Art. II. An Apostolical Harmony of the Gospels, &c. &c., with Dissertations, Notes, and Maps. Second edit. By LANT CARPENTER, LL.D. Longman, Orme, and Co. London: 1839.

sup

IT T is not often that we concern ourselves with any of the productions which come forth from Dr. Carpenter's school; not because we regard them with contempt, but because the serious difference between the tenets of Unitarians and those to the port of which this Review is dedicated, would ordinarily involve us in undesirable controversy. In the present case, however, we are happy to be able to put aside all topics of dispute. The ground which has been taken is here entirely neutral, so that Mr. Hartwell Horne and Dr. Carpenter, Mr. Norton and Bishop Marsh, can amicably debate the questions which come forward. There are barely two or three texts, in which Dr. C. will be said by some to have betrayed his theological bias; although, in fact, he is able even in such to quote Trinitarian divines who take the same view of them as himself. We are happy to add, that the general tone of the whole book is that of a man deeply impressed with reverence for things sacred, and with devout veneration for his heavenly teacher Jesus; nor will any approach be found to the levity or hardness of mind which those who have a slight acquaintance with the works of Belsham and Priestley are apt to expect in all Unitarians. Having said thus much in the outset, our readers must now consent, with ourselves, to lose sight entirely of the author's known sentiments, and attend solely to the subject matter of his work, and the views advanced by him concerning the evangelical narratives.

We believe that some persons are altogether prejudiced against "Harmonies" of the four gospels; for which reason a few introductory remarks on this subject may not be misplaced. The holy Scriptures will be read differently according as we seek on the one hand for immediate edification; (that is, the immediate calling forth of devout affections,) or on the other, the more general object of instruction. It is most certain, that in the latter case, it is very possible so to occupy ourselves in critical inquiry, that the affections may be nearly as unimpressed as though we were reading the Koran; and that divines who have been able critics, have given us no reason to suppose that their hearts were much concerned with religion at all. Hence superficial persons too readily infer, that the latter method is not edifying. Because they do not reap their harvest in the same half hour in which they sow the seed, they imagine that no harvest will come. They have no patience to wait till the due time arrives; and are naturally apt to mistake momentary excitement for "building up" in the faith. It surely is not so, if Christianity be a reasonable religion, which is to act on the affections by means of the intellect. Were

it a religion of mere ceremonies, or mere dogmatic precept, or passionate, unguided feeling, it might afford to make light of the cultivation and careful use of the mental faculties; but because it appeals to the enlightened judgment, it cannot be independent of those faculties; but is liable to degradation, whenever they are feeble or are misused. It is not possible for a Christian to contract any vice of the intellect-be it incoherence, indistinctness of thought, incautious inference, resting on vague analogies or allegories, or any other-without being liable to practical mischief just in the same proportion as he studies the Scripture with an independent mind. Truth, when received from the lips of an instructor, is cheaply had, assuredly, if really we can trust it as truth. But, however the contrary may be asserted, we firmly believe that truth is not ascertained by independent investigation without anxious searching, and such deep ponderings as its value deserves; no, not even when the volume of Scripture is spread open before us. The inward teaching of the Spirit gives a valuable and indispensable clue for understanding what is more immediately spiritual; but does not and cannot supersede the actings of the moral and intellectual judgment. The history of the minds of holy men abundantly convicts as an enthusiastic error, the notion that we have only to pray for the Spirit heartily, and God will teach us what his word means: else how is it that Luther and Calvin, Wesley and Whitfield, read it not alike? We may add, that the dogmatic tone uniformly generated in persons who believe they are thus infallibly taught, of itself proclaims this notion to be an error. In fact, no intellectual powers are thrown away in the interpretation of the Scriptures. The deeper our research, the more solid is our instruction, and the more true our ultimate edification. An honest impartial exegesis of sacred writ, will often deprive us of cherished associations, and special applications of texts; (which too often are mere conceits ;) it may overturn our favourite opinions, and lessen the number of the propositions which we regard as established truth; but it will undoubtedly strengthen all that is primarily important, give brilliancy and power to the true meaning, and set our feet as on a rock. Moreover, nothing else can tend to extinguish the endless controversies which vex even Bible Christians. It avails not that we profess that book to be our standard of truth; it avails not that we pray for the Spirit of wisdom and revelation;-while we indulge careless methods of explaining and quoting texts, hasty and unwarranted principles of reasoning from them, we must expect much jangling, much misapprehension. It is only in proportion as persons cautiously and critically adhere to sober, continuous exposition of the books of Scripture, that they approximate to unity of judgment concerning their meaning.

Let us apply this peculiarly to the four gospels. There is

probably no part of the New Testament so important to us as the life and discourses of our Lord. Yet how many difficulties do we encounter, in interpreting his concise and often parabolic language; his broad and half-enigmatic maxims. Now the very fact of our having four narratives preserved to us, instead of one continuous tale, may well excite intelligent interest, as well as inspire an augury that this method was providentially adopted. The advantage of such a state of things to the ascertainment of truth is obvious. A false tale would break down under its own contradictions; a true one, by its minor variations and substantial agreement, carries conviction to the reader, in proportion as he is diligent in sifting all the accounts. By placing the same discourses, as related in different evangelists, side by side, we can often learn whether it is in any case probable, that we have the precise words uttered by the Saviour: whether the sentiments which precede and follow were probably spoken by him in that very order and connexion, or not: what was the immediate scope and purport of his address: all which things are sometimes of much weight in determining his meaning.

It is a common practice with inconsiderate readers to treat all four narratives as one: provided that what they read is in "the Bible," they care not whether it come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. But the peculiarities of the different writers of Scripture are not trifling; nor were they permitted for nothing. A careful student cannot overlook the significant fact, in the case of the four evangelists; and if Christians universally were ever so disposed to overlook it, we are not permitted to do so, because of the objections urged against us by unbelievers. They have a just plea in claiming to disprove one narrative by the other, if they can: nor are they slow in alleging numerous contrarieties, which, in their apprehension, amount to such disproof. It then, of necessity, devolves on Christians either to refute the supposed fact; or, admitting that there are minor inconsistencies, to show reason why they may be made light of. But we cannot know, in numerous cases, which of the two is the right reply, until we have critically compared the four accounts, side by side and in the endeavour to do this, we presently find that we are unawares making a "Harmony."

If any one, moreover, shall succeed in establishing the chronology of Christ's ministry on a basis so certain as to convince all intelligent and assiduous readers, there will assuredly be another most valuable result; namely, the increased vividness of conception which may then be attained concerning the details of those few months, the interest of which will only be understood in eternity. To be able to follow in one's mind the path of Jesus, as he went from place to place teaching; to apprehend the intervals of time, the measures of space; exceedingly helps to impress

the whole tale on the memory and on the heart. It is, we apprehend, very principally with this object, that Dr. C. has entered on his laborious computations. Having settled certain outlines which must regulate the chronology, he borrows from astronomers the means of ascertaining when the Passover fell in those years; and has constructed a calendar, to exhibit the very days of the month on which (or nearly on which) each event must, according to his view, have happened. In prosecution of the same endthe giving vividness to the evangelical narrative-he has added a highly-interesting detailed discussion on the localities of Palestine, compiled of course from numerous modern travellers. He has also made good use of Josephus, in the description of Jerusalem and of the temple; both of which are illustrated by maps. This, though a useful and praiseworthy task, is not one of theological difficulty, nor involving any arduous questions.

The Preliminary Dissertations are in all four. I. On the duration of our Saviour's ministry. II. On the structure of the first three gospels, in relation to the succession of events. III On the political and geographical state of Palestine, at the period of our Lord's ministry. (This is that of which we just spoke.) IV. On the succession of events recorded in the gospels. The fourth topic must of course be chiefly determined by the opinion held concerning the first; and this again, the duration of the Lord's ministry, is dependent on the question, how many passovers his ministry embraced.

Three principal opinions have been maintained on this subject that there were two, or three, or four passovers, between the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. C. discusses the reasons that can be advanced, for or against each of these three hypotheses. He exhibits the opinions of the ancient Christian writers; which may be roughly expressed by saying, that the earliest opinion favoured two passovers, in the third century some held three, and Eusebius in the fourth century held four. He apprehends, that if there is any weight at all in tradition, to which however he ascribes but little, it is on the side of the dipaschal theory; which he has embraced himself; while he attributes it, with Bishop Marsh, to the influence of Eusebius, that the quadripaschal theory prevailed for full thirteen centuries. Yet, in his judgment, this last is far less tenable than the tripaschal.

Without the gospel of John, no one would have dreamed of more than two passovers; and it is principally on the sixth chapter of that evangelist, (where we read, ver. 4, The passover, a

Dr. C. informs us, that Whiston, Macknight, Scaliger, Sir I. Newton, and Stillingfleet, held five passovers; but he regards this view as entirely abandoned by the learned, and needing no special refutation.

'feast of the Jews, was nigh,') that the belief of three passovers rests. Dr. C. is not moved by this argument, because that sixth chapter describes the same event as is recorded in Luke ix. 10—17; and, in the 51st verse of the same chapter it is said 'It 6 came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received 6 up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.' Hence he infers, that the miracle of the five thousand took place only a little before the death of Jesus, and that the passover intended in John vi. 4, was that at which he was crucified. This requires us to suppose that chapter (John vi.) to be out of chronological order. He thinks it possible, that because the event there narrated, took place at a different part of the country, namely, the lake of Galilee, the writer was unwilling to interpose it between the seventh chapter and the eighteenth, which record occurrences at Jerusalem or in the neighbourhood. He is confirmed in the opinion, that there is such a transposition, chiefly, (as appears to us) by our Lord's very remarkable reference, in John vii. 21, to the miracle of Bethesda : I have done one work, and ye all marvel.' For, if between John v. and John vii. we interpose (according to the tripaschal theory,) an entire year and more, during which time also the same theory supposes the numerous Galilæan miracles to take place; such a reference to his doing one work' appears unnatural. Besides, it becomes almost needful to suppose that he was absent from Jerusalem that whole year; whereas Dr. C. thinks, that in obedience to the law of Moses our Lord doubtless presented himself punctually at Jerusalem at each of the three great annual feasts. Farther, the nature of the discourse in John vi., (it is urged by Dr. C.,) favours the belief that Jesus saw his death as already impending; and to this agree the words with which the evangelist closes the chapter, Judas Iscariot, who, • ἤμελλε παραδιδόναι αὐτὸν, was on the point of betraying him; which sense the Greek, according to classical usage, most naturally affects. Nor is it credible that Jesus would have denounced one of his apostles as a false accuser, (improperly translated 'a 'devil' in the authorized version,) when full thirteen months remained for him to associate with his brethren.

These considerations appear so weighty to Dr. C.'s mind, that he regards the point as proved. The next question which needs to be discussed, is, whether the order of events in Matthew or in Luke adheres the more nearly to chronological accuracy. He sets aside, most justly, a fine-drawn argument advanced by some, from Luke's introduction, where that writer states his intention

*We see little weight in this argument. On his own showing, Luke does not at all adhere to the order of time: we have no right, then, to urge, that the events in his ninth chapter are at all consecutive or near together.