taste and ability with which he cited and applied passages | which passage the apostle quotes a senary iambic, which is from Pagan authors when contending with the Gentiles, or supposed to have been taken from Menander's lost comedy writing to Gentile converts. The first is in Acts xvii. 28., of Thais, where he cites part of a verse from the Phænomena of Aratus.

I. Occasion and Design of Harmonies of the Scriptures.—II. Harmonies of the four Gospels.-III. Observations on the different Schemes of Harmonizers, and on the Duration of the public Ministry of Jesus Christ.

|

2. HARMONIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.-The design of these is, to dispose the historical, poetical, and prophetical books in chronological order, so that they may mutually explain and authenticate one another. Our learned country-ence, in 1524, as a translation of Ammonius's Harmony, in man, Dr. Lightfoot, in the year 1647, published a "Chronicle" or Harmony of the Old Testament; on the basis of which the Rev. George Townsend constructed "The Old Testament arranged in Historical and Chronological Order;" but he has deviated from, and improved upon, the plan of Lightfoot very materially. His work is noticed in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to the second Volume, PART I. CHAP. II. SECT. I.

2. Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3. Matthew, Luke, and John.

4. Matthew, Mark, and John.
5. Matthew and Luke.

6. Matthew and Mark.

7. Matthew and John.

8. Luke and Mark.

9. Luke and John.

10. Only one of the four evangelists. Though these Eusebian canons are usually considered as a harmony, yet it is evident, from a bare inspection of them, that they are simply Indexes to the four Gospels, and by no means form a harmony of the same nature as those which have been written in modern times, and which are designed to bring the several facts recorded by the evangelists into chronological order, and to reconcile contradictions. On this account Walchius does not allow them a place in his bibliographical catalogue of harmonies.

4. About the year 330, JUVENCUS, a Spaniard, wrote the evangelical history in heroic verse. His method is said to be confused, and his verse is not of a description to ensure him that immortality which he promised himself. His work

has fallen into oblivion.

5. The four books of AUGUSTINE, bishop of Hippo, in Africa, De Consensu Quatuor Evangeliorum, are too valuable to be omitted. They were written about the year 400, and are honourable to his industry and learning. Augustine wrote this work with the express design of vindicating the truth and authority of the Gospels from the cavils of objectors.

From the middle ages until the close of the fifteenth century various harmonies were compiled by Peter Comestor, Guido de Perpiniano, Simon de Cassia, Ludolphus the Saxon (a German Carthusian monk, whose work was held in such high estimation that it passed through not fewer than thirty editions, besides being translated into French and Italian), Jean Charlier de Gerson, chancellor of the university of Paris, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and many others, which are now of little value, and which have long since fallen into disuse. Of the various harmonies published since the Reformation, by foreign authors, the Latin Harmony of Chemnitz (or Chemnitius) is the most esteemed; and among our British divines those 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, or of the Rev. Edward Greswell, 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 find Mr. Townsend's "New Testament arranged in Historical and Chronological Order," &c. the most useful.'

III. In the construction of an Evangelical Harmony, two questions have presented themselves to the consideration of harmonizers; viz. first, what evangelist has preserved the true order of circumstances, to which all the others are to be reduced? And, secondly, what was the duration of the public ministry of Jesus Christ?

deviations in their plan and method. But in the harmonies of the latter kind we meet with considerable variations, because, though the authors of them are unanimous in their principle, they are at variance in the application of it; and, though they agree in making transpositions, by which they distinguish themselves from the harmonists of the first class, yet they do not always make the same transpositions. Some, for instance, have supposed, as Chemnitz, Archbishop Newcome, and other harmonists of this class have done, that St. Matthew has mostly neglected chronological order, while others, as Bengel and Bertling, have supposed, that he has in general retained it. Hence, though they have all the same object in view, namely, to make a chronological harmony, or to arrange the events, which are recorded in the Gospels, as nearly as possible according to the order of the time in which the events happened, they have adopted different modes of producing this effect. For in some harmonies the order of St. Matthew is inverted, and made subservient to that of St. Mark, while in other harmonies St. Mark's order is inverted, and made subservient to that of St. Matthew. Some harmonists again suppose, that all the evangelists have neglected chronological order, while others make an exception in favour of one or more of them, though the question, which of the evangelists should be excepted, likewise affords matter of debate. And even those harmonists, who agree as to the Gospel or Gospels, in which transpositions should be made, differ in respect to the particular parts where these transpositions ought to take place."

A late excellent writer on the evidences and criticism of the New Testament, however, is of opinion that the evangelists did not design to adhere to the order of time in writing their respective memoirs of the life of Jesus Christ. The purpose with which the four Gospels were written, he remarks, appears to have been, not a regular chronologically disposed history of the life, ministry, and sufferings of Jesus Christ, but the collection of such a body of well-authenticated facts, as might disclose the nature, and form sufficient proof of the truth of Christianity. This, he thinks, is obvious from the manner in which the evangelists generally place together the facts narrated. "That manner is such as completely to effect the latter, but not the former, purpose. There are no marks of an intention, on the part of any of the evangelists, to give to their narratives a regular chronological order. While, in general, there are no indications of the succession and proximity of the events narrated, but from their being prior, or posterior, and contiguous in the narrative, or from such indefinite expressions as TITE, TAM, I TAK n repris Exarxes, a εκείνω τω καιρώ, εν τω καθεξης, μετα ταυτα; οn the other hand, it sometimes occurs, that the events which one evangelist relates as in immediate succession, are noticed by himself to be not contiguous in time, and are put down by another, with some of the intervening transactions interposed. Than evidence of this kind, as to the purpose of a history, no declaration by the writer can be more satisfactory. Such declaration, unless perfectly explicit, may require to be modified by what his work bears within itself of its purpose. But there can be no ambiguity in the evidence, deduced from such facts as we have noticed, in the Gospel narratives.

1. On the first of these topics, we may remark that all the "Against this evidence, too, there is no contrary declaration modern harmonies of the Gospels may be divided into two to be weighed. The evangelist, John (xx. 30, 31.), expressly classes; viz. 1. Harmonies, of which the authors have taken asserts that the purpose of his writing was to make such a for granted, that all the facts recorded in all the four Gospels selection of facts as might be good ground of faith in the are arranged in chronological order; and, 2. Harmonies, of divine mission of Jesus Christ; but he nowhere affirms the which the authors have admitted, that in one or more of the chronological order of the selection. Luke, also, thus declares four Gospels the chronological order has been more or less the purpose of his writing to Theophilus Iva tyres Tip!! neglected. At the head of the first class is Andrew Osiander, tus acgov in apuv (Luke i. 4.), and the expression one of Luther's fellow-labourers, in promoting the reformation in the preceding verse, Edeos, wapnuoxcvbnmore araber wasn in Germany: his method is followed by Calovius, Sandhagen, axis, xxbezns ou zpata, is to be interpreted according to that and others, on the Continent, and in this country by Dr. purpose. For this purpose, thus distinctly expressed by two Macknight. Chemnitz stands at the head of the other class, of the evangelists, and evident from the manner of writing and also has many followers of his method of arrangement. common to them all, it was assuredly necessary that, either "The harmonies of the former kind are very similar to each directly or indirectly, they should furnish us with such inother, because, though the authors of them had to interweave formation, as might enable us to refer the facts in the Gospel the facts recorded in one Gospel with the facts recorded in history to a certain country, and a certain period in the history another, yet, as they invariably retained the order which was of the world. Without this, the Gospels would not have observed in each Gospel, and consequently repeated whatever afforded the proper means for distinguishing them from facts occurred in different places in different Gospels, as often fictitious histories; and hence, could not have answered the as those facts presented themselves to the harmonists in their purpose of furnishing evidence to the truth of Christianity. progress through the Gospels, there was less room for material This it was possible to do, either formally by dates, such as

See the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to the second Volume, PART I CHAP. II. SECT. II.-IV. for an account of these and of the Harmonies of the Gospel, or of particular books of the New Testament.

2 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. iii. part ii. p. 45.
The Rev. Dr. Cook, in his Inquiry into the Books of the New Tes

tament.

Another opinion was announced, with equal modesty and learning, in a dissertation on "The Chronology of our Saviour's Life," by the Rev. C. BENSON, M. A. (Cambridge, 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.

are found in the beginning of the second and third chapters | nistry to one year. For, in order to effect this purpose, it is of Luke's Gospel; or by allusions to known places, persons, necessary to make omissions and transpositions in St. John's and circumstances, to be learnt from other histories. Of these Gospel, which are not warranted by the laws of criticism, two modes, the evangelists, with a few exceptions, follow but are attempted merely to support a previously assumed the latter; natural to men writing immediately for contem- hypothesis. On the other hand, he thinks that the opinion, poraries, upon or near the scene of the events; and conformable which makes Christ's ministry to have continued three years to the usual simplicity by which their whole style is pervaded. (and which receives no support whatever from the first three But for this purpose, it was not in the least necessary to frame Gospels), cannot be satisfactorily proved even from the Gosregular chronological narratives; and accordingly what was pel of Saint John, who at the utmost has noticed, or at least not necessary, has not been effected; the connections carrying named, only three distinct passovers.3 forward the arrangement of events in the Gospels, being not merely those of time, but of the various associations, such as similarity in the facts themselves, vicinity of place, &c. by which it is possible that the human mind may be guided, in recollecting and classifying things that are past. And such, perhaps, upon the whole, is the impression made on most readers by the narratives of the evangelists. As we read them, we have a general feeling that they are carrying us ultimately forward, from preceding to subsequent events, yet, occasionally, over intervals of time concerning which nothing has been recorded, or with deviations from the chronological order; thus rendering it difficult, or impossible, to make one harmonious arrangement of the whole Gospel history, in which each event shall obtain, in perfect consistency with the account of each evangelist, its proper chronological place." Amid this diversity of opinions, supported as each is by the most ingenious arguments which its author could produce, it is extremely difficult to decide. By the adoption of the very probable hypothesis last stated, concerning the purpose for which the evangelists wrote, we certainly get rid, and in the fairest way, of all the difficulties with which the two classes of authors of Harmonies of the Gospels above noticed have to combat. As the evidence laid before the reader will enable him to determine for himself which of these hypotheses to adopt, we shall only remark, that Bishop Marsh recommends Griesbach's Synopsis of the first three Gospels as preferable to every other harmony extant.2

2. Very different opinions have been entertained by the compilers of harmonies, 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 first three 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 century, Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, maintained that it continued between three and four years: this opinion was generally received, though the ancient 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 harmonizers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries assumed it for certain that Christ's ministry lasted between three and four years. Bengel, however, 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 ancient 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 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 mi

1 Dr. Cook's Inquiry, pp. 211-214.

* Michaelis's Introduction, vol. iii. part ii. p. 47. Michaelis has given a harmonized 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 harmonized 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 evan gelists 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. Camp bell, and in the Order adopted by John David Michaelis, London," Svo. In this beautifully executed volume the compiler has made some slight variations from the order of time followed by Michaelis in the harmonized table just mentioned.

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 har monies; 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 epitomize 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. 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 evange lists arise from an accurate comparison of the Gospels, from their being so wonderfully supplemental to each other, in passages reconcilable 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."3

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

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

PART II.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

BOOK I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.

SECTION I.

ON THE MEANING OF WORDS.

I. Nature of Words.-II. The Sense of Scripture defined: 1. The literal Sense ;-2. The allegorical, typical, and parabolical Sense;-3. The moral Sense of Professor Kant shown to be destitute of Foundation;-4. The Declarations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles are NOT an Accommodation to popular Opinion and Prejudice.

MAN, being formed for society, has received from his | have departed from this way of simplicity and truth? Few Creator the faculty of communicating to his fellow-men, by persons, we apprehend, will be found, in this enlightened means of certain signs, the ideas conceived in his mind. age, sufficiently hardy to maintain the affirmative.2 Hence, his organs of speech are so constructed, that he is II. THE SENSE OF SCRIPTUre defined. 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.

I. The vehicles, or signs, by which men communicate their thoughts to each other, are termed WORDS; whether these are orally uttered, or described by written characters, the idea, or notion, attached to any word, is its SIGNIFICA TION; 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.1

EVERY WORD MUST HAVE SOME MEANING. 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

1 Stuart's Elements of Interpretation, p. 7. (Andover, 1822.)

1. The LITERAL SENSE of any place of Scripture is that which the words signify, or require, in their natural and proper acceptation, without any trope, metaphor, or figure, and abstracted from any mystic meaning: thus, in

Gen. i. 1. We read that God created the heaven and the earth. These words mean what they literally import, and are to be interpreted according to the letter. So, in John x. 30. we read, 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.3

“Thus, when hardness is applied to stone, the expression is used literally, in its proper and natural signification:when it is applied to the heart, it is used figuratively, or in an improper acceptation. Yet, the sense, allowing for the change of subject, is virtually the same, its application being only transferred from a physical to a moral quality." 994 An example of this kind occurs in Ezek. xxxvi. 26. and xi. 19., where the heart of stone denotes a hard obdurate heart, regardless of divine admonitions, and the heart of flesh signifies a tender heart, susceptible of the best and holiest impressions. In like manner, in Zech. vii. 12., the obdurate Jews are said to have made their hearts as an ada mant stone. Numerous similar expressions occur in the New well as in the Old Testament, as in Luke xiii. 32. John i.

as

Keillii Elementa Hermeneut. Nov. Test. p. 12. On this subject the reader may consult M. Winterberg's "Prolusio de interpretatione unica, unicâ, et certæ persuasionis de doctræ religionis veritate et amicæ consensionis causâ," in Velthusen's and Kuinöel's Commentationes Theolo gicæ, vol. iv. pp. 420-438.

3

"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 derived from the Latin, that a figure is then used, because in such cases is turned from its literal or grammatical sense; so we say, in language 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 iii. p. 67.

Bishop Vanmildert's Bamp. Lect. p. 222.

Bauer, Herm. Sacr. pp. 13-44. Viser, Hermeneutica Sacra, Nov. Test. pars ii. pp. 1-150. J. E. Pfeiffer, Institutiones Hermeneuticæ Sacræ, pp. 122-132. Aug. Pfeiffer, Herm. Sacr. cap. iii. (Op. tom. ii. pp. 633-638.) Ernesti Institutio Interpretis Novi Test. pp. 14-30. (4th edit.) Mori Acroases Academic super Hermeneutica Nov. Test. tom. i. pp. 27-73. J. B. Carpzovii, Prinæ Lineæ Herin. Sac. p. 24. Alber, Institutiones Hermeneu "Dicitur mysticus," says a learned and sensible writer of the Romish ticæ Nov. Test. tom. i. pp. 44-46. Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, communion, "a uv, claudo; quia licet non semper fidei mysteria compre. pp. 580-590. Bishop Marsh's Lect. part iif lect. xv. and xvi. pp. 42-78. ; and hendat, magis tamen occultus, et clausus est, quam literalis, qui per verba Bishop Vanmildert's Bampton Lectures, Serm. vii. pp. 217-232. and notes, rite intellecta facilius innotescit." Adami Viser, Hermeneutica Sacra pp. 35-396. The two writers last cited have illustrated the sense of Novi Testamenti, pars ii. pp. 51, 52. See also Jahn's Enchiridion Herme- Scripture, by applying it to the discussion of some important controversial neuticæ Generalis, pp. 41, 42.; and Bishop Vanmildert's Bampton Lec-points between Protestants and Romanists, which the limits of a practical tures, p. 22. work will not admit of being noticed.