slumbering inhabitants of Jerusalem. But when the arm of the Lord has put on strength," then their second watch-cry shall resound over the city of the Lord: "Awake! awake! stand up, O Jerusalem;" knowing that an Almighty arm is about to "raise her from the dust." And the third and final appeal is for Jerusalem to take the throne that has been prepared for her, even the throne of the world. "Awake! awake! put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the Holy City!"

Art. III. 1. Harmonia Evangelica. Edidit Edvardus Greswell, A.M., &c. 8vo. Oxon.

2. Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of a Harmony of the Gospels. By the Rev. Edw. Greswell, M.A., &c. 3 vols.

8vo. Oxford.

3. A Harmony of the Four Gospels, in the English authorized Version, arranged according to Greswell's "Harmonia Evangelica" in Greek; with References to his Dissertations on the Same. By Permission of the Author. Intended principally as an Accompaniment to a Pictorial and Geographical Chart (by R. Mimpriss) of the History of the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 8vo. pp. 352. London, 1833.

(Continued from page 22.)

WE proceed, in the present article, to exhibit some specimens of the application of the principles laid down by Mr. Greswell, to the Harmony itself; and in so doing, we shall avail ourselves of the English Harmony which, with his permission, has been constructed upon the model of his arrangement of the Greek

text.

Mr. Greswell divides the harmonized evangelical narrative into five parts, as follows:

Part I. Matt. i. ii; Luke i-iii. 38. Comprehending the space of 31 years; viz. from A.U.c. 748, answering to B.C. 6, to A.U.C. 779, or A.D. 26.

Part II. Matt. iii.-viii. 4; 14-17. ix. 2-9. Mark i.-ii. 22. Luke iii. 1–23; iv. v. John i.-iv. Comprehending one year and six months; viz., from the commencement of the preaching of John the Baptist, A.D. 26 medio, to the end of the first year of the ministry of Jesus Christ, A.D. 28 ineuntem.

Part III. Matt. viii. 5-13; 18—34. ix. 1.; 10—38. x.—xiv. Mark ii. 23-28. iii.-vi. Luke vi.-ix. 17. John v.-vi. Comprehending the space of twelve months, from the end of the first year of the ministry of Jesus Christ, A.D. 28, ineunte, to the end of the second year of the same, A.D. 29, ineuntem.

Part IV. Matt. xv.-xxvii. Mark vii.-xv. Luke ix. 18-xxiii.

John vii.-xix. Comprehending the space of twelve months, from the end of the second year of Our Lord's ministry, to the end of the third year, A.D. 30, ineuntem.

Part V. Matt. xxviii. Mark xvi. Luke xxiv. John xx. xxi. Comprehending the forty days from the morning of Our Lord's Resurrection, April 7, to the day of his Ascension, May 16, A.D. 30.

This division, our readers will perceive, is purely chronological, and not founded upon any natural divisions of the subject matter of the Gospels. Part I., which comprehends 31 years, occupies only 13 pages of the Harmony, consisting of the first two chapters of Matthew, and the first three chapters of Luke. Within the compass of this brief introductory portion, however, there occur one or two points of considerable difficulty, as regards the exact arrangement and chronology. Mr. Greswell commences his Harmony with the exordium of Luke's Gospel, as Calvin has done; and, with that commentator, he proceeds regularly as far as ver. 55 of the first chapter; but he then introduces, as parallel to ver. 56, Matt. i. 18-25. He then resumes Luke's narrative to ver. 21 of chap. ii., where he inserts the double genealogy given by the two evangelists; and then continues Luke ii. to ver. 38. The visit of the Magi and the events dependent upon it, Matt. ii. 1-23, are next given; and the part concludes with Luke ii. 40-52. Calvin pursues Luke's narrative to the end of his first chapter, where he introduces the genealogies. He then continues Matthew's Gospel to the end of chap. i.; follows this with Luke ii. 1-21; then gives the visit of the Magi, Matt. ii. 1-12; but interposes Luke ii. 22-39 between that verse and vss. 13-23; and lastly, gives Luke ii. 40-52.

The placing of the genealogies is a point of small moment; but their respective position in the two Gospels is deserving of notice. It would have been unnatural and inappropriate for Luke to commence his history with the genealogy of Christ, the circumstances of whose birth are not adverted to before ver. 26. No good opportunity occurs for introducing it, till, on mentioning the age of Our Lord on entering upon his public ministry, this Evangelist appositely connects with that circumstance, his descent by blood from the royal house of David; tracing his genealogy still upward to Adam, as if to represent him as the promised seed of the Woman, in whom all nations of the earth were alike interested. St. Matthew, on the contrary, could not but affix his transcript of Our Lord's legal genealogy as the heir of David, through the line of Solomon, and the descendant of Abraham, at the very beginning of his Gospel, as one indispensable proof of that which it was his main object to establish, the Messiahship of Jesus; and he connects it immediately with the miraculous circumstances of his birth. It stands there in its appropriate and

only suitable place, in a work written with a specific reference to that object, as a legal document attesting the validity of Our Lord's pretensions as the predicted Son of David, one of the prophetic marks by which he was to be recognized, and a sine quá non, therefore, in the estimation of the Jewish people. In each Gospel, then, the genealogy occupies its proper place; and the transposition required in a harmony, is the first instance of that disadvantageous sacrifice of the natural arrangement to the artificial, which meets us at almost every step. The legal genealogy might, it is true, have been connected by St. Luke, with his account of the reasons which led to Joseph's repairing to Bethlehem, or with the circumcision of Our Lord; instead of which, the fact, that Joseph was of the lineage of David, as proved by St. Matthew, is merely mentioned Luke ii. 4. But the descent of Our Lord from Adam, as given by St. Luke, would have been irrelevant in that connexion, as well as an interruption of the narrative, and is therefore reserved for the place in which it occurs in the text of that Evangelist.

A dissertation is devoted to the apparent discrepancy between the two genealogies, and to some minor critical difficulties, which the reader will consult with advantage. As it was not the custom of the Jews to exhibit the genealogy of females as such, the genealogy of Christ, Mr. Greswell remarks, would not be formally exhibited as his genealogy through Mary, but through her husband, who stood in the same relation to the father of Mary, as Mary herself.

As the natural genealogy of Joseph, distinct from Mary's, was exhibited by St. Matthew as the legal genealogy of Jesus, so, the natural genealogy of Jesus, distinct from Joseph's, is exhibited by St. Luke as the legal genealogy of Joseph. The language of this Evangelist is as much adapted to the support of this conclusion, as the language of St. Matthew to the support of the former. For, first, the words s EvoμLETO, premised to the account, by setting forth Our Lord as the reputed, and not as the actual son of Joseph, do clearly imply that the genealogy which follows, apparently through Joseph, could not be the natural genealogy of both; and, if it was real in respect to either, it could be only imputed in respect to the other. Secondly, his mode of expressing the relation between the successive links, seems purposely chosen to describe an acquired, as well as a natural relation; for it is such as to apply to both. We have but to suppose that Mary was the daughter of Eli, and we assign a reason why the descent of Our Lord, though in reality through Mary, might yet be set forth as apparently through Joseph....It is certain that, as both descended from David, Joseph and Mary were of kin ; and, as both standing at analogous points in the lines of this descent, it is probable that they were the next of kin. If the Jewish records did not recognize Mary, though the daughter of Eli, except as the wife of Joseph, her son, who would appear to be his son, must be described accordingly'. Vol. II. pp. 103, 106.

At the same time, as the political claim to the throne of David and Solomon was vested in the line which terminated in Joseph, it was as his heir, though not his son, that the Son of David through Mary, united in himself every legal right to the temporal kingdom of Israel; so that, when the rulers of the nation delivered up the legitimate King of the Jews' to the Roman power, declaring that they had no other king than Cæsar, they, in that very act, broke the sceptre of Judah, extinguished the last temporal hope of Israel, and unconciously afforded a demonstration that the Shiloh had come. It may be alleged, perhaps, that if Joseph and Mary had children, (a point examined in this same dissertation, and Mr. Greswell inclines to the affirmative,) the eldest would succeed to the legal claims vested in the firstborn of Mary. But, in the first place, the act of the rulers of the nation, supported by the people, renouncing their king, could not be reversed; and secondly, his claims can never terminate or devolve upon a successor, of whom, to adopt the argument and language of an apostolic writer, it is testified that he lives, a perpetual pontiff and a king for ever.

The time of the visit of the Magi is the subject of another erudite dissertation. With regard to its place in the harmonized narrative, it will be seen, that Mr. Greswell introduces that event between ver. 38 and 39 of Luke ii., or after the Presentation; while Calvin supposes it to have taken place before the forty days were accomplished, arguing, that Joseph and Mary could have no motive for returning from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. They had come to the latter city for a specific object, viz. to be registered there, but apparently without any design of making it their abode*. It was so ordered, that the birth of Our Lord should take place there; but, when Mary was able to go up to Jerusalem, there was no obvious reason for their returning to Bethlehem, supposing them to have been registered.

Mr. Greswell infers from the limitation of the massacre to children anо dieтOUS, i. c. as he interprets it, not exceeding thirteen months, that the star' could not have appeared more than thirteen months 'before the arrival of the Magi, though it might have appeared less." We find him, however, afterwards contending, (forgetful of this last admission,) that, if it first appeared at or after the Nativity, the age of Our Lord, at the time of their arrival, could not have 'been less than thirteen months; a conclusion,' he adds, which 'would involve the Gospel chronology in insuperable difficulties." He therefore concludes that the star must have appeared many months before Our Lord's birth. He shews that, according to the rate of travelling in those times, the Magi, if they came from

6

6

* Stultè enim imaginantur fuisse illic domicilium Joseph, ubi adeo ignotus erat ut hospitium nullum invenire potuerit.' Calv. in loco.

Parthia or Bactria, would be four months on the road; and he indulges the conjecture, that the star had appeared nine months before they set out, at the period of the Annunciation. The order of Herod, however, by no means proves that the star had appeared so long as thirteen months before. On the contrary, his sweeping and ruthless edict would doubtless be framed so as to make all sure, by providing against the difficulty of ascertaining the precise age of an infant under a year old; and we may therefore take the age of thirteen months as the extreme. Besides, the order would not be issued till some time had elapsed. Herod would doubtless conclude, at first, that the Magi were prosecuting their search at Bethlehem and in its vicinity; he would expect them not readily to abandon their object; and it would not be till he had actually ascertained their departure out of his dominions, that he would conclude they had found the object of their search, but not returned to inform him of their success. On being convinced of this, his vindictive rage burst forth; a rage not unmixed with jealous misgivings and alarm. But, by that time, days and even weeks might have elapsed, and Joseph and Mary, as well as the Magi, had escaped out of his territories. The Presentation in the Temple might take place in the interval.* Supposing, then, the star to have first appeared at the time of the Nativity, (which seems to us the more natural supposition,) if the Magi set out immediately, and were not quite six weeks on their journey, they might arrive just before or about the time of the Presentation. But if, as Mr. Greswell supposes, their journey would occupy four months, and some delay took place in preparing for it, they could not have reached Jerusalem till Our Lord was five or six months old. In that case, Joseph and Mary must have returned to Bethlehem after the Presentation in the Temple.

6

'If,' says Mr. Greswell, the birth of Our Lord took place at the beginning of April A. U. 750, (B. C. 4,) then it may be rendered presumptively certain' (a strange expression !) that the Magi arrived in Jerusalem at the beginning of the following August; and consequently, in all probability, that the flight into Egypt could not have been delayed much beyond the middle of the same month. The passover was celebrated the next year on Mar. 31, about a fortnight after the death of Herod; and that Herod was dead before the holy family were instructed to return, is indisputably clear. It is a singular fact, that, in the year after his birth, when Christ the True Passover was absent in Egypt, there was, strictly speaking, no passover celebrated

* Dr. Benson supposes it to have taken place between the arrival of the Magi at Jerusalem and their arrival at Bethlehem; and he unreasonably assumes, that Herod sent forth his emissaries the very next morning after the Magi had left him, on not finding them return immediately.