viour's day-but, even upon their own shewing, the tribute of the half-shekel might be, and was in fact, paid, at each of the three great feasts. Ter in anno curant de conclavi; in spatio semestri (fifteen days) ante Pascha-in spatio semestri ante Pentecosten-et in spatio semestri ante Scenopegiam: upon which the Commentary of Maimonides is to the following effect: Tempore festi Paschatis publicabatur adducendam oblationem primam de loco propinquiori; et illi, qui remotiores erant, adducerent tempore festi Pentecostis; et illi, qui remotissimi erant, adducerent tempore festi Tabernaculorum. So also Bartenoras. It is plain too from 197 §. 5. that all this tax was never received the year when it might become due; and some of the thirteen chests, into which it was appointed to be received, were expressly reserved for arrears, under the name of sicli

veteres.

The course of events, from this period forward, is to be collected from John vii. 2. and will be found to be regularly carried onwards by him as far as xi. 54: where, in like manner, it will be perceived to be again taken up by Luke ix. 51: by whom, also, it will be carried forward to xviii. 15; where his account will again be finally rejoined by Matt. xix. 13. and Mark x. 13. and, after an interval of almost six months, all will proceed in conjunction (St. John likewise from xi. 55. in its proper place) to the close of the Gospel history. The proof of these positions would evidently be necessary to the completion of our present undertaking; but, as it would anticipate what will come more conveniently hereafter, I cannot now enter upon it. I shall conclude, therefore, this review of our Saviour's ministry, so far as it has yet proceeded, with a general summary of its results.

We have brought down the history of the ministry in Galilee, through a period of nearly two years and six months to the arrival of the third feast of Tabernacles; and the whole of this period we have seen to be so fully

< Exod. xxiii. 15. 17. xxxiv. 23. Deut. xvi. 16. 17.

d Mishna. ii. 184-3

taken up, that we may conclude we possess, in its history, a continuous outline, if not a particular detail, of the course and succession of events. During the first year there was no proof of any chasm in this continuity, except for the interval between the first feast of Tabernacles, and the second feast of the Passover; which, yet, we had apparently good reason to believe was filled up either by a studied privacy, such as the occasion required, or by a stationary abode in Capernaum. During the second year there was no proof of any interruption whatever; it was full of action and employment throughout. The same observation holds good of the first two months of the third: and the remaining four, belonging to the first half of this year, were passed, as before, either in an intentional seclusion, or in a residence, of greater or less continuance, at Capernaum.

In this period upon the whole we have discovered clear evidences of three general, and at least two partial, circuits -the two last of the general, and each of the partial, within the compass of the same year, and the first of the general during the first six months of the year before it. All these were begun originally from Capernaum, and all were terminated finally at Capernaum, and all were confined to the precincts of Galilee. The ministry of our Lord, during the whole of this period, was so strictly limited to Galilee, that, excepting the single occasions when he visited Jerusalem, we have no proof that he was ever out of it: we have no proof that he once crossed the lake before the middle of his second year-nor that he visited Decapolis, Tyre, or Sidon, or journeyed in the dominions of Philip, as such, before the beginning of his third: nor even then expressly and formally for his usual purposes of teaching or preaching, but rather for the sake of privacy and concealment. In like manner we have no proof, at least from the three first Gospels, that he was ever in Peræa, until he is described as passing thither in the course of his last journey to Jerusalem-nor that he was ever in Samaria except on the two occasions, John iv. 4-early in his first year—and Luke ix. 52. late in his third: and as to the occasions

when he was resident in Judæa, or visiting Jerusalem, they have been considered already by themselves.

During the first half of the third year in particular, though it is presumptively certain that, almost the whole of the time, he was constantly journeying from place to place, yet it is also certain that he was not journeying upon a circuit, or, strictly speaking, with a view to the usual functions of his ministry at all: so that we have no proof as yet of any fourth circuit within this period, similar to those which had preceded in the two former years. Different as our Lord's conduct, for thus much of the present year, may, consequently, seem in comparison of his conduct heretofore, it is not more so than in comparison with his conduct for the remainder of this year itself: a circumstance which proves indisputably that he had motives for desiring the concealment of his person, and suspending the course of his ministry, affecting this portion of its duration, but none before or after it.

These motives, it is probable, were twofold; partly to escape from the excitement of the multitude on what had been hitherto the exclusive theatre of his personal agency— lest the accumulated effect of so many wonderful works, combined with their own ardent, but unfounded, hopes and expectations, now grown more enthusiastic than ever, should lead them to some rash act, such as openly casting off the Roman yoke, and declaring Jesus their King— partly to avoid the society of his enemies, the Scribes and Pharisees, who had long been resolved upon his death, and waited only for a favourable opportunity of effecting it. Hence it was that, for a considerable interval of time, he continued to travel in parts where he was comparatively a stranger-and possibly might not be recognized-whither also the Pharisees were not likely to follow him, or, if they did, where they would have less influence than in Galilee or in Judæa. The effect of a protracted absence might be to abate the ardour, and to diminish the expectations, of the common people, on the one hand, and to dispense with the necessity of preserving his life, from the malice and machi

nations of his enemies, by supernatural means, on the other. It was the least of two evils to abstain, for a time, from coming in contact with his adversaries, and exasperating their hostility to its utmost pitch, until the purposes of the divine Providence were ripe for execution, rather than to suffer those purposes to be prematurely accelerated, or to frustrate the ebullitions of sudden violence by actual recourse to miracle. With the last six months, however, of the present year-that is, from the time when this review of his ministry previously has been brought to a close the period was either arrived, or at hand, during which the course of external events, considered as the instrumental or secondary means, by which the same Providence designed to work in the gradual consummation of its own effects, was to be so controlled and accelerated as to terminate naturally in his death. With the arrival of this period, then, the season of temporary precaution or concealment was past, and our Lord had no longer any measures to keep with his enemies and it will be seen accordingly that he again appears in public, even among those whom he had hitherto seemed most to avoid, with more openness, regularity, and boldness, than he had ever assumed before.

DISSERTATION IX.

Comparison of the call of the four Disciples, (Matt. iv. 18 -22. Mark i. 16—20.) and of the miraculous draught of fishes, (Luke v. 1—11.)

THE differences observable between the account of the miraculous draught of fishes, in St. Luke, and the account of the call of the four disciples, Andrew and Peter, James and John, in St. Matthew, or in St. Mark, are the following; which I shall be satisfied with simply laying before the reader-and, after that, shall leave him to decide upon them for himself, whether the occasions, to which these accounts respectively relate, can possibly be both the same.

I. According to St. Mark, Jesus, before the call, was walking by the shore of the sea-according to St. Luke, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret: according to the former he was alone, or, at least, doing nothing at the time -according to the latter there was a multitude about him, which he himself was preparing to teach.

II. According to St. Mark, he never quitted the landaccording to St. Luke, he went on board a ship: according to the former he continued to walk on along the shore-according to the latter, he actually put out to sea.

III. According to St. Mark, both the ships were first seen upon the sea-according to St. Luke, drawn up on the shore according to the former, they were seen one after the other, and in different situations, on the sea-according to the latter, both together, and in the same situation, on the land.

IV. According to St. Mark, Andrew and Simon were seen first in their ship, and then James and John, in their's -according to St. Luke, neither were seen in either—the fishermen had left both the ships: according to St. Mark, Andrew and Simon were seen letting down their net, James and John, preparing to let down their's-according to St.