chronological series of events, but to represent in parallel columns all those sections which are common to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; the Gospel of John (except the last part) being omitted, because the rest of it has so very little matter in common with the other three. In order to make as few transpositions as possible, Mark's order is generally retained, because it is the same with that of Luke, as far as relates to the facts which are common to all three. Those parts which each evangelist has peculiar to himself, are inserted in intermediate sections. The learned translator of Michaelis pronounces the disposition of the whole work to be very commodious, and adds, that he knows of no harmony, which affords so much assistance in the investigation of the origin of the first Gospels. Valuable as Griesbach's synopsis confessedly is, some of his transpositions have been deemed arbitrary, and some important passages were omitted by him. To obviate these defects, MM. De Wette and Lücke have compiled a new synopsis from Griesbach's third edition, so as to exhibit the entire passages of the Gospels with their parallels: at the foot of each page they have given the principal various lections from Griesbach's critical edition of the New Testament; and they have supplied brief notices of the arguments or contents of each section. The title of this very useful publication is, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthæi, Marci, et Luca, cum Parallelis Joannis Pericopis. Ex recensione Griesbachii, cum selecta Lectionum varietate. Concinnaverunt, et Breves Argumentorum Notationes adjecerunt Guil. Mart. Leber. De Wette, ct Frid. Lucke. Berolini, 1818. 4to.

2. The several harmonisers, of whose labours an account has been given in the preceding pages, have entertained very different opinions with regard to the duration of Christ's public ministry; whence a corresponding diversity has necessarily arisen in the disposition of their respective harmonies. During the three first centuries, the common opinion was, that Christ's ministry lasted only one year, or at furthest one year and four months. Early in the fourth centu ry, Eusebius the ecclesiastical historian, maintained that it continued between three and four years: this opinion was generally received, though the antient opinion was retained by Augustine. During the middle ages, no further inquiries appear to have been made on this subject and, after the Reformation, all the harmonists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries assumed it for certain that Christ's ministry lasted between three and four years. Bengel, however, in in his German Harmony of the Gospels, published at Tubingen in 1736, reduced it to two years; and three years before, Mr. Mann in his essay "Of the true years of the Birth and Death of Christ," (London, 1733, 8vo.) revived the antient opinion that it lasted only one year. This was also followed by Dr. Priestley in his Greek and English Harmonies. The hypothesis of Eusebius was adopted by Archbishop Newcome, who maintained that one year was by far too

1 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. iii. part ii. p. 47. Michaelis has given a harmo nised table of the four Gospels (Introd. vol. iii. part i. pp. 37-83.); which Bishop Marsh (part ii. p. 67.) pronounces to be a very useful one, considered as a general index to the four Gospels. Dr. A. Clarke has reprinted Michaelis's harmonised table at the end of his Commentary on the Gospels; observing that it is useful to the reader of them in pointing out where the same transaction is mentioned by the evangelists, what they have in common and what is peculiar to each. Michaelis has generally followed Matthew's account, with which the narratives of the other evangelists are collated. In 1821, an English Harmony was compiled by, and printed at the expense of, Thomas Bowles, Esq. (for private distribution only), entitled "Diatessaron, or the History of our Lord Jesus Christ, compiled from the Four Gospels, according to the Translation of Dr. Campbell, and in the order adopted by John David Michaelis, London," 8vo. In this beautifully executed volume, the compiler has made some slight variations from the order of time followed by M chaelis in the harmonised table just mentioned.

short a period for the several progresses of Jesus Christ in Galilee, and the transactions connected with them and Bishop Marsh observes, that the Gospel of John presents almost insuperable obstacles to the opinion of those who confine Christ's ministry to one year. For, in order to effect this purpose, it is necessary to make omissions and transpositions in St. John's Gospel, which are not warranted by the laws of criticism, but are attempted merely to support a previously assumed hypothesis. On the other hand, he thinks that the opinion, which makes Christ's ministry to have continued three years (and which receives no support whatever from the three first Gospels) cannot be satisfactorily proved even from the Gospel of Saint John, who at the utmost has noticed, or at least named, only three distinct passovers.1

Another opinion has lately been announced, with equal modesty and learning, in a dissertation on "The Chronology of our Saviour's Life; or an Inquiry into the true Time of the Birth, Baptism, and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ," by the Rev. C. Benson, M. A. (Cambridge and London, 1819. 8vo.) The results of his investigation (which depends on minute chronological and critical discussions that do not admit of abridgment) are, that Herod died in the year of the Julian period 4711; and consequently that the birth of Christ took place A. J. P. 4709, in the spring (probably in the month of April or May;) that his baptism was performed in or about the month of November a. J. p. 4739, during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate; that agreeably to the indications of time contained in Saint John's Gospel, the ministry of Jesus Christ lasted through three passovers, or two years and a half; and that he was crucified on the fifteenth day of the month Nisan (April 15th) A. J. P. 4742. The work, thus concisely noticed, appears to the writer of these pages to have laid down the only just basis for a harmony of the four gospels, founded upon certain indications; and he who should execute one upon this foundation would confer an essential benefit on students of the sacred writings.

From the difficulty of producing a harmony, complete in all its parts, some eminent critics (and among them the elegant and accomplished expositor, Gilpin) have maintained that we ought to peruse the four several memoirs of Jesus Christ written by the evangelists, separately and distinctly; and that, by explaining them separately, the whole becomes more uniform. Archbishop Newcome, however, has ably vindicated, and proved, the utility and advantage of harmonies: and with his observations, the present chapter shall conclude. A harmony, he remarks, has the following uses.

By the juxta-position of parallel passages, it is often the best comment; and it cannot but greatly alleviate the reader's trouble, in his attempts to illustrate the phraseology and manner of the evangelists. It also shows that Mark, who inserts much new matter, did not epitomise the Gospel of Matthew and it affords plain indications, from the additions and omissions in John's Gospel, that his was designed to be a supplemental history.

1 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. ii. part ii. p. 66.

Further, a harmony in many instances illustrates the propriety of our Lord's conduct and works. Thus, previously to the call of the four apostles (Mark i. 16-20.) Andrew had been the Baptist's disciple, and had received his testimony to Jesus (John i. 35. 40.): Peter had been brought to Jesus by Andrew his brother (John i. 42.); and Jesus had shown more than human knowledge and more than human power (John i. 48. ii. 11. 23. iii. 2. iv. 29. 49, 50.) than what had probably fallen within the experience of these disciples, or at least must have gained their belief on the firmest grounds. So, the words of Christ (John v. 21. 25.) are prophetically spoken before he had raised any from the dead; and his reproofs (Matt. xii. 34. Mark vii. 6.) are uttered after he had wrought miracles, during two feasts at Jerusalem. Nor was the jealousy of the Jewish rulers early awakened by the call of the twelve apostles to a stated attendance. This event took place after our Lord had celebrated his second passover at Jerusalem, and when he was about to absent himself from that city for so long a period as eighteen months. In like manner, the seventy were not sent forth to show, throughout a wide tract of country, with what wisdom and power their master endued them, till within about six months of our Lord's crucifixion: and the scene of raising the dead, a kind of miracle which would have exasperated his enemies in proportion as it tended to exalt his prophetic character, was remote from Jerusalem, till the last passover approached.

Lastly, strong presumptions of the inspiration of the evangelists arise from an accurate comparison of the Gospels, from their being so wonderfully supplemental to each other, in passages reconcileable only by the suggestion of a seemingly indifferent circumstance, and from their real agreement in the midst of a seeming disagreement. Truth, like honesty, often neglects appearances: hypocrisy and imposture are always guarded."1

On the preference due to any one of the numerous harmonies which have already been given to the world, it would be presumptuous in the author of these pages to offer a positive opinion. The student in such cases must be guided by the superior judgment of his tutor, or the adviser of his studies. The harmonies of Drs. Doddridge and Macknight are most generally read on account of their valuable expositions and commentaries. But, for exhibiting the parallel passages of each evangelist, perhaps the columnar form of Archbishop Newcome is preferable, while he, who is desirous of perusing one connected and continuous narrative, in which all the shades of circumstances are judiciously interwoven, will probably find Mr. Pilkington's Evangelical History and Harmony the most useful.2

1 West on the Resurrection, p. 278. (London edit. 1807. 8vo.)

2 For a notice of the principal writers who have treated on Scripture-Criticism, see the Appendix to this volume, No. IV.

PART II.

ON

THE INTERPRETATION

OF

SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER 1.

ON THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.

I. Of the Literal Sense. -II. Allegorical Sense.-III. Typical or Spiritual Sense.-IV. Parabolic Sense.-V. Examination and vindication of the Spiritual Sense.-VI. General Rules for investigating the Sense of Scripture.

MAN, being formed for society, has received from his Creator the faculty of communicating to his fellow-men, by means of certain signs, the ideas conceived in his mind. Hence, his organs of speech are so constructed, that he is capable of forming certain articulate sounds expressive of his conceptions; and these, being fitly disposed together, constitute discourse: which, whether it be pronounced or written, must necessarily possess the power of declaring to others what he wishes they should understand.

The vehicles, or signs, by which men communicate their thoughts to each other, are termed words; the idea, or notion, attached to any word, is its signification; and the ideas which are expressed by several words connected together, that is, in entire sentences and propositions, and which ideas are produced in the minds of others, are called the sense or proper meaning of words. Thus, if a person utter certain words, to which another individual attaches the same idea as the speaker, he is said to understand the latter, or to comprehend the sense of his words. If we transfer this to sacred subjects, we may define the sense of Scripture to be that conception of its meaning, which the Holy Spirit presents to the understanding of man, by means of the words of Scripture, and by means of the ideas comprised in those words.

Although in every language there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance there is only one true sense attached to any word; which sense is indicated by the

connection and series of the discourse, by its subject matter, by the design of the speaker or writer, or by some other adjuncts, unless any ambiguity be purposely intended. That the same usage obtains in the sacred writings there is no doubt whatever. In fact, the perspicuity of the Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of sense, in order to render intelligible to man the design of their Great Author, which could never be comprehended if a multiplicity of senses were admitted. In all other writings, indeed, besides the Scriptures, before we sit down to study them, we expect to find one single determinate sense and meaning attached to the words; from which we may be satisfied that we have attained their true meaning, and understand what the authors intended to say. Further, in common life, no prudent and conscientious person, who either commits his sentiments to writing or utters any thing, intends that a diversity of meanings should be attached to what he writes or says: and, consequently, neither his readers, nor those who hear him, affix to it any other than the true and obvious sense. Now, if such be the practice in all fair and upright intercourse between man and man, is it for a moment to be supposed that God, who has graciously vouchsafed to employ the ministry of men in order to make known his will to mankind, should have departed from this way of simplicity and truth? Few persons, we apprehend, will be found, in this enlightened age, sufficiently hardy to maintain the affirmative.1

1. The Literal Sense of Scripture is that which the words signify in their natural and proper acceptation, as in John x. 30, I and the Father are one; in which passage the deity of Christ, and his equality with God the Father, are so distinctly and unequivocally asserted, that it is difficult to conceive how any other than its proper and literal meaning could ever be given to it. The literal sense has also been termed the grammatical sense; the term grammatical having the same reference to the Greek language as the term literal to the Latin, both referring to the elements of a word. Words may also be taken properly and physically, as in John i. 6. There was a man whose name was John: this is called the proper literal sense. When, however, words are taken metaphorically and figuratively, that is, are diverted to a meaning which they do not naturally denote, but which they nevertheless intend under some figure or form of speech, as when the properties of one person or thing are attributed to another, this is termed the tropical or figurative sense. "Thus, when hardness is applied to stone, the expression is used literally, in its

1 On this subject the reader may consult M. Winterberg's "Prolusio de interpretatione unica, unicâ, et certæ persuasionis de doctrinæ religionis veritate et amice consensionis causâ," in Velthusen's and Kuinöel's Commentationes Theologica, vol. iv. pp. 420-438.

2 The tropical sense is no other than the figurative sense. As we say, in language derived from the Greek, that a trope is used when a word is turned from its literal or grammatical sense; so we say, in language derived from the Latin, that a figure is then used, because in such cases the meaning of the word assumes a new form. The same opposition, therefore, which is expressed by the terms literal sense and figurative sense, is expressed also by the terms grammatical sense and tropical sense." Bishop Marsh's Lect. part in. p. 67.