answer therefore of Jesus affected Judas in particular,' whose guilty conscience augmented the severity of the rebuke. Under these circumstances it is by no means. extraordinary that Judas resolved to take revenge, especially when we consider that he was already an apostate, and thought perhaps that, if contrary to his belief, Jesus was really the Messiah, the measures concerted against him would be of no avail, but that on the other hand, if Jesus was an impostor, he would meet with the fate which he deserved. It appears then that the unction at Bethany, which gave rise to the offer of Judas to the Sanhedrim to betray Christ, is more properly arranged immediately before the relation of the effect which it produced, than it would have been, if placed at the beginning of the twenty-first chapter, to which it properly belongs according to the order of time.

The preceding example must suffice for the present, since if I examined other parts of the Evangelic history in the same manner, I should compose an Harmony of the Gospels, instead of writing a general introduction to the New Testament.

Sometimes a contradiction may be removed by the help of a various reading, of which I have given an instance" in my History of the Resurrection, taken from Matth. xxvii. 60. Of the aid of critical conjecture in removing contradictions I have given an example in this Introduction', from John vi. 21. Lastly, it is not improbable that some of the contradictions observable in St. Matthew's Gospel, did not proceed from the author himself, but from the person who translated it from Hebrew into Greek.

John vi. 67-71.

f Vol. II. Ch. x. Sect. 4.

e P. 43-46.

SECTION IV.

Of the inference to be deduced from the supposition, that real contradictions exist in the four Gospels.

If it can be shewn, that real contradictions, that is, such as are wholly incapable of a reconciliation, exist in the four Gospels, the only inference to be deduced is, that the writers were not infallible, or in other words, not inspired by the Deity; but we are by no means warranted to conclude, because the historians vary in their accounts, that the history itself is a forgery. I have treated this subject at large in the Preface to the History of the Resurrection ; at present, therefore, I shall only remark what deserves particular notice.

When several persons relate the same story, it is hardly possible, even if they were eye-witnesses to the transaction which they record, and still less so if they received their information from others, to coincide exactly in their accounts, since the same circumstances will either not be observed or not be remembered by all. Yet if they all agreed in the main point, no one would conclude that the whole story was a forgery, merely because the persons, who related it, disagreed in some of the concomitant circumstances. An inference of

this kind would convert the most valuable histories into fabulous legends.

When two Prussian officers, who served during the seven years war, from 1756 to 1763, relate the transactions of that memorable period, each of them is guilty of some mistakes, especially in regard to dates and numbers, of which the unavoidable consequence is, that they will contradict each other. If we read Lloyd's and Templehoff's History of this war, we shall find not only that they contradict each other, but that both of the frequently contradict the official intelligence printed in the Berlin Gazette. I will mention as an justance the battle of Prague, in which Lloyd has

P. xviii.-lviii'.

made the list of killed and wounded on the part of the Austrians so very inconsiderable, as to be almost incredible, when we consider the important consequences, to which that engagement immediately led. Yet no one would therefore conclude, either that the seven years war in general, or the battle of Prague in particular, was a mere fable. Whoever has examined the sources of the Roman history, not barely with a view of learning a dead language, but with the eye of a critical historian, must have observed many contradictions, which no art can possibly reconcile. The battle of Pharsalia, for instance, is described by Florus in a manner very different from that, in which it is described by Cæsar: for in their accounts of the number of the combatants, which entered the field on both sides, there is a difference of not less than an hundred and fifty thousand. Yet no man would therefore contend that the battle of Pharsalia, which determined the fate of the world, was a mere fable. It is the same with the Grecian history, even in the most enlightened ages, as appears from the contradictions in the accounts which we read of the expedition of Xerxes, and the strength of his army. The history of the celebrated Judas Maccabæus, as related in the first book of the Maccabees, a work written at the same time when Judas himself lived, differs frequently from the same history as related in the second book of the Maccabees, and sometimes from the accounts of Josephus. Nay, what is still more, we find Josephus contradicting even himself, when we compare his Antiquities with his History of the Jewish war. I mention Josephus in particular, as an author in whose writings contradictions are to be found, because I can refer, in support of my assertion, to my notes to the first book of the Maccabees, in which many of those contradictions are noted.

If the four Evangelists were not rendered infallible by the immediate intervention of the Deity, it is hardly possible, that their accounts should be wholly free from error, and therefore in no case contradictory to each

other. But even if it be true, that their accounts are sometimes at variance, it by no means follows, that the history itself, the miracles and the resurrection of Christ are a forgery: and the only inference, which we can deduce from it, is that the Evangelists were not inspired; at least not in the relation of historical facts. I have already observed in this Introduction", as well as in my History of the Resurrection, that a concession of this kind is no injury to the Christian religion: to two of the Evangelists, Mark and Luke, the promise of the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, which was given by Christ to the Apostles, is wholly inapplicable, and I have freely confessed in the first volume of this work, that I can see no proof of their having been inspired. St. Matthew and St. John were, it is true, Apostles; but shall we therefore conclude that they were inspired in matters of history? The passage which I quoted in the chapter on Inspiration from John xiv. 26. "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," contains a promise of assistance from the Holy Ghost, and of the infallibility arising from that assistance, merely in respect to the speeches and discourses of Christ, which form the primary source of our religious faith and knowledge: but it contains no promise, at least none in direct and positive terms, of any supernatural aid in the recording of facts, which they had either seen themselves, or heard from others. To speak the truth, I do not believe that the Evangelists were divinely inspired in matters of history: I have made this declaration already in the second edition of my Dogmatic Theology', where I have given the grounds of my opinion, which it is here unnecessary to transcribe. This opinion by no means impugns the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, as delivered in the Symbolic Books, though it is contrary to the tenets

h Vol. I. ch. iii. sect. 1.

Ch. iii. sect. 3.

i

P. XXXV.

'P. 125, 126.

which are advanced in many of our systems of divinity.

Are there really contradictions then, it may be asked, in the four Gospels, which are utterly incapable of being reconciled? I will not positively and decided y assert that there are, because, as every assertion requires proof, I should be under the necessity of examining at each particular example the various arguments, which have been alleged both for and against the question, which would give rise to a disquisition too long for the present place. I will only say, therefore, it appears to me, that there are such contradictions; but their number is very inconsiderable, and indeed much more inconsiderable, than in proportion to the variety of matter in the four Gospels we might reasonably expect. I will mention a single instance, the account of the blind Bartimeus at Jericho, related Matth. xx. 29-34. Mark x. 46-52. Luke xviii. 35-43. I find no contradiction in the circumstance, that St. Matthew, who was eye-witness to the transaction, speaks of two blind persons, St. Mark and St. Luke on the contrary of only one, who by St. Mark is called Bartimeus: since it is possible that two blind persons on that occasion received their sight, that both of them were known to St. Matthew, who was present at the time, but that only one of them was known to St. Mark and St. Luke, who were not eye-witnesses to the fact. So far then the accounts are not contradictory, and all that can be said is, that one Evangelist has related less than is related by the other, because he was not omniscient, and therefore did not know all that happened. But when St. Matthew and St. Mark, of whom the former was eye-witness, relate that the miracle was performed by Christ as he went out of Jericho,' St. Luke on the contrary as he was come nigh unto Jericho,' and moreover the entry into that city is mentioned by St. Luke as having taken place after the performance of the miracle, I confess that I am wholly unable to reconcile the contradiction, and must therefore conclude Chap. xix. 1.

m