account just before, had made an end. In such cases, and especially where one of the narratives continues, or is continued by the other, that one, it is manifest, pre-supposes the accounts of the others, and without that supposition would scarcely be intelligible, of which Mark viii. 12 is a remarkable instance, for it passed altogether in private, after the answer to the demand, as recorded by St. Matthew, xvi. 1-4, had been returned in public.

'Even in their common accounts something is often supplied by St. Mark, critically explanatory of something in St. Matthew. Mark iii. 21* serves this purpose for Matt. xii. 46; † and Mark iii. 22, and iii. 30,‡ by ascertaining the fact of a double blasphemy, one against the Spirit, and the other against our Saviour, serve it still more so, for Matt. xii. 24, and xii. 31-.7, which last is directly founded upon that distinction. . . 'The verbal coincidences which are found in the text of these two Evangelists are so numerous, that in a harmony duly arranged they may be discovered in every page. The basis of every seeming contradiction is overthrown by the admission of supplemental Gospels; and by the supposition that the later necessarily accompanied the prior. By these means, what appears to be contradiction is seen to be really explanation; and instead of confusing and perplexing, clears up and ascertains. The writers of these common accounts were too well aware of their ultimate agreement and consistency, to be afraid of the effect of an apparent collision: they neither apprehended it themselves, nor supposed it would be objected to them by others. In all such instances, they either borrow light, or they communicate it; they are as critically adapted to each other in what they omit, as in what they supply; sometimes presupposing the circumstances already on record, preliminary to their own accounts; at other times, connecting, separating, and defining the old, by additional particulars of their own. . . .

'There are transpositions, (of anticipation and trajection,) in the Gospel of St. Matthew, from which a later Evangelist would be at liberty to depart, and which may be admitted without injury to the credibility of St. Matthew, but can scarcely be denied without some degree of danger to the authority of St. Mark, or of St. Luke.

The Gospel of St. Matthew exhibits the evidence of two facts, one, that of great scantiness of detail in the purely narrative parts; the other, that of great circumstantiality in the accounts of discourses. . . . And where such discourses were again repeated, they will be found inserted in their proper places in St. Luke's Gospel, the corresponding periods to which, in the Gospel of St. Matthew, are almost total blanks. . . Compare

Matt. xi. 21-.3,* with Luke x. 13-.5;† Matt. xi. 25-.7, with Luke x. 21,.2; Matt. vii. 7-11,|| with Luke xi. 9-13; Matt. vi. 25-33,** with Luke xii. 22-31; †† Matt. vi. 9-13, ‡‡ with Luke xi. 2-4; §§ Matt. x. 26—33, |||| with Luke xii. 2-9;¶¶ Matt. xxiv. 45-51,** with Luke xii. 42—.6.†††

***

'The same supplementary relation of one Gospel to another furnishes the best answer (if any answer is conceived requisite) to the question why we have four Gospels, and neither more nor fewer than four. Let us only suppose that a prior Gospel was incomplete, and a later one was designed to bring it nearer to perfection, both being considered as the history of a certain period and course of things, in common; and we account for the fact. The first three Gospels relate almost solely to the ministry of our Lord in Galilee, the last almost solely to that in Judæa; ‡‡‡ but in the ministry in Galilee, and in the ministry in Judæa, severally, the complex of the Christian ministry collectively was necessarily comprised.

...

'It is only by the possession of four distinct Gospel histories, all relating to a common subject-and by the comparison of one of them with another, that we are enabled to discover deficiencies in any of the number. It is the natural and proper effect of later and supplementary Gospels to detect these deficiencies, as well as to fill them up. They shew us in what parts of the common history their predecessors stood in need of completion or connection, while they complete and connect them also.

'It may justly be regarded as a providential coincidence that the Gospel, which completed the canon, while it recognized and sanctioned the rest, added what was still indispensably necessary to the integrity of the Gospel history; and was written not only many years after the former, but, if testimony is to be believed, at the close of the life of St. John.

'To exhibit this cumulative and progressive evidence in its natural dimensions and its full force, is the most legitimate purpose, and the most appropriate result of a well-constructed harmony. . It is another result of the mutual relation of the Gospels, and, consequently, another advantage of a harmonized system which proceeds on those relations, that though the details of particulars in the Christian history may still be partial and incomplete, the general outline of facts will be found to be distinct and continuous. . . The details in each of the Evangelists are the details of detached events; and if we except St. John, the events, which each does relate, may be related as specimens of those which are suppressed; . we do but possess the most incalculably small part of what

* 2 29, p. 31.

¶ 2 62, p. 74.

$229, p. 32. ?? 60, p. 73. +163, p. 76. ## 2 19, p. 19.

239, p. 46. ¶¶ 63, p. 75. *** 86, p. 112. +++

|| 2 19, p. 20. 222 62, p. 74. 63, p. 76.

‡‡‡ A bird's-eye view of this supplemental character of St. John's Gospel to the first three Gospels is given in the "Historical and Geographical Chart of our Lord's Life and Ministry."

might have been related of our Saviour's miracles; and for every special relation of such a miracle, a special reason, I think, may be discovered, sufficient to have produced it. The same true of his discourses: every

thing there is even more special.'

The vast importance of a right understanding of the structure of the Gospel Narratives of the Four Evangelists, in relation to the religious training of our youth, to meet the growing infidelity of the age, must be my apology for the length of the foregoing extract; and the reader is respectfully urged to a perusal of the elaborate and minute investigation of the subject in the original dissertations; a copy of which should be in the library of every Religious Association for mutual instruction; of which the above is scarcely more than a mangled outline.

As illustrative of the Harmony resulting from the supplemental character of the Four Evangelists, see the accounts given by Matthew iv. 12-.7; Mark i. 14, .5; Luke iv. 31; § 16, p. 15, of our Lord leaving Nazareth, and fixing on Capernaum to dwell in, after the attempt of his countrymen, who "led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."

It must be premised that the history of Jesus preaching at Nazareth, and the consequent malice of the inhabitants, is given by Luke alone, ch. iv. 14—30, § xv. p. 15, there being a considerable hiatus in Matthew's Gospel between the temptations as concluded by him in the 11th verse of the iv. chap.; also in Mark i. 13, which harmonizes with St. Matthew; both of which Gospels end that marvellous exhibition of Jesus' being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," with the words, "And, behold, angels came and ministered unto him," § ix. p. 10, and of his choice of Capernaum to dwell in. Luke in like manner breaks off there also, and resumes his narrative with "Jesus preaching in the Synagogue at Nazareth," chap. iv. ver. 14-30, § xv. p. 15. This hiatus in the first three Gospels is filled by John, with critical adaptation, both to the point where all three had left off, and to the point where Luke in particular had begun again.

After the temptations the history is supplemented, as follows, in John's Gospel, ch. i. ver. 19-51, § x. p. 11. At ver. 19-36, are the important testimonies of John the Baptist, in answer to the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem, when he pointed to Jesus as "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," and in ver. 37-42 are the particulars concerning the two disciples, Andrew and Simon, who henceforth followed Jesus-and in ver. 43—51, of Philip and Nathanael, who also attached themselves unto Jesus as his disciples. After which, ch. ii. 1—11,

§ xi. p. 12, at a marriage in Cana of Galilee," Jesus "manifested

*Sect. 9, p. 10.

forth his glory," and at ver 12, "he went down to Capernaum," where he "continued... not many days," for at ver. 13—22, § xii. p. 12, “the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,” and cast the traders out of the Temple: ver. 23-5 records that "miracles" were wrought at the feast, and Jesus' omniscience, "for he knew what was in man." In chap. iii. ver. 1-21, we are informed, "there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night," and was instructed in the grand doctrine of regeneration-"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," and also in the blessedness of all who believe in Christ as "the only begotten Son of God." In ver. 22—.4, § xiii. p. 13, we learn Jesus' departure from Jerusalem, and in ver. 25-36 is recorded John's last and most explicit testimony to Jesus, as being "above all." In the chap. iv. ver. 1-42 we perceive that Jesus "left Judæa, and departed into Galilee," and that "he must needs go through Samaria," in which division of the Holy Land, at "Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph;" and at "Jacob's well," he declared himself to be the "Messias." And after a detention of two days, through "a word fitly spoken," by a poor woman who went for the water that perisheth, but received of the water springing up into everlasting life;" after a detention of two days in that place, ver. 43-54, § xiv. p. 14, "Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine;" and in his cure of the nobleman's son there, the attributes of JEHOVAH, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, are conspicuously displayed in him, and seen the more plainly in connection with a Geographical acquaintance of the History. Here this part of St. John's Gospel suddenly ends, having supplied what was wanting to completeness and connection, as a succeeding historian would do, whose aim was not repetition, but to be supplemental in his narrative.

66

Luke takes up the narrative at Nazareth, and in ch. iv. ver. 14—30, § 15, p. 15, shews Christ fulfilling the prophets-coming to his own, and his own receiving him not; and who, after having first "wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth;" suddenly, being "filled with wrath,... led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way." And we are brought to that part of his history to which we directed attention at the beginning, Matt. iv. 12—.7; Mark i. 14, .5; Luke iv. 31; § 16.

This general outline, exhibiting so much saving doctrine, and such godlike willingness to do good to the souls and bodies of men, cannot fail to commend the study of Our Lord's life and ministry in Harmonized, Chronological, and Geographical order, as it is evident was the mind of the

Spirit, in leading the succeeding writers of the supplemental Gospel Nar

ratives.

The analysis of this portion of the History in Matt. iv. 12—.7; Mark i. 14, .5; Luke iv. 31, is extremely simple. And by the tabular arrangement of the narratives in juxta-position, as under, we see at once the supplemental relation of each to the others.

SECTION XVI. (Lesson 16.)—MATT. iv. 12—22; MARK i. 14—20; LUKE iv. 31. (G. 18.) No. 16. Jesus dwells at Capernaum, and prepares to enter on his public ministry, in which John had hitherto preceded him.—See line from Nazareth.

ANALYSIS.-The first few words in Mark's Gospel, ver. 14, are nearly the same as those in Matthew's, who slightly amplifies " When Jesus had heard," ver. 12; Mark does not mention the place Jesus quitted, nor that to which he came-Mark is not so definite as Matthew. "Galilee" was

a large division of Palestine, and extremely fertile, abundant in towns and population. For the particular town in Galilee to which Jesus came, we must consult Matthew. Mark says no more than suffices for the formal introduction of Jesus' ministry there; Luke having before recorded by anticipation, see ch. iii. ver. 20, § 7, p. 9, that Herod "added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison." Luke did this to keep the public ministry of John and the public ministry of Christ distinct, and merely