conclude that the two Evangelists here relate two diffe rent things. This is however attended with the following difficulty, that both St. Matthew and St. Luke immediately after the answer above quoted, agree likewise in another answer given by Christ to a young man, who was going to bury his father. This case is so extraordinary that I cannot suppose it to have happened twice; and I can account for the difficulty in no other manner, than by supposing that the two Evangelists introduced, on two different occasions the conversation of Christ with this disciple, because each occasion suggested its introduction. They relate in what manner Christ rejected, or invited disciples, or put them to the test, though the instances, which they produce in the same place, happened at times distant from each other 1o

SECTION III.

Rules to be observed in making an Harmony of the Gospels.

THE following are the principal rules, which are necessary to be observed in comparing the Evangelists with each other'.

1. As the Evangelists have not written journals, we must not consider it as a contradiction, if the same transaction be related by the one earlier or later than it is related by the other, provided the time be not expressly determined by both, so as to be incapable of a reconciliation.

2. Since divine inspiration does not produce omniscience, it is possible, even if we admit that all four Evangelists were inspired, that some circumstances of a fact were unknown to one, which were known to another. From this want of knowledge arises an apparent contradiction, which ought not to be considered

*

• Matth. viii. 21, 22. Luke ix. 59, 60.

as a real one. If we set inspiration aside, and consider the Evangelists simply as human historians of credit and veracity, the rule is still more applicable. For instance, Christ embarked in a vessel, and rebuked the wind, in the evening of the same day, on which he had delivered the parable of the sower and the seed. This appears from Mark iv. 35. And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.' But this circumstance was unknown to St. Luke, who knew only that these two transactions were at no great distance from each other, and wrote therefore, ch. viii. 22. Now it came to pass on a certain day that he went into a ship with his disciples.' This is no more a contradiction, than if one of two witnes ses to the same fact should testify that it happened in the Christmas-week and the other on the twenty-fiftli of December. Again, St. Luke appears not to have known on what occasion the words which he has re corded, ch. xvii. 1-4, were uttered by Christ; instead therefore of relating them in the place, to which they really belong, namely after ch. ix. 46-50, he has ar ranged them among several scattered fragments relating to Christ. St. Matthew and St. Mark on the contrary have assigned to them their proper place, where they receive more light, especially as related by the latter. A third instance, in which St. Luke was unacquainted with the time at which a transaction happened is ch. xx. 1, where he says, And it came to pass, on one of those days: but St. Matthew and St. Mark have determined the time more precisely, though a contradiction appears to have taken place in their accounts which the present room does not allow me to examine. Likewise the occasion which gave birth to the prophecy of Christ, respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, appears to have been more imperfectly known to St. Luke, than to the other Evangelists: but that even Prophets may be deficient in knowledge, and that the

▸ Matth. xviii. 1–20. Mark ix. 33-50.·

See ch. xxi. 5.

A

Apostles never pretended to be omniscient is evident from various passages of the New Testament'.

3. Two or more relations may be very similar, and yet not the same: these must be carefully distinguished from each other. For instance, the anointing of Christ Luke vii. and Matth. xxvi. are manifestly different facts, though they so far agree that both happened at table, and in the house of one named Simon. But that the anointing happened at table is by no means a remarkable circunstance, since it was agreeable to the common custom of the ancients and with respect to the other circumstances, they are all different.

4. In the arrangement of the several facts attention must be paid to those passages, in which the Evangelists expressly determine the time, by saying, 'on that day,' in the evening,' on the following day,' and the like. But we must be careful not to take for a determination of time, what really is not.

5. The same discourse, such as the sermon on the mount, may have been delivered more than once, in order to impress the doctrines, which it contained, on those who were not present, when it was first pro→ nounced. But whether any particular discourse actu ally was delivered more than once, must be determined by the circumstances which precede and follow it and in those cases only, where these circumstances are dif ferent, it is allowable to conclude that the discourse was pronounced at different times.

The rules, which I have here given, are in themselves so clear, that every reader, without further explanation, will probably assent to them. The principal difficulty consists in the application, since even those, who agree in the principles, very frequently differ in the use of them. The following instance may serve to shew the manner, in which I would apply the rules in question. The Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark' have related, that Christ was anointed in the week preceding his death,

See Mark xiii. 32. 1 Cor. i. 16. 2 Cor. xii, 2, 3.

* Ch. xxvi. 6-13.

Ch. xiv. 3-9.

and all the commentators are agreed that both of them mean the same unction. St. John likewise" relates that Christ was anointed in the same week, and the unction, which he describes, is in my opinion the very same with that, which St. Matthew and St. Mark have recorded, but according to others it was totally different, and happened four days earlier. Now that two different unctions happened twice in the same week with the same circumstances, is more than I am able to believe. Should any one relate so circumstantial an event as having happened to himself, and differ in his account with respect to the day on which it took place, I should certainly take the liberty to observe that he was guilty of a contradiction: and if, in defending himself from the charge of an inconsistency, he should contend that it happened twice in the same week, I should certainly conclude that he transgressed the bounds of truth. The two unctions above-mentioned, if we can consider as two, what I believe to be one, agree in the following circum

stances +

1. Both happened at Bethany.

2. In both cases Jesus was anointed not by his host, but by a woman. However as Christ was frequently at Bethany, these circumstances are not so very remarkable.

3. Both unctions took place, as I shall prove in the sequel, not in the house of Lazarus, the friend of Jesus, where we might soonest expect him, but in another house.

4. Both happened in the last week, before the suffering of Christ.

5. In both cases the ointment was so expensive, that the unction had the appearance of profusion.

6. In both cases we meet with the remarkable circumstance, that the ointment was not purchased for the purpose, to which it was applied, but that it had been. preserved for some time by the person, who used it:

for the disciples were offended that the ointment was not sold, and the money given to the poor, and in the account, which is given by St. John ", it is expressly said by Jesus, Against the day of my burying hath she kept this. One might almost conjecture that it was the remainder of the ointment, which Martha and Mary had purchased for the funeral of Lazarus: the thought presents itself at least, on reading St. John's description, as not improbable.

7. In both cases the unction is censured by the disciples.

8. In both cases the ground of censure is the same. 9. In both cases the unction is defended by Jesus, and the same answer given to the disciples.

10. The expression vapdos sin, which is not only very unusual and therefore obscure, but occurs in not a single instance either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, except on this occasion, is used both by St. Mark, and by St. John; the ointment therefore used in both cases was strictly the same.

These circumstances are too numerous and too particular, to have happened twice; not to mention the improbability, that the disciples, after having been rebuked by Jesus six days before Easter, for having censured the unction, should presume to repeat their censure on a similar occasion, on the second day before Easter. For it contained a manifest incivility to Jesus himself, which they must have very sensibly felt, when he answered them, 'The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always, and of which therefore they would have hardly been guilty only four days afterwards.

In the two accounts, which are given by St. Matthew and St. John, I perceive not the least variation, except that in some points the one is more copious than the other; but their descriptions are so far from being in-. consistent, that they have all the appearance of proceeding from two different eve-witnesses to the same fact. * John xii. 8.

* Ch. xi. 7