apostles should be led into all the truth; and that the Spirit fhould bring all things to their remembrance, whatever Jefus had faid unto them. But neither of these expreffions, nor any other, that I recollect, can fairly be interpreted to mean more, than that the apostles fhould be restrained by the Holy Spirit from error, and led into the remem brance of all the truths which their Mafter had taught them, as far as religion was concerned.

Divine truth was

In whatever con

were fpiritually il

the only object that was aimed at. cerned this, their minds, no doubt, lumined. But in other matters, (which were unimport ant,) and, indeed, in all matters of fact, which fell under their own eyes, or which they received from just information, their teftimony was only the teftimony of honeft men. And in giving fuch teftimony, I fee not why their evidence might not be as fallible in trifling circumstances, (Secured, at the fame time, from errors of importance,) as human evidence commonly is at fuch a diftance of time.

What is it, for inftance, to the truth of religion, whether our Saviour, on croffing the lake of Gennefaret, met one demoniac or two? Or whether he met them in the country of the Gaderenes or of the Gergesenes; which two people were contiguous ? The atteftation to the truth of the gospel by a miracle, which is the great leading fact, and all that is neceffary, is the fame in all thefe cafes.What again fignifies it to the truth of religion, whether that noble discourse which our Saviour gave the people, and which is commonly called the fermon on the mount, were really spoken on a mount or on a plain? Our Saviour spoke many discourses, no doubt, in both fituations; and it might eafily escape the narrator's memory, in which of them this particular difcourfe was spoken. If St. Matthew and St. Luke had written in concert, they would have taken care, no doubt, to agree

in this particular.

As they did not write in concert,

there happens to be a trifling difference. But is the main question affected by it? Is there any difference in the doctrine which the two evangelifts delivered from their Master's mouth? This is all that is material; and all that the Holy Spirit, we may suppose, saw neceffary to bring to their remembrance.

Indeed, if the evidence of the evangelifts had been throughout miraculous and inspired, why did their bleffed Master carry them conftantly with him as witnesses of what they heard? He tells us the reafon was, that what they heard in the ear, (as if hearing was the chief inlet of inftruction,) they might preach from the house-tops. The great Author of nature never admits a miracle, where the ordinary courfe of providence is fufficient: and in recording a plain fact, a miraculous intervention seems unnecessary.

The Bishop of Offory, in his preface to his harmony, obferves, that a harmony by a juxta-pofition of parallel paffages is often the best commentary. It certainly is; and nobody can read the evangelifts attentively without comparing parallel paffages. But the obfervation cannot hold with regard to thofe paffages which are marked with uncertainty; and about which harmonizers themselves are at variance. The evangelifts, treating of the fame fubject, fays the bishop, quoting Mr. Locke, do give great light to one another; and I think, may, with the greatest advantage, be read in harmony. True: but we cannot suppose that Mr. Locke means here by harmony, every arbitrary suppefition that may be called fo. He exprefsly fays, he speaks only of the evangelists, when treating of the fame subject. When it is uncertain, whether they do treat of the fame fubject, or not when Le Clerk, for instance, thinks in one way; Dr. Doddridge in another; Dr. Macknight,

or

or fome other harmonist, in a third; and fo on; we may be entertained with ingenious conjectures; but still we get no ground-the harmony refts on human authority; and we are still left in a field of uncertainty.It appears, therefore, we should only contend for the harmony of the gofpels, when that harmony is generally acknowledged, and when the evangelifts obviously, as Mr. Locke phrases it, treat of the fame fubject. When we lay together, for inftance, the feveral circumftances of our Saviour's birth, of his crucifixion, or of any other particular, related by dif ferent evangelists, as undeniably the fame, we may obtain a clearer view of it than we could have had from any fingle evangelist and in this light, the Bishop of Offory's harmony and others have great ufe. But where conjecture begins, harmony undoubtedly ends.

:

It seems, therefore, a part of religious wifdom to be cautious on this head. By laying the force of evangelical evidence too ftrongly, as is often the cafe, on its exact concurrence in every particular, the unsteady reader is led to fuppofe, that its truth, in a great degree, depends on this concurrence; and when he fees it, as he often must see it, awkwardly fupported, he may be apt to doubt the whole truth of the gospel, from the production of this feeble mode of evidence. "The authority of the fcriptures" (as the fagacious Erasmus obferved long ago) "would not be in"validated, though small inaccuracies fhould be found in "them, in matters of little or no confequence; as it is by "no means clear, how far divine infpiration extended*." Yet I fhould not wish this argument to be carried farther than it will fairly go. Coincidences have been found, in many paffages, by patient investigators, which were not

Epift. 376.

before

before thought of; and it is poffible, that MSS. yet undiscovered, may throw new lights on others. All I con tend for is, that an exact coincidence, in many cafes, cannot be made out; and that the divine authority or inspiration of the holy fcriptures is fafe, notwithstanding these little variations in unimportant points.

I am fearful, however, of blaming those commentators who, on a different plan, have chofen to blend all the evangelifts together, and exhibit one narrative from four. But though I dare not venture to blame them, I have taken a contrary method myself. My reasons are these :

In the first place, by explaining the evangelifts feparately, in the order in which we have them, the difficulties of each may the more easily be examined. When the four gofpels are melted together, the parts of each are loft; and the reader is lefs able to look for explanations, which more readily unfold themselves when the books are turned over in their natural order. He is lefs able alfo to understand a difficulty when he meets it out of its proper place: he wants the context to guide his interpretations, and must trust more to the harmonizer's judg

ment.

Secondly, by explaining the four evangelifts separately, the parts are not only preferved more diftinct, but the whole is more uniform. It seems difficult to blend the four gofpels into one well-arranged narrative. It is impeffible, without many harsh fuppofitions. St. Luke, for inftance, gives us many parables and hiftorical paffages, of which none of the other evangelifts take notice; and yet St. Luke gives us no circumstances to establish their chronological order. How, and where are they to be introduced? We may call it harmonizing, if we please, when we blend them with the other evangelifts: but it is certainly a very forced and arbitrary mode of connecting.

Several

*

Several parallel paffages also agree so ill, that we must neceffarily fuppofe fome little variation, or we must suppose them feparate narratives. Indeed it is common among harmonizers, when they find two paffages on the whole confenting, but at variance in fome circumftances, to confider them as two actions. This is an eafy way, it is true, of getting rid of a difficulty; but it is always arbitrary, and often awkward. The account, for inftance, which the four evangelifts give of Simon's fupper are fo different, that all of them cannot well be interwoven together: and yet, if we conceive them with the generality of harmonizers to be different events, it is somewhat difficult to suppose fo many circumstances should agree. Jefus was invited twice to fupper by two different people of the name of Simon-at each fupper a woman came in with an alabaster box of precious ointment-fhe twice anointed him-the fame perfons were prefent on both occafions-and fome of the very fame observations were made.

Laftly, the evangelical proof appears with more force when four witneffes come forward, and each separately gives his evidence, (evidence given on record, at different places, and in different times) without the least material variation. We have hence certainly that strong, that irrefiftible proof, which no blended narrative, or systemized testimony can give.

I fhall just add to this preface a few explanations of perfons and things, which occur frequently in fcripture.

The Samaritans were originally heathen, fettled by the King of Affyria, after the captivity, in the Ifraelitish

*Matt. xxvi. 6. Mark xiv. 3.- Luke vii. 36. — John xii. I. See a note at the end of Luke vii.

cities.