of a Mon

Bible study. The monotessaron, it might be parenthetically remarked for the benefit of the lexicon-lazy folk, is

uld have put it in one if it had been best that way." This is an argument which would make a heretic of the locomotive, printing-press, and an

ugh four separate individualities, that their differences as well as their agreements may make the picture stand out

or Luke, we more than gain in the increased vividness of the person of Christ. Speaking for one, I may say that through my first ac

the second, now the fifth; the parable of the sower in the thirteenth, fourth, and eighth chapters. Nothing was in a clear, definite relation to the single life. The talk with Nicodemus is now no longer to me an event of John 3, but of the

ke any diatessaron-that is, any parallel arrangement of the four Gospels-and note the wide blanks in each book, filled out by others, so that between contiguous verses of one Gospel must be inserted whole chapters of another, complete journey

e story of Lazarus in John by its insertion in Luke! The contact of these parted elements of the gospel sto

he relative proportion of these elements in the one life. What emphasis did Christ place on the doctrinal, and what on the practical? Just how much of his teaching concerned himself and his character? What space in the New Testament is occupied by mirac

le of easy and rapid answer. Indeed, almost its chief advantage is the spur it affords to the spirit of investiga

elations, and proportions, while the facility it affords is constant inspiration to fresh, delightful study. This is the experience of thousands, and yet I am sure that

of these monotessarons, one the improved edition of an older work. Each of these four has its

sentences and phrases interwoven from other Gospels are preceded by an inconspicuous letter, to designate the book from which they come. This seems to me the ideal plan. There is a table for finding in the monotessaron any verse of any Gospel. There is a very dis

pression of unity and continuity for which the monotessaron is peculiarly valued. No maps. Information as to sources of the combined text is given only by references at the top of the page-an indefinite way. There is a table for finding in the monotessaron any verse of any Gospel. There is a chronological synopsis, but no d

ces of the text and transitions are indicated as in Pittenger's, but not quite so minutely. Places are given at the head of the one hundred and sixty-six sections. T

rty-seven sections, with no section headings, and no indications whatever of times, places, or sources of the various portions of the text. Valuable for reading, but unsat

ll rejoice in them all. Happy times in which we live, wherein the person of Christ is brought with s