from the pinnacle of the temple, as it does not lie in the natural course of things, would be merely prodigious; lastly, never, though the greatest immediate advantage were by that means attainable, to enter into fellowship with the wicked, and still less into a state of dependence upon them; and Christ could not express himself more strongly against the opposite mode of conduct than by ascribing it to Satan. That we find in this passage such a compendium of wisdom adapted to the Messiah and his apostles, and that it is precisely the developement of Satan's thoughts which is placed in the strongest relief, while the answer is kept in the back ground, renders this view of the subject highly probable. In such a sense then Christ delivered this parable to his disciples; for that one of the apostles should have invented it in the same sense, is less likely."-Pp. 57, 58.

From ch. iv. 31, to ch. vii. 10, Dr. S. observes, that we have a number of narratives all derived from Capernaum or its neighbourhood, and as they bear the marks of their original independence in their conclusions, their frequent repetition of phrases respecting the growing reputation of Christ, and their abrupt commencements, while the first half contains chiefly miracles, and the latter half chiefly discourses, he conjectures that we have here collections made by two inquirers, one of whom exerted himself to obtain, in the vicinity of Capernaum, remarkable actions of our Lord, the other remarkable sayings. In their present arrangement, however, he thinks the order of chronology is violated, as it would have been impossible that the miraculous draught of fishes (ch. v. 1-11) should have produced such an effect on Peter's mind, had he previously witnessed the cure of his wife's mother (ch. iv. 38-44). And he argues, that Luke cannot have been himself the author of these narratives, as he would in that case not have introduced so important a personage as Peter, without any especial notice. The account of the dispute between our Saviour and the Pharisees, occasioned by his feasting with publicans, he considers not to have taken place at the banquet given by Levi, (ch. v. 27,) where the Pharisees would hardly be present, but after our Saviour had left Levi's house; and he ingeniously vindicates Luke's subjoining the remark respecting new wine, which is wanting in the parallel passage in Matthew ix. 17 (ver. 39), "No man having drank old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith The old is better." To most readers this addition seems to have no connexion in argument with the preceding remark, about putting new wine into old bottles; and they have supposed that, from the mention of wine in both, Luke had placed the latter in a connexion in which it did not originally stand. Dr. S., however, observes,

"I would moreover vindicate our narrative with respect to the last addition, verse 39, and remark, that it need not be supposed to have been borrowed from another place, and only added here by an injudicious second hand. For it is not so much at variance with the mode in which the preceding figures of like nature are applied, to deprecate all intermixture of the new spirit with the old and with ancient forms. Old wine, it is true, is every where preferred, like old familiar usages, but at the same time we are not here, where the wine alluded to is a common light wine which never lasts many years, and the growth of a country not particularly distinguished for its wines, to think of our high estimation of old rich wines in comparison with the new and rough. The old wine is indeed preferred, but this is no reason why a later vintage may not be more generous and of greater strength, and this was what Jesus meant of his doctrine and his spirit. And in this sense it is a softening addition; he would not take it ill that they did not yet like this new wine, but as usual held the old the better; the value of the new was to be proved by the taste, and the relish for it could only gain upon them by degrees."-P. 84.

If this had really been the meaning, would not our Lord have said, "But by and bye he saith The new is better?" As it now stands, it wants the very words which, according to Schleiermacher's view, contain the whole gist of the argument. The remainder of the collection of our Lord's actions and discourses in the neighbourhood of Capernaum is chiefly occupied by the sermon on the mount. Our author thinks that this celebrated discourse was not addressed peculiarly to the future teachers of his religion, (p. 89,) but to the company of his disciples generally, and even doubts, upon grounds of which we cannot discern the validity, whether the Evangelist meant to represent Christ as on this occasion choosing his twelve apostles, or whether he, indeed, ever formally and specifically designated twelve to this office.

From ch. vii. 10, to ix. 51, according to our author, we have another collection, evidently of passages which were once distinct, ch. vii. 11—51, viii. 1—22, ix. 1, and thence another to ix. 45. The next verses are a little appendage, and at ver. 51 begins the third main division of the gospel. Whatever foundation there may be for these separations, we think he is right in saying, that the motive for placing the incidents, ch. vii. 11-50, together, has been the message of John and our Lord's discourse in consequence of it. The raising of the widow's son precedes, to justify the expoì típortas of our Lord's reply; the discourse with Simon, to explain the origin of the charge, píños dμaftwày, ch. vii. 34. Contrary, however, to his usual custom, Dr. S. prefers the account of the mission of John's disciples in Matthew to that in Luke, and even thinks it possible that our Saviour may have spoken of the blind seeing and the dead being raised only in a figurative sense, though he admits that the reporter of his words has evidently understood them literally. In the interposed words of the narrator, (ch. vii. 29, 30,) declaring the belief of the people in John, and the unbelief of the Pharisees and lawyers, he finds a proof, that the author of the passage cannot be the same as be who had already given us an account of John's baptism, and who would not now have repeated it: but might it not with just as much probability be said, that the writer is the same, because he here corrects the apparent inconsistency of his former account with our Saviour's reproach of unbelief in him, by mentioning, what he has not said there, that the Scribes and Pharisees were not baptized? The occurrence in Simon's house, (ch. vii. 36-39,) Dr. S. thinks is the same with that recorded Matt. xxvi. 6-13, and as no time or place is mentioned in Luke, we feel no difficulty in adopting this opinion; but that it should also be, as he thinks, the same incident mentioned John xii. 1-8, implies a scarcely conceivable misapprehension on the part of the reporter in Luke. The answer of our Lord (ch. viii. 21) to those who announced to him his mother and his brethren, which Matthew (ch. xii. 46) introduces, without any obvious connexion, and Mark refers (ch iii. 31) to their opinion of his being beside himself, our author thinks most naturally explained by his pointing to those who had left their homes to accompany him on the journey mentioned ch. viii. 1, and especially the women who had ministered to him of their substance. We have not room even for an abstract of the minute and curious analysis of the narrative, ch. viii. 22-56, from a comparison of which, with the other evangelists, he infers, that it was derived from the lips of one of the three apostles, but one who was not present at the healing of the demoniac, having remained with the boat, when Jesus and the others landed in the territory of the Gadarenes. In the ninth chapter he connects the retirement of Christ (ver. 10) with the excitement of Herod's curiosity, mentioned in the preceding verse; and the question, "Who do the multitudes say that I ani ?" (ver. 18,) not

to the people who had just been fed, but to those with whose sentiments the apostles had become acquainted on their recent mission; observing that, according to John, (ch. vi. 1,) the multitude who had just been fed were so far from thinking him Elias, or John the Baptist, or one of the ancient prophets, that they wished to make him a king, a plain proof that they believed him to be the Messiah. He proceeds also to question even the existence of more than one miraculous feeding, supposing the second to have originated from Matthew's having before him two accounts of the same transaction. Admitting this, however, what shall we make of Matt. xvi. 9, 10, where our Lord expressly alludes to a separate feeding of the 4000 and of the 5000 ? It is one thing to allow that different evangelists have related the same thing. with slight variations, and to abandon as arbitrary the proceeding adopted by the older harmonists, who repeated events at pleasure, to avoid the appearance of contradiction; it is another to suppose that an apostle could be misled by documents respecting an event which he must have remembered, and could impute words to his Master, which he can never have uttered, had only one feeding taken place. This is not the only instance from which we infer that Dr. S., though he speaks of Matthew as an evangelist, entertains some views which he has not clearly stated respecting the composition of his Gospel in its present form,

Third division, from ix. 51, to xix. 48. The different character of this portion must be obvious to every reader; and, as here all appearance of a common document is lost, from the absence of all similarity between Luke and the other evangelists, modern critics have considered this as a gnomology or collection of our Lord's discourses, (ending at ch. xviii. 14,) which Luke having found, inserted in his book as it was. Schleiermacher controverts this opinion, p. 167, observing that it contains too many facts for a gnomology; and he proceeds, agreeably to the plan which he has hitherto pursued, to separate it into what he regards as its original elements. The first opinion which would suggest itself, he thinks, is that of a journal of our Saviour's last visit to Jerusalem, with which ch. ix. 51 begins, not every where, indeed, marking his progress from town to town, but introducing many things which occurred on the way, without specification of time or place. To this, however, he admits that an obvious objection occurs from the circumstance, that the beginning relates to a departure from Galilee, and that at the last Passoover, as we know from John, Christ did not come from Galilee to Jerusalem: and he endeavours to explain this, by supposing that portions of two journals have been here combined by some one who was not aware that another stay at Jerusalem had intervened between the departure from Galilee and the last Passover. Luke, he thinks, found these two journals already so united, and inserted them in this state into his work. He observes, that in this portion the appellation of κύριε is given to our Lord, instead of ἐπιςάτα οι διδάσκαλε, which prevails in the preceding part. The distribution of these words in the Gospels is attended with some curious phenomena. The use of 'ÁTYS is peculiar to the Gospel of Luke, and with one exception (ch. xvii. 13) to the earlier division of it; while in the Gospel of John, kupie is the ordinary compellation of our Saviour, and he is never addressed with didáonade, (we except, of course, the passages in which it is subjoined as an interpretation, ch. i. 39, xx. 16,) but in the narrative of the woman taken in adultery. This seems to point at a later origin of that part of Luke's Gospel in which the title Kuple prevails, when Kupios, having become the appellation of our Lord among his followers, as we see in the book of Acts, would naturally be substituted in the accounts of his ministry. Many things are

found in this third division of Luke's Gospel, which are wanting in the others; and many are related in a very different connexion by him and by Matthew, so as materially to alter their import. Instead of adverting to the manner in which Schleiermacher endeavours to separate the history into its originally distinct elements, we shall select from this part some examples of his reasons for preferring the connexion assigned by Luke to that which we find in Matthew. Speaking of the Lord's Prayer, (Luke xi. 1-13,) introduced by Matthew into the Sermon on the Mount, he observes,

"Under circumstances like those in which the disciples met Christ on the Mount, the throng of people who were expecting Christ behind them, and close to them the numerous sick who desired to be healed, such a request would scarcely occur to them; still less if at that time the choice of the Twelve was at hand. What answer could they expect but to be put off to a more favourable opportunity? And how little would he have satisfied their wishes if he had afterwards delivered this form to that great and very mixed multitude! Indeed, how little natural and appropriate does this seem upon closer examination in itself! So that I have no doubt that this prayer was only inserted in the Sermon on the Mount by one who possessed only the prayer, without the account of the place and time of its first communication. The occasion here mentioned is highly natural, and hence our shorter form of the prayer should probably be considered as the original, an opinion which of course is not meant to prejudice the use of the longer in public worship. Nor can I persuade myself that Christ's subsequent discourse, xi. 5-13, does not belong to this place, but was spoken on another occasion. The part of it which appears in Matthew vii. 7-11, is there evidently destitute of all coherence. Even here the expression xayw iμiv λéyw at verse 9 indicates a chasm, nor is the phrase кal ɛlæɛ πpdg avтous, verse 5, by any means a proof that the following words of Christ were spoken immediately after the Lord's Prayer; on the contrary it is more credible that Jesus had given several more circumstantial illustrations of the prayer, which have not been recorded, before he came to this easily remembered parable, and so again in the sequel. Still the reference of both passages to the Lord's Prayer is too clear to be mistaken. For one whose conception of the thought is not disturbed by the anthropopathic figure, the parable, verses 5-8, certainly contains a fine encouragement to perseverance and confidence in prayer, and in all active exertions in behalf of the kingdom of God, according to the means which every one has of prosecuting them in particular cases to the best of his conviction. In the same way, much as the second passage, verses 9-13, when torn as it is in Matthew out of the context, stands in need of explanation to prevent it from being misunderstood, yet confining our thoughts to the objects of petition and entreaty presented in the Lord's Prayer we readily and easily accept the assurance, that God, in respect to his kingdom, will certainly not bestow on us useless and unavailing instead of really indispensable, and pernicious instead of desirable gifts. And together with this strong general assurance the passage contains a no less striking inducement to restrain too confident expectations in respect to more specific desires. Hence, too, the whole returns to the one thing needful, the

μa ay, to which all the petitions of the Lord's Prayer likewise point. But in Matthew, where the speech is torn out of the context, this reference is unavoidably lost, and an equivocal expression substituted."-Pp. 181-183.

By Tνeμa ayν, we must understand our author to mean the spirit of the gospel, not miraculous gifts; otherwise it is difficult to see in what sense he represents all the petitions of the Lord's Prayer as having a reference to it. In his comment on ch. xi. 37-54, he observes, that the charges against the Pharisees, immediately following a charge made by one of them against our Lord for not practising ablution, previous to the morning meal, are much more naturally connected with the circumstances, (especially the mention of

the cup and plate, and the small herbs, which probably made part of the repast,) than in Matthew, (ch. xxiii. 25,) where these comparatively trifling accusations follow charges of a much graver kind (ver. 14 and following). In Luke, Christ appears to have said nothing against the teachers of the law, till one of them (ch. xi. 45) put himself forward to identify himself with the Pharisees; in Matthew they are included in those charges which, as addressed to them, who were in part Sadducees, and not particularly attentive to ceremonial trifles, are not well-founded. It might also have been observed, that the passage respecting the straining the gnat out of the liquor, which Matthew (ch. xxiii. 24) has preserved, though Luke has dropped it, is derived from the meal, and makes part of the same train of allusion, as the cleansing the cup, and giving tithe of the esculent herbs. The discourse, ch. xii. 1, issues, as Dr. S. observes, entirely out of the circumstances narrated at the close of the preceding chapter, and Christ's exhortations to his disciples, not to fear the malice of their enemies, were designed to remove those fears which the machinations of the Pharisees (ch. xi. 54) might have excited. From this connexion, too, is explained the passage respecting" blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

"Even of the declaration at xii. 10, certainly a very difficult one, I should be inclined to maintain that it belongs to this context much rather than to that in which Matthew has recorded it, at xii. 31, 32. For there the μa Oɛou had been mentioned as the divine power by which Christ cast out the unclean spirits; and I do not very well see how, in this precise sense, the blasphemy against the Son-which must there have been understood principally of the assertion that he himself had a devil-could be distinguished from the blasphemy against the Spirit, and both be in some degree contrasted with each other. Here, on the other hand, the εμa yov is the Divine Power which was at a future time to animate and direct the disciples in the propagation and defence of the Gospel; and the contrast may be conceived in this way, If any man now resists the Son, the consequences of his sin may still be removed from him; but whoever shall in future also blaspheme the power of the Spirit, whose operations will be more rapid and forcible, will have no means of salvation left. And in this sense this language was perfectly appropriate to the occasion and calculated to encourage the disciples. Whereas in Matthew, chap. xii., the 31st verse, indeed, may belong to his context, but the 32nd is quite foreign to it and seems to have been transferred to that passage from this in our Gospel. It remains to be observed, that this whole discourse can have been delivered only at a time when Jesus had already predicted his sufferings and when they were near at hand."-Pp. 194, 195.

The same course is pursued through the remainder of the chapter, and it is shewn how, after delivering the parable against confidence in riches, occasioned by the request that he would interfere in the division of an inheritance, our Lord, following the train of thought thus excited, and yet reverting to the peculiar situation of his own disciples, warns them (ch. xii. 22) against undue anxiety about wealth, and exhorts them to watchfulness. But we think he has rather imagined than discovered a connexion between vers. 53 and 54, when he supposes that an alleged ignorance of the signs of the times is the plea for the division of sentiment previously spoken of. Here the connexion of Matthew (ch. xvi. 2) appears more natural. It is also only by a very forced interpretation, explaining & οἶκος ὑμῶν ἀφίεται, (Luke xiii. 34,) of our Lord's intention to quit Galilee, (p. 205,) that the insertion of these words where we find them is justified; and even then another supposition is necessary, that the exclamation, "Ó Jerusalem, Jerusalem !" is an interpolation from Matthew. The series of discourses and parables