in the first Gospel, as compared, ¢.g., with the third, in which that element retires comparatively into the background. Keen conflict between our Lord and the Scribes and Pharisees was inevitable, and the amount of controversial material in the first Gospel speaks strongly in favour of its fidelity to fact in this part of its record, even as the unique quality of the anti-Pharisaic sayings ascribed to Jesus bears witness to their originality. In the Teaching on the Hill the references to Scribism and Pharisaism are, as was fitting, the criticised parties not being present, didactic rather than controversial, but there can be little doubt that Jesus would take occasion there to indicate the difference between His religious ideas and those in vogue at the time. Here it is not Matthew that adds, but Luke that omits.
5. It has been maintained that Matthew's account of our Lord's teaching is not uniform in character—is, indeed, so discrepant as to suggest different hands writing in diverse interests and with con- flicting theological attitudes. D'’Eichthal, ¢.g., is of opinion that the primitive Matthew was the earliest written Gospel, and that its contents were much the same as those found in canonical Mark; but that, through being the earliest, it had exceptional authority, and was therefore liable to be added to with a view to furnishing it with support in the teaching of Christ for developing Christianity.’ D'Eichthal counts as many as forty-five “ Annexes” gradually in- troduced in this way, including the history of the infancy, many
1 Les Evangiles.