to speak for itself. Hence animation is in a manner excluded from their narratives; no angry epithet or pathetic exclamation ever escapes them; no attempt is made to excite either pity or resentment. They lay before you nothing but facts, and are at no pains to make them appear interesting or credible. About the ornaments of style they show themselves to be indifferent; and their phraseology must have been regarded as awkward, because foreign; yet the more the Gentiles became acquainted with their books, the more they would discover of a charm in them, to which they found nothing similar; insomuch, that they were not ashamed to be taught by writers for whom they had previously entertained a sovereign contempt. Nor was this admiration of the sacred writings to be found only among the vulgar: it originated with them, it is true, but it did not terminate with them; for even those in the higher classes, who would be most shocked with inelegancies and barbarisms, found in the Scriptures an irresistible attraction, which overcame all their prepossessions, and compelled them to acknowledge, that no authors could so effectually convey conviction to the understanding and reformation to the heart, as these artless biographers. This peculiarity supplies a powerful argument, both in favour of their inspiration, and of their own conviction of it. We may perhaps also be authorized to consider it as justifying our own use of unimpassioned language in the repetition of Scriptural narratives, though no terms can be strong enough adequately to express the blessings purchased for believers by the voluntary sufferings and • Newcome on our Lord's Conduct, p. 503. ◄ The information and opinions contained in this section are derived chiefly from Jones's Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament; Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History; Townson's Discourses on the Gospels; Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations; Bishop Marsh's Translation of Michaelis; Hug's Introduction; and Greswell's Dissertations upon a Harmony of the Gospels. death of the great High Priest of our profession, Who, having by Himself purged our sins, has entered into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God for us; and the noblest use of eloquence must be to acknowledge our obligations to the Author of our salvation, and to celebrate His praises, Who has called us out of darkness into His marvellous light. SECTION II. On Harmonies. OUR Saviour's ministry having been narrated by four Evangelists, who have each not only peculiar matter, but also circumstantial variations of that which they have in common, it is natural in studying any one Gospel, to compare it with the others. The variations invite, and seem to require, adjustment. We accordingly find, that within a century of the publication of the last, a digest was formed out of them by Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr; that afterwards, Eusebius arranged under several heads the matter common to three, or two, or peculiar to one Evangelist; and that Augustine composed a tract concerning their agreement. In modern times above a hundred and seventy have been enumerated, and the number is the. best proof of the difficulty of the undertaking. All may be reduced to two classes; one, in which it is assumed that each Evangelist has written in chronological order; the other, in which it is allowed that some have deviated from it. Osiander, one of Luther's fellow-labourers, is at the head of the first, A.D. 1537; Chemnitz, 1593, at that of the second. In the former, of which Macknight's is the best known, there can be little important variation; as, by maintaining that events recorded by two or three, with some minute difference, were not the same, they cut the knot instead of untying it. Thus they have the healing of the servants of two centurions, the raising from the dead of two damsels, the stilling miraculously two storms on the lake with nearly the same circumstances, and with the use of the very same words. In the second class there is of course more variety, because these harmonists, though agreeing in their principle, differ in its application. A Harmony is a much more difficult work than it appears to be to those who have not fully considered it; for not only few dates are given, but the events which Matthew relates in one order, are placed by Mark and Luke in another. Harmonists differ as to which they shall adopt; and in this diversity of opinion among eminent men, supported by ingenious arguments, many will be disposed to acquiesce in Griesbach's conclusion, that no chronological Harmony can be made to stand on a sufficiently firm foundation. His own Synopsis represents in parallel columns all the sections common to the first three Gospels; and in order to make as few transpositions as possible, Mark's order is adopted, because the same as Luke's, as far as relates to the facts common to the three. The parts peculiar to each are inserted in intermediate sections. Michaelis, disclaiming also any attempt at a chronological Harmony, has given a very useful one, considered as a general index to the Gospels; pointing out, like Eusebius, where the same transaction is recorded, what the Evangelists have in common, and what is peculiar to each. He follows Matthew's account, with which the narratives of the others are collated. St. John's Gospel is the great obstacle to forming a Harmony; for since he has so little matter in common with the others, each harmonist must divide his into portions, to be inserted according to his own scheme between the sections of theirs. The simplest plan therefore is, like Calvin, to limit our Harmony to the first three. If, however, we bear in mind, that St. John had carefully perused them, and designed his own work to be a supplement to them, we shall not only perceive, that unless we include it, our Harmony will be incomplete, but that it alone enables us to form a satisfactory one. The first point to be settled is the duration of our Lord's ministry; and unless we avail ourselves of his Gospel, we shall probably adopt the opinion of the three first centuries, that it lasted no more than a single year. This opinion is now, I believe, exploded; yet it is scarcely avoidable, if we attend exclusively to the earlier Gospels, which treat only of the transactions in Galilee, and make mention of no journey to Jerusalem, except that which Jesus took to celebrate the passover, at which He suffered. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. p. 407.) applies to our Lord's ministry in the strictest sense Isaiah's description of it, the acceptable year of the Lord; but this is understood by Epiphanius and others who extend it, as only descriptive of the first year, in which the nation was generally favourable to Him. Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, tells us, that he agrees with those who assign to it four passovers; and this, which has been ever since the prevalent opinion, appears to me to have been established by Greswell. Sir Isaac Newton, who is followed by Macknight, includes even five; and Mann, who is followed by Priestley, revived the ancient hypothesis of one. It is surprising that it could be entertained by any who had read the Gospel of St. John, which expressly contradicts it, for according to that, between the passover at which our Lord commenced His ministry, and that on which He died, certainly one, (vi. 4.) and probably two, intervened. The earlier, it is true, (ii. 13.) he only calls a feast; and upon the interpretation of this hinges the question. Referring to Newcome for a discussion of it, I will only observe, that the plucking of the ears of corn was on a sabbath, immediately following the passover, and that it could have been no other, as on the next, Jesus remained in Galilee; transcribing in support of this view from Greswell's Dissertation this passage: "Among the arguments intended to prove that this feast indefinitely mentioned could not be a passover, none perhaps is more confidently put forward, and none is perhaps more weak and inconclusive, than the following; that the events recorded in this fifth chapter are not sufficient to have occupied a year |