given us the following information on this point: "The Gospel of St. Luke, in particular, is supposed to have been written according to the order of time; because the Evangelist declares in his preface, that he intends to relate every thing in order. But we must not forget, that the order of time is not the only order which an historian may follow. To illustrate this by an example.-The unction of Christ at Bethany took place six days before the Passover: yet St. Matthew relates it after he has advanced with the rest of his history to within two days of the Passover. The reason is, that on this second day before the Passover, Judas offered to the Scribes and Chief Priests to betray Jesus, which resolution he had been induced to form by the rebuke which he had received when Jesus was anointed*. To return, however, to the Gospel by St. Luke, it appears that the word xans implies nothing more than an intention to collect accounts of the several wonders and discourses of Christ; and to form them into one uniform whole †, that is, ανατάξασθαι διηγησιν, as he says of the writers of whom he speaks in the first verse of his Gospel. Now we cannot suppose that those numerous writers composed entirely according to the order of time. Nay, there are some commentators, who go so far as to assert, that of the four Evangelists, St. Luke deviates the most from the order of time whether they are mistaken or not, I shall not, at present, enquire; because the examination of the proofs would take up too much room: but this I will venture to assert, that the word xabins, no more affords an argument against this opinion, than the word. avaτağaclar applied to those who wrote Gospels before St. Luke, would disapprove the assertion, that "these writers deviated more from the order of time than our

* It is not a little remarkable, that the professor himself has informed us, at p. 23, that Matthew has omitted to mention the very circumstance which the professor supposes induced him to make this transposition: he there says, "The account given by St. Matthew, is in some measure obscure, because we do not perceive in what manner the circumtsance of the unction excited in Judas the resolution to betray his

Lord."

We are rather at a loss to comprehend the professor's meaning here, as we cannot recollect where the word xabens occurs in this sense. At p. 23, he seems to have given us a more intelligible explanation of this word, by reminding us that "there is, beside the order of time, another arrangement in history, which may he called the order of things."

four

four Evangelists." It were to be wished, that the professor had expressed himself in a little more coherent manner; his transitions are rather remarkable. At. p. 22, however, he has delivered his sentiments on this point with much greater perspicuity. He there says, "still however, it may be objected, that though St. Matthew and St. Mark have not expressly mentioned the day on which the unction took place at Bethany, they have, at least, assigned to it a place in that part of their narrative, where they were advanced to within two days of the Passover. Now this objection presupposes, that the Evangelists always wrote according to the order of time, which they certainly did not: and if we only make a different division of the chapters, and reckon to the 25th chapter, the two first verses of the 26th, the unction at Bethany, which is related in the following verses, will have less reference to the time specified in those two verses. But at this rate, perhaps, it might be said, the Evangelists have written in a very irregular manner, arranging their facts in an order very different from that in which they really happened; and that an irregularity of this kind is hardly to be expected from an inspired writer. This objection brings the matter to an issue; and the answer which I would make to it is, that beside the order of time, there is another arrangement in history, which may be called the order of things; that is, facts which are connected with each other are arranged together, in order that the relation between cause and effect may be more distinctly seen: and it is this very arrangement which distinguishes the entertaining and instructive historian from the mere annalist." What the professor has here advanced to prove, that the word xabens does not mean strict chronological order, seems to be rather irrelevant. To prove that Luke has not always arranged his materials in exact chronological order, he ought to have produced an instance, wherein this Evangelist ditfers from the other three*; or at least, from the two eyewitnesses.

*The professor has precluded the possibility of doing this, by what he has said in the pages from whence the two preceding extracts are made; and again at p. 37. At p. 10 he says, "One of the most frequent apparent contradictions among the Evangelists relates to the order of time, the same fact being recorded earlier by one than by another. This appearance of disagreement arises from the circumstance, that neither St. Matthew, St. Mark, nor St. Luke, wrote in chronological order." At p. 22 he says, "Now this objection presupposes, that

N 2

the

witnesses. But instead of doing this, he has set himself to shew by an example, that an historian may, for a par ticular reason, instead of relating a circumstance that produced a certain event, at the very juncture of time when it happened, defer mentioning it till he comes to treat of the event itself, in order, as he observes, "that the relation between cause and effect may be more distinctly seen." The example which he has produced to illustrate his meaning, is taken, not from the writings of St. Luke, (for St. Luke has not recorded the unction at Bethany) but from those of St, Matthew. St. Mat thew, he observes, in his account of the unction at Bethany, appears to differ a little from St. John, with regard to the time when it happened; and in order to make an apology for this apparent inaccuracy in St. Matthew (for he does not presume to deny that St. John's report is inaccurate) he has recourse to a conjecture, that Matthew was induced to consider a little anachronism in his Gospel, as a thing that would readily be overlooked by those who desire to contemplate the relation between cause and effect in the most striking point of view. But has St. Matthew taken care to point out this relation to the observation of his reader? Not the least intimation has he given to lead us to suspect, that Judas was the person who found fault with the waste of the ointment. He has neither told us that he was rebuked for so doing, nor that he was so far offended on that, or any other account, as to seek revenge by betraying his Lord. This omission, we perceive, did not escape the observation of the professor, who, a few lines after says, "the account given by St. Matthew is somewhat obscure, because we do not perceive in what manner the circumstance of the unction excited in Judas the resolution to betray his master." Had not St. John supplied us with the cause of Judas's treachery, we should have been, in all probability, entirely ignorant of it. The omission of this circumstance is the more remarkable, as Matthew has re

the Evangelists always wrote according to the order of time, which they certainly did not." At p. 37 he says, "St. Matthew and St. Mark, at least, have totally disregarded chronology."

At p. 312 he mentions this as " a very important circumstance, necessary to be known;" and as being one of two causes that induced St. John to give an account of the supper at Bethany, &c. after the other Evangelists.

lated

lated the transaction at Bethany at large. Instead, then, of rendering it probable that St. Luke could not have meant so much by the word załığns, as some are inclined to think, he has produced an instance of St. Matthew's inattention to chronological arrangement, and of his having omitted to furnish his readers with the true cause of it, and by so doing has rendered it questionable, whether his arrangement is entirely to be depended on in any other instance.

But what has the professor to say more on this subject? At p. 37, the same writer expresses himself thus: "Chronology, and the arrangement of facts according to the order of time, (a matter which St. Matthew and St. Mark, at least, have totally disregarded, and to which the Evangelists in general have paid much less attention than is imagined by those who consider their Gospels as journals), is discernable only in some few passages of the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John. For instance, St. Luke has determined, ch. iii, i. 3, the period at which John the Baptist, who was at that time about 30 years of age, began to preach. Again, from a comparison of ch. 1. 8, with 1 Chron. xxiv. 10, we find that the annunciation of the birth of St. John happened in the fourth month of the Jews, which corresponds nearly to our July; consequently the conception of St. John (which took place soon after the return of Zacharias from his service in the Temple) was in the month of August: whence it appears that John was born in May, and Jesus in October."

The professor, we here perceive, after having premised something concerning chronology, aud the arrangement of facts according to the order of time, has taken care to inform us, as it were obiter, that St. Matthew and St. Mark, at least, have both totally disregarded it; and then proceeds to say, that it is discoverable in only some few passages of the Gospel by St. Luke and St. John. From St. John's gospel he has not produced one instance of such a chronological arrangement; and instead of producing from the Gospel of St. Luke any series of passages in the same sequence as the events which they described happened, as an instance of such arrangement, he has referred us to two solitary passages, so far unconnected with each other, as to relate to events thirty years asunder. Surely he does not mean to say,

that

that it is an instance of chronological arrangement, that St. Luke has not made St. John begin to preach before he was born. If not, why has he produced those two passages concerning John, as instances of chronological arrangement? Had there been any doubt of the Evangelist's having placed the principal heads of his subject in chronological order, it might not have been amiss to endeavour to remove that doubt: but as it is acknowledged on all hauds, that the Evangelist has so far made good his promise of writing xabens, as to place the leading parts of his subject in due order, the instances produced by the professor seem to have been very unnecessary. His concession, then, in favour of St. Luke's attention to chronological arrangement, is scarce worth regarding, as the two instances of it which he has produced are totally irrelevant. And after all, we have no reason to think, that Luke has not made good his promise of writing in strict order; and some reason to think that St. Matthew, as the professor observes, did not always do but we see no reason to think that he was so inatten tive to it as the professor asserts at p. 37.

so;

N the Monthly Magazine for August, 1806, page 31,

IN

is a "Case of Casuistry," as the writer chuses to term it. It is, in fact, an apology for the conduct of Mr. Fellowes, an acknowleged Socinian, in continuing to officiate as a minister in the church of England. Mr. Fellowes, it seems, has been "indirectly called to account for continuing in a church, to many of whose doctrines his book (entitled, A Guide to Immortality) is described as adverse." Now himself, or his counsel for him, in the Monthly Magazine, sets up this sort of defence for his conduct: