adduced in support of this view of the chronology, and in answer to objections.

Among the arguments intended to prove that the feast indefinitely mentioned, John v. 1., could not be a Passover, none, perhaps, is more confidently put forward, and none is in reality more weak and inconclusive, than the following:-that the events which are recorded in the fifth chapter of St. John, are not sufficient to have occupied a year, and another Passover is mentioned directly after at vi. 4. It would have been strange, indeed, if they had been intended to occupy a year, since it must be self-evident, that very possibly they did not occupy a single day. But this argument proceeds upon the supposition, that St. John's Gospel is entire and complete in itself; and that it neither has, nor was intended to have, any supplemental relation to the rest: a supposition which is purely precarious, and not more precarious than contrary to the matter of fact. The truth of the supplemental relation of this one Gospel in particular, is among the few positions which, happily, do not admit of a question; and while this is the case, it is not to be considered whether St. John's Gospel, per se, between v. 1. and vi. 4., supplies matter sufficient to have occupied a year, but whether St. Matthew's, St. Mark's, and St. Luke's, in that portion of their gospels respectively, the true place of which is between these extremes in St. John's, can presumptively be shewn to have done so. And upon this point, there is so little room for doubt, that the affirmative may be confidently asserted. The interval in question between John v. 1. and John vi. 4. is, in fact, our Lord's second year; and with respect to that year, as it was the fullest of incident itself, so its incidents have been the most fully related of any. From its beginning, by the attendance at this Passover, to its ending, by the miracle of the five thousand, there is no part of it which was unemployed, nor the mode of whose employment it is not possible clearly to ascertain.'-Vol. II. pp. 240, 1.

Doddridge adopts a similar view of Luke vi. 1. and John v. 1., as both referring to the same Passover; and he remarks, that this arrangement has at least the advantage over Manne's singular hypothesis, who, supposing the feast of Pentecost to be intended at John v. 1., gratuitously infers, that the whole fifth chapter is transposed, and should come in at the end of the sixth. Calvin inclines to the conjecture that the feast of Pentecost is intended, as agreeing best with St. John's narration, but treats it as uncertain. Dr. Benson thinks, there is very little reason to suppose that the feast referred to was a passover; and he recognises only three during Our Lord's ministry; adopting, as the most probable opinion, that which limits its duration to two years and a half. It is obviously only in relation to this point, that the determination of the question is important. As a mark of time, some stress has been laid upon John iv. 35, which Archbishop Newcome, Sir Isaac Newton, and Doddridge understand as intimating the season of year at the time of Our Lord's journey,

which, if it wanted four months to harvest, must have been in the middle of winter. Whitby, Grotius, Lightfoot, and the present Writer understand Our Lord as citing a proverbial expression; and its connection is thus explained.

<When the seed is first sown, is it not a common saying, there are yet four months, and the harvest or reaping-time will come? Lift up your eyes, survey the country round about, and be convinced by the whiteness of the fields, that the four months are drawing to a close, and the season of the reaping is at hand. The end which is proposed by the reference to this natural phenomenon, may also be explained as follows. The ripeness of the visible and the natural harvest, now that the period requisite to the maturity of the seed is accomplished, may be an earnest to you of the ripeness of that as yet unseen and spiritual harvest, to bring which to maturity will be the object of my personal labours, but to reap which will be the object of yours; a ripeness, consequently, which will then be complete, when my ministry is over, and yours is about to begin.'-Vol. II. p. 211.

This exposition makes the journey into Samaria coincident with harvest; either the barley harvest, the first fruits of which were consecrated at the Passover, or the wheat harvest, the first fruits of which were presented at Pentecost. If the former, the feast at which our Lord was present (John v. 1.) might well be, as Calvin supposes, the feast of Pentecost; but this would still require a passover to have intervened between the one mentioned in John ii. 13, and that referred to in John vi. 4, at which Our Lord appears not to have been present.

It is observable that, in our Lord's discourse with the Jews, John v. 35, he employs language which denotes that the ministry of his Forerunner was now terminated by his being cast into prison. This event, therefore, in all probability, occurred beween Our Lord's leaving Judea and his return to the feast mentioned in verse 1. Mr. Greswell supposes it to have taken place immediately after Our Lord's return into Galilee, as recorded in John iv. A specific reason is assigned for Our Lord's withdrawing himself on that occasion, the jealousy of the Pharisees, and even of John's disciples, having been excited by his growing popularity. The time of that return, Mr. Greswell thinks, was probably not earlier, though it might have been somewhat later, than the 14th day before the Pentecost, A.U. 780, May 16; to which day he assigns the imprisonment of John. And he supposes that event to have taken place while Our Lord was on his journey through Samaria; inferring from the language of the other Evangelists, that, by the time he arrived in Galilee, on this very return, John was already in prison. The language of St. Matthew, however, in ch. iv. 1., seems rather to indicate a subsequent departure out of Judea into Galilee, in consequence of

learning the fate of his precursor. He would hear of it on going up to Jerusalem at the feast mentioned John v. 1.; on which occasion he bore that remarkable testimony to his character, as "a burning and shining light." After that, not deeming it proper to expose himself unnecessarily to the malice of the Jews, or the jealousy of Herod, till his time was come, he again “departed into Galilee," (Matt. iv. 12.) and, removing from Nazareth to Capernaum, entered more openly upon his public ministry. It was not till after this period, that St. Matthew's personal acquaintance with Our Lord commenced; and as his testimony as an eye-witness could not have been given to any of the previous circumstances of his Master's public life, this seems to present the most natural reason for his beginning his account of Our Lord's ministry at this period, from which time it assumed a new character, in consequence of his choosing the Twelve Apostles as his constant attendants, and his preaching more openly in the Synagogues in his circuits through the country.

Mr. Greswell, however, taking a different view, makes Matt. iv. 12, &c., and Luke iv. 14, &c., follow John iv.; bringing down the narrative, in his second Part, to the end of Luke v., and including in it Matt. viii. 1-4; 14-17, and ix. 2-9. In his third Part, § 1. comprises John v. 1-47. § 2. consists of the parallel narrations, Matt. xii. 9-14, Mark iii. 1-6, and Luke vi. 6-11. The next two sections proceed regularly; but, in § 5, the ordination of the twelve apostles, Matt. x., Mark iii., Luke vi., is introduced with questionable accuracy. In the subsequent sections, St. Matthew's narrative undergoes very unceremonious treatment, the chapters occurring in the following transposed order; viii. 5-13; xi. 2-30; xii. 22-50; xiii. 1-17; 2430; 18-23; 36-52; viii. 18-34; ix. 1. 10-34; xiii. 5458; ix. 35–38; x. 1—42; xi. 1; xiv. As parallel with verses 13-21 of this last chapter, in Sect. 28, the Author introduces John vi. 1-13; continuing that chapter in the subsequent sections, as the conclusion of Part the third. The transpositions above specified are the result of much patient investigation; some are obviously required in order to bring together the correspondent narratives, others may admit of question; but to examine the arrangement in detail, with the reasons assigned for it, would occupy more space than we can afford. Upon examination it will be found, that the transpositions are, for the most part, confined to the didactic portions of St. Matthew's Gospel; that they do not relate to events, unless the delivery of a discourse be so called; and that more than half the difficulties of the Harmonist arise from the very unnecessary and (as it seems to us) unprofitable attempt to fix the precise date and locality of all the specimens that are given of Our Lord's sayings and miraculous works.

For instance, Mr. Greswell attempts to determine the era' in Our Lord's ministry, when he is supposed to have adopted a remarkable change in his manner of teaching, by speaking to the people in parables; inferring from the words of the Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, that he had never delivered a parable before. This era Mr. G. finds intimated at Matt. xiii. 1-17; and a dissertation is devoted to an elucidation of the subject. Of any such era in Our Lord's ministry, however, we must profess ourselves to be absolutely incredulous. Upon that particular occasion, as doubtless upon some others, he delivered his instructions to the multitude only in that enigmatic form; and upon being asked his reason for speaking in parables, he condescended to vindicate his conduct, by shewing its accordance with a general rule of the Divine proceedings, which makes religious knowledge to depend upon teachableness and obedience. But it is certain, that, on other and subsequent occasions, he employed the plainest and most literal language in teaching the multitude; and it is equally certain, that the scope of many of Our Lord's parables was sufficiently obvious to be understood by both the Pharisees and the people; while many of his axiomatic instructions were far more mysterious, and some of those which were deemed the hardest sayings, were addressed to his disciples. The declaration in this chapter can by no means be extended to all the parables, but, as Rosenmuller explains it, seems rather to point to the subject matter of the parables in question, which concerned the future progress and diffusion of the Gospel,-the "secrets of the kingdom of heaven." If this view be correct, it is a matter of no importance, on what occasion, or at what precise stage of his ministry, Our Lord delivered those parables; nor can we perceive any sufficient reason for disturbing the arrangement of St. Matthew, by placing the greater part of the xith, xiith, and xiiith chapters between the dismembered portions of the viiith. If the order of matter observed by St. Matthew be not the real order of time, there must be some principle of arrangement governing the order, which it would be desirable to ascertain. But, while we readily admit that the Gospel of Luke bears marks of greater historical precision and chronological accuracy, as regards the leading facts of the Gospel history, we cannot but retain the opinion, that less stress is to be laid upon the order in which he introduces the 'anecdotal' illustrations of the Saviour's teaching and public life. The manner in which these are introduced, are, with very few exceptions, in striking contrast to the precision with which the historical events are noted: e. g. "It came to pass, when he was in a certain city "-" On a certain day when he was teaching "-"Now it came to pass on a certain day "-" And it came to pass, that as he was praying in a certain place." These vague

intimations preclude the idea of any other order than that suggested by some principle of association' or selection.

Mr. Greswell, however, is of an entirely different opinion. So far as ch. ix. 50, the Gospel of St. Luke, he conceives, accompanies the Gospels of St. Matthew and Mark; but from ch. ix. 51 to ch. xviii. 14, it goes along by itself, and the intermediate matter is peculiar to this Evangelist.

The point of time at which St. Luke ceases to accompany St. Matthew and St. Mark, is the return to Capernaum, prior to the last Feast of Tabernacles; and the point of time at which he rejoins them, is with the close of the last journey up to Jerusalem, when Our Lord either had already passed, or was just on the eve of passing out of Peræa, into Judæa. On the same supposition, therefore, of St. Luke's regularity, as before, it follows, that the whole intermediate matter, peculiar to his Gospel, belongs to the interval of time between that return to Capernaum, and that passage from Peræa to Judæa;-an interval which, as we have had reason to conclude already, could not comprise less than the last six months of Our Saviour's ministry, and possibly might comprise even more.

Throughout the whole of these details which we suppose to be thus comprehended, there are numerous historical notices,-some express, others implicit,-which demonstrate that Our Lord, all the time, was travelling and teaching,-and travelling and teaching upon his way to Jerusalem. There are evidences, therefore, that a journey to Jerusalem, all this time, was still going on, and going on with the utmost publicity; a journey expressly undertaken in order to arrive at Jerusalem; and wheresoever it might have begun, and whatsoever course it might take meanwhile, yet known and understood to be tending to that one point, and ultimately to be concluded by arriving there at last. There are, consequently, evidences of a circuit, as such; and, if it is a circuit belonging to one and the same occasion, of a circuit begun and conducted on a very general scale ;—the fourth of the kind which the Gospel-history has yet supplied.

6

All these indications are of manifest importance, in fixing the pe riod to which the whole of Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14. inclusively is to be referred.' Vol. II. pp. 457-9.

The regularity of Luke's Gospel, up to ch. ix. 51, being, in the Author's opinion, fully established, he feels warranted in assuming its regularity for the remainder; and the twelfth chapter contains, he thinks, numerous decisive indications of belonging to the concluding portion of Our Lord's ministry.

If the proof of this position can be made out, the error committed by such schemes as place it before even the beginning to teach in parables, which was the middle of Our Saviour's ministry, must be apparent without any further comment. They introduce an anachronism of nearly eighteen months in extent.' Vol. II. Vol. II. p. 534.