« PreviousContinue »
able to cure, Matt. xvii. 14-21. Mark ix. 14-29. Luke ix. 37–43.
24. Christ foretells his death, Matt. xvii. 22, 23. Mark ix. 20—32. Luke ix. 43–45.
25. Dispute among the apostles about precedence, Matt. xviii. 1-5. Mark ix. 23–37. Luke ix. 45–48.
26. Christ blesses children who are brought to him, and answers the question, by what means salvation is to be obtained ? Matt. xix. 13-30. Mark x. 13–31.
27. Christ again foretells his death, Matt. xx. 17-19. Mark x. 32–34. Luke xviii. 31–34.
28. Blind man at Jericho restored to sight, Matt. xx. 29 -34. Mark x. 46–52. Luke xviii. 35–43.
29. Christ's public entry into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. 111. Mark xi. 1-10. Luke xix. 29–44.
30. Christ expels the buyers and sellers from the temple, Matt. xxi, 12–14. Mark xi. 15–17. Luke xix. 45, 46.
31. Christ called to account by the chief priests and elders for teaching publicly in the temple. He answers them, and then delivers a parable, Matt. xxi. 23—27. 33–46. Mark xi. 27. xii. 12. Luke xx. 1-19.
. 32. On the tribute to Cæsar, and marriage with a brother's widow, Matt. xxii. 15–33. Mark xii. 15–37. Luke xx. 20–40.
33. Christ's discourse with the Pharisees relative to the Messiah being called Lord by David, Matt. xxii. 41–46. Mark xii. 35–37. Luke xx. 41-45.
34. The Pharisees censured by Christ, Matt. xxiii. 1, &c. Mark xii. 38-40. Luke xx. 45–47.
35. Christ foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv. 1-36. Mark xiii. 136. Luke xxi. 5-36.
36. Prelude to the account of Christ's passion, Matt. xxvi. 1-5. Mark xiv. 1, 2. Luke xxii. 1, 2.
37. Bribery of Judas, and the celebration of the passover, Matt. xxvi, 14-29. Mark xiv. 10-25. Luke xxii. 3–23.
38. Christ goes to the mount of Olives, Matt. xxvi. 30– 46. Mark xiv. 26-42. Luke xx. 39–46.
39. He is seized by a guard from the chief priests, Matt. xxvi. 47-58. Mark xiv. 43–54. Luke xxii. 47-55.
40. Peter's denial of Christ, &c. Matt. xxvi. 69. xxvii. 19. Mark xiv. 66. xv. 10. Luke xxii. 56. xxiii. 17.
41. The crucifixion and death of Christ, Matt. xxvii. 20–66. Mark xv. 11–47. Luke xxiii. 18–56.
42. The resurrection, Matt. xxiii. 1, &c. Mark xvi. 1, &c. Luke xxiv. 1, &c.
Such being the theory, the rules, and the basis, upon which a Harmony of the New Testament might be advantageously compiled, it remained that I should select those assistants which united most soundness of judgment, profound learning, patient labour, and extensive research. Rejecting the hypotheses both of Osiander, and of all who would adhere to the order of any one of the Gospels, in preference to another, I decided to accept as my guides the five principal Harmonists, which have not only obtained the general approbation of all parties, but who have been respectively of the most opposite descriptions and classes.
The first is Lightfoot, whose Chronicle of the Old Testament had been made the basis of my preceding labour. His Harmony, though not fully completed, has been wel comed by scholars of all parties. Lightfoot was one of the most learned of the Puritan theologians, and possessed great influence in the Assembly of Divines (0). His Harmony, however, was encumbered with the same disadvantage, which I have mentioned (p) as an error in his Chronicle. He places the events recorded in Scripture in too large masses, and thereby destroys the minuteness and consequent per
() See the first volume of Mr. Pitman's valuable edition of Lightfoot's Works. Mr. Davison, in his work on Primitive Sacrifice, has objected to some opinions of Lightfoot; but his learning was undeniable, and his authority as a Harmonist very great. (p) Introduction to the Arrangement of the Old Testament.
spicuity, which are so essential to a complete view of the sacred history.
To mention Dr. Doddridge, my second guide, is to recall to the recollection of those who interest themselves in these delightful studies, the name of an amiable, learned, and pious man, whose praise is in all the Churches. If I have not uniformly adopted his arrangement, I have been always edified by his devotional reflections. Where his reasoning did not convince, his piety instructed. Where his decisions appeared to be accurate, the union of every quality which can adorn the theological critic, rendered his labours doubly grateful. The pride and ornament of the Independent Dissenters, his anxiety to avoid offence never betrayed him into indifference for truth. His liberality never induced him to confound truth with error, (a custom which is now extolled as freedom from prejudice,) for it was confined to persons, and not to sentiments. Whatever he believed to be true, he enforced with a patient gentleness; which was sometimes mistaken for timidity by those who esteem violence or declamation to be one criterion of ministerial faithfulness, and Christian zeal. An active partizan of that system of religion, which makes the ground of our acceptance with God to consist of a certain train of feelings, as well as in repentance, faith, and obedience; he has not proceeded to the extremes which generally characterise the commentators of this school. His opinions on the formation and government of Christian Churches will not, and cannot, meet with the approbation of the observers of the circumstances related in the Gospels and Acts, and referred to in the apostolic epistles. He appears to have been fettered by the theory which he had imbibed in early life, and had not rejected in his maturer years. I was not able to receive many of the proposed alterations of this amiable, great, and good man. They sometimes appeared too arbitrary, and abrupt.
Pilkington's Evangelical History is my third principal aid in this difficult labour. Pilkington was a country Clergyman, and he devoted himself to his work with much patience, for many years. He considers St. Mark as the best guide to a Harmonizer. Forsaking the old plans of placing the various passages in parallel columns, or in separate paragraphs, he divided the narrative in the manner which I have adopted in the first of these volumes. His omissions of important clauses, I found to be very numerous ! He has not given the whole contents of the Gospels, but rather formed a continuous narrative, on the plan of a diatessaron, with the Scripture references in the margin. He supposes, too, that our Lord's ministry lasted through five passovers.
Archbishop Newcome's Harmony appears to be generally and deservedly considered the best work of this kind ever submitted to the public. It has received the sanction of the University of Oxford. It was made the foundation of White's Diatessaron, with some few exceptions. The learned professor has followed West and Townson, in the order of the narrative of the resurrection. He rejects the Archbishop's double institution of the Eucharist, and otherwise varies in the numbering of the sections from 126 to 130. I venture to depart from Archbishop Newcome with great reluctance, and adhere as much as possible to his general order of circumstances.
My fifth, and most inaccurate guide, is Michaelis, whose brief work, as Bishop Marsh has justly observed, must be considered rather as an index than a harmony. I have, however, chosen him as one of my helpers, because he is the last arranger. He is considered also of high authority among the admirers of the German theologians; and among all who mistake novelty for talent, and the rejection of old opinions for exemption from bigotry.
The plan upon which I have endeavoured to render my consulting of the oracles of God useful to the Christian world, is the only point which requires our further attention.
All the Harmonies which have hitherto been submitted to the world, have been formed on one of two plans. The contents of the four Gospels have been arranged in parallel columns, by which means the whole of the sacred narrative is placed at one view before the reader-or they have been combined into one unbroken story, in which the passages considered by the Harmonizer to be unnecessary to the illustration of the narrative are arbitrarily rejected. The former produces great confusion in the mind of the student; the latter appears to place the reader too much at the disposal of the author. The former is the Harmony strictly so called ; the latter is the mere Diatessaron, or Monotessaron. To avoid the inconveniences of both these systems, I have endeavoured to save the reader that embarrassment, which is occasioned by four parallel columns; and at the same time to combine the Gospels into one order, without leaving the reader to depend entirely on the judgment of the arranger, in the choice of the interwoven passages. My object has been to unite the advantages of both plans. Every text of Scripture is preserved, as in the first, while the evangelical narratives are formed into one connected history, as in the second ;-every passage which is rejected from the continuous history being placed at the end of each section, to enable the reader to decide on the propriety of the order which has been adopted by the Arranger. These passages will appear too often, as broken and disjointed sentences; and the conviction of the utility of this plan, and its rendering such evident satisfaction to the laborious, or inquiring student,-could alone have rendered me patient, under the minute care, and anxious fatigue, which enabled me to persevere till it was completed.
In harmonizing the accounts of the inscriptions on the cross, and the narrative of the resurrection, I have been guided by Townson, West, and Cranfield.
Having decided on the method of disposing the contents of the four Gospels, another question remained with respect to the various periods of time included in the whole of the New Testament. I was not satisfied with the usual mode