because there are but four woes: there could be only four woes, because there were only four beatitudes.

Besides this, is it no symptom of disparity, that the beatitudes in St. Matthew-as far as the ninth-are all indirect, or couched in the form of general gnome-St. Luke's are all direct, and immediately addressed to the disciples? This circumstance alone is sufficient to decide the question; for the very change of manner in the ninth beatitude is a proof that the discourse in St. Matthew had begun, and until then had proceeded, differently. Were this also a proper place to explain either of the sermons particularly, it might be shewn, on the ground of the woe specifically opposed to each beatitude, that the terms πτωχοί, πεινῶντες, κλαίοντες, in the three first beatitudes of St. Luke, must be literally understood-of the really poor, the really hungry, the really mournful and disconsolate, in this life-whereas, it is equally clear that the same terms in St. Matthew are to be figuratively understood; of the poor in spirit-of the hungry and thirsty after righteousness of the sorrow produced by repentance and the sense of sin. These objections would remain, though the beatitudes, and the other particulars of each exordium, so far as they agree together, had all been related alike. It happens, however, that, neither with their order, nor with their enunciation, is this the case; St. Luke's fourth beatitude is St. Matthew's ninth-and, what is still more extraordinary-his second and his third are just the reverse in St. Matthew-that is, what answers to his second comes after what answers to his third-and, as to the language and expressions, they are different in every instance throughout.

A comparison of the conclusions, and of the intermediate parts, would only confirm the same result. But, as it would require the examination of verse by verse, and not merely of paragraph by paragraph, and as the effect would be still the same-the eviction of discrepancies upon discrepancies, affecting not simply omissions, or what would be wanting in one, though supplied by the other, but the arrangement and expression of what they would be found

to relate in common-I may be excused from entering at large upon it.

The sermon in St. Luke exhibits all the evidences of an original, and of an uniform, composition. Its topics are determinate, consistent, and natural-mutually connected together and applicable to the case of the newly-ordained Apostles, as enforcing duties either eminently Christian in themselves, or, in their primary relation, peculiarly incumbent upon them. But there is no such leading idea, no such exclusive reference, predominant in St. Matthew's— one purpose of which (though only to a certain extent, and for a limited portion of the whole) is to reinforce parts of the decalogue-and, therefore, to characterize the teacher more as that original, and independent, Lawgiver, promised by Moses w, and expected by the Jews, than as the Master and Instructor of the Apostles. The tone and manner of the first sermon-the general sentiment-the spirit and character of the former-may, indeed, be discovered in the second both the discourses were manifestly the offspring of the same mind, and there is a family likeness between them. But, as even in the children of the same parents, or members of the same family in common, the individuating characters of each are not so indistinct or imperceptible as to allow of our confounding them together. I have judged it best, therefore, to disturb the position of neither-but to leave each where it stands upon record. It is an additional reason for coming to this determination, that though the business of teaching the people as such must have been our Saviour's regular employment, if any thing was so, yet, in all the Gospels put together these two are the only occasions upon which we have the least account in detail of what he taught—and to confound these two together, or to suppose the occasions identical, would, manifestly, be little desirable.

w Deut. xviii. 15-19.

DISSERTATION XII.

On the beginning to teach in Parables, and on the time and place of their interpretation.

UPON the particular exposition of the parables, which were now delivered, it would manifestly be improper to enter in the present work; nor shall I notice the subject of the Gospel narrative, in this portion of the whole, further than as concerns the business of a harmony-the consideration of a certain historical difficulty-with respect to which there exists some degree of perplexity, and which, to say the least of that degree of perplexity, no harmony ought to pass over (as most of those with which I am acquainted have, nevertheless, passed over) unexplained.

With regard to the time, or the manner, of this beginning to teach in parables, as well as to the order of succession, in which these first of the number were pronounced, there is little or no difficulty. On each of these points the testimony of the several Evangelists, is either obviously consistent, or easily to be reconciled together. Thus much, however, is distinctly implied by the express words of St. Matthew and St. Mark-and not called in question merely by the silence of St. Luke-that our Lord began to teach in parables, for the first time, upon this occasion; and, consequently, that he had never delivered a parable before: a conclusion, which the course and succession of the Gospelhistory hitherto must of itself confirm. There is no parable, nor any vestige of a parable, like those which were now pronounced, and those which are seen to have been pronounced hereafter, to be met with in it. The word, Tagaßon, it is true, may occur-but, wherever this is the case, it stands for a very different thing from what we consider to be meant by a parable: as, if I thought it necessary, I could very plainly demonstrate.

It is agreed, also, that when our Lord began thus to

teach in parables, it was upon the shore of the lake of Capernaum-to which he had repaired on purpose-and sitting on board a small vessel, at some distance, indeed, from the land, but not so far as to be out of the hearing of the people. This, we have often seen, was his familiar practice, when in the vicinity of the lake; or when he would avoid the pressure of the multitude. And hence, perhaps, it is that, speaking of the ship in question, both the Evangelists make use of the article-meaning probably the very ship, which had been appointed a to attend upon him, and to be ready for such services as these, when he was last in the neighbourhood of the lake.

The difficulty, to which I allude, concerns the time and manner of delivering those interpretations of two of the present parables-the seed, and the tares-which Jesus is perceived to have vouchsafed at the request of his disciples. It must be evident from Matt. xiii. 36. that the interpretation of the latter could neither have been asked, nor have been conceded, before the dismissal of the multitude, and the return of our Lord to Capernaum. This interpretation, therefore, as well as the request which produced it, must have been posterior to the day's teaching in public; or strictly a part of what afterwards took place in private. But the interpretation of the former parable St. Matthew himself interposes, before he recounts the second—and the other two Evangelists-whether they record any more parables than the first, or not-yet subjoin the explanation of the first, before they proceed to the next. This interpretation, too, was produced by a request of the disciples—yet the fact of such a request does not appear from St. Matthew -it is supplied by St. Mark and St. Luke alone.

The question, then, which we have to consider, amounts substantially to this—whether the request, which produced the exposition of the parable of the sower, was preferred and answered on the spot-or, like that which produced the interpretation of the parable of the tares, was preferred and answered, after our Lord had returned into private.

a Mark iii. 9.

And here, as we have frequently had occasion to observe, the testimony of the less explicit, the less circumstantial, the less positive, among the Evangelists, it is just and reasonable, should be estimated altogether in conformity to the testimony of the more so.

Now, at the close of St. Mark's account of this day's teaching, we meet with the following observation b, which does not occur in either of the other two: And in many such parables spake he the word unto them; so as they were able to hear him: but, without a parable, spake he not unto them in private, however, he expounded every thing to his own disciples. This statement must be understood to affirm that, for that day, and while he was still in public, Jesus spoke in nothing but parables-taking care only that what he himself pronounced aloud, from the ship and the sea, might be heard by the people on the shore: but that, when the day's teaching was over, and the people had been dismissed, he explained to his disciples what he had been teaching.

There is nothing, it is true, said about the disciples requesting this explanation-but neither is any thing said to the contrary: and, with regard to the fact of any explanation, the mention of this further circumstance was clearly unimportant. There was one parable, also, the last on record, which he did certainly interpret of his own accord; and, upon the authority of this assurance of St. Mark's, whether the interpretations of more were requested, or not, we should be bound to believe they were given. The great point of distinction, which the Evangelist would impress upon us, is the marked difference of our Saviour's conduct, in respect to the same thing, the understanding of his parables, towards the people in general, and his disciples in particular. He explained to the one what he had disguised from the other—that is, he conceded a special favour and indulgence to the one, but denied them to the other. Now the parables had been pronounced, at first, in the hearing of the disciples, as well as of the multitude; and they had

b iv. 33.34.