assistance of Beelzebub 13, while others require a sign from heaven, as a proof of the authority by which he acted. To each he gives a proper answer. In the mean time his mother and his brethren seek for him, with a design of conducting him home, as to a place of security, not because they supposed he stood in connection with evil spirits, but because they apprehended he had lost his understanding; but Jesus, who is surrounded by the multitude, instead of inviting them in, when informed that they stood without, replies, that whosoever does the will of his Father which is in heaven, is his brother, and sister, and mother.' A Pharisee invites him to dinner, and Jesus accepts the invitation: but a dispute arises at table, in consequence of Jesus having neglected to wash his hands. An innumerable multitude in the mean time assembles before the door, when Jesus delivers a discourse, related Luke xii. 1-12. He then goes from the house of the Pharisee to the lake of Gennesaret, the multitude follows him: in order therefore to be better seen and heard, he enters into a ship, and preaches in parables: N°. 37. An explanation of these parables he gives at the request of his disciples, after he was returned home. Immediately after the sermon he crosses the lake of Gennesaret. No. 38.

As this sermon is recorded by St. Mark immediately before his account of the storm, which Jesus calmed, but is related by St. Matthew long after his description of the storm, it has been supposed by several harmonists that Jesus held this sermon twice. It is true that this supposition contains in itself nothing either incredible, or even improbable: yet I think that there are sufficient reasons for believing in the present instance, that both Evangelists mean one and the same sermon, delivered on one and the same day. For St. Matthew and St. Luke agree in the relation of several very particular circumstances immediately preceding it, and which I can hardly suppose to have happened twice; namely, the accusation that Jesus cured demoniacs by the assistance of Beelzebub, his reply to this accusation, and thirdly,

his singular answer to those who informed him that his mother and his brethren were in search of him. Further, what is still more decisive, the disciples would hardly have asked Jesus at two different times for an explanation of the parable of the seed sown on different kinds of land: for when he had once given the explanation, there could be no necessity for asking it a second time. That they had forgotten it, and that Jesus was obliged again to explain to them so easy a parable, is a supposition almost incredible: but, if we admit the fact, still Jesus would not have answered them, To you it

is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God,' but on the contrary would have given them a reproof like the following. To you is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; for he who retains not that, which has been given, deserves not to receive more.'

Whoever examines the preceding harmonic table of the Gospels, will perceive, that on the two days, of which I have just examined the history, depends the arrangement of many facts, which happened either on or near to one of these two days, and which the Evangelists have related, one at one period, another at another. Now these two days might be very easily confounded, as they are in many respects similar to each other: the scene of action is on both days in Capernaum, on both days Jesus leaves the city in the evening, on both days he performs miracles and delivers discourses, both are sabbath days, and on each he is accused of a violation of the sabbath. Two such days as these might be very easily exchanged by any one, who had not kept a regular journal, and who wrote merely from memory. The question to be asked therefore is: Has any such exchange taken place in the present instance? According to St. Mark, ch. iv. 35-41. and St. Luke, ch. viii. 22. Jesus crossed the sea, when he was exposed to a severe storm, on the second day : but according to St. Matthew, the storm happened on the day after the sermon on the mount, when, according to St. Mark

14

and St. Luke, Jesus went westward on the land side. Which of the Evangelists are we then to follow? We may abide by the relation of St. Mark and St. Luke, without necessarily supposing that St. Matthew was mistaken, and therefore that he was not inspired; for he has not positively determined the time, but says only, ch. viii. 18. When Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart to the other side.' Yet on the other hand it is difficult, after having read ver. 14-17. to suppose on coming to ver. 18. that the writer could have any other intention, than to connect the subsequent with the preceding relation, and to describe the passage across the sea, as having happened on the day after the sermon on the mount 15 Further on the day after the sermon in parables, St. Matthew makes no mention of any passage across the sea, but says only, ch. xiii. 53. That when Jesus had finished these parables he departed thence.'

6

The determination of the difficulties, which I have stated in this section, has very material influence on our arrangement of the facts recorded by the Evangelists, as many a harmonist has severely felt, without being conscious perhaps of the real cause, which produced the perplexity. Which of the Evangelists we ought to follow I am really unable to determine: for though St. Matthew has in general the advantage over St. Mark and St. Luke, in being eye-witness to the facts which he records, yet the present instance makes an exception. For St. Matthew by his own account" was not called from the receipt of custom, and therefore was not become an attendant on Jesus, till after Jesus was again returned to Capernaum. Nor is this a contradiction to the account given N°. 26. from which it appears that the twelve Apostles, among whom St. Matthew is mentioned by name, were chosen on the morning of that day, on which Jesus held the sermon on the mount. St. Matthew might have been nominated an Apostle,

and yet not instantly abandon his occupation as receiver of tribute the sermon on the mount was delivered on a sabbath day, on which the receivers of tribute were disengaged, but on the following morning he returned to his duty at the house of custom, whence Jesus now invited him to be his constant attendant. Besides, even an eye-witness, who relates from memory events, which happened several years before, may easily exchange two days, which are similar to each other.-In this instance therefore I have followed St. Mark and St. Luke, because they make a majority of evidence, and because they have in fact determined the time 16 A further examination of the two days, which I have considered in this section, would perhaps throw more light on what is called the Harmony of the Gospels.

CHAPTER III.

OF THE CAUSE, WHY ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK, AND ALSO ST. MARK AND ST. LUKE, HAVE IN SEVERAL INSTANCES A REMARKABLE VERBAL HARMONY, THOUGH THE ONE DID NOT COPY FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE OTHER.

I HAVE already observed that the three first Evangelists appear not to have read each other's writings, not even St. Mark the Gospel of St. Matthew: of which the apparent contradictions, and, in respect to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark in particular, their very great disagreement in the arrangement of the recorded facts, afford sufficient proof.

Yet, on the other hand, these three Evangelists agree sometimes in the very same expressions, and in such a manner as we seldom find in the writings of independent and unconnected historians. If this agreement was observable only in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, it might be explained on the commonly received

opinion that St. Mark had read the Gospel of St. Matthew. But when the same expression, and that even a harsh Hebraism, is used likewise by St. Luke, who was able to write pure Greek, this agreement in words, which is sometimes visible even where there is an apparent contradiction in facts, must be owing to some other cause, which merits particular investigation 1.

The following may serve as examples. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. Κηρύσσων βαπτισμα μετανοίας εις άφεσιν quapriv.-Matth. iii. 12. Luke iii. 17. OU TO TTVOV EV τη χειρι αυτό, και διακαθαριεί την αλωνα αυτό, και συνάξει τον σιτον (αυτό) εις την αποθήκην (αυτό), το δε αχυρον κατακαύσει πυρι ασβεσῳ. Here the harsh Hebraism & εν τη χειρι αυτό is worthy of notice.-Matth. iv. 5. Luke iv. 9. πτερύγιον, TTεQUYLOV, a very unusual word, peculiar to the Egyptian Greek dialect, and of which no commentator has given an accurately philological explanation.-Mark v. 22. ii. 1-12. and Luke viii. 41. v. 17-26. are remarkable, not only for the similarity of expressions used in these passages, but likewise for the separation of two events, which in the Gospel of St. Matthew are connected with each other 3.Matth. vi. 11. Luke xi. 3. ET180105, a word, which, according to Origen, no Greek writer had ever used before the Evangelists. The agreement however in respect to 1800s may be explained on the supposition, that this word was already in use among the early Christians in the Lord's Prayer, at the time when St. Matthew and St. Luke wrote their Gospels.-Matth. viii. 2-4. Mark i. 40-45. Luke v. 12-16.-Matth. xvi. 24. Mark viii. 34. Luke ix. 23. In this last example it is remarkable that all the three Evangelists agree in using the Syriac phrase orlow μB ελθειν, instead of the common Greek word ακολυθειν. -Mark xii. 41, 42. Luke xxi. 1, 2. yalopuλakiov and ANTOV, the former of which is taken by these two Evangelists in an unusual sense.---Mark xiv. 12-16. Luke xxi. 7-13.-Mark xiv. 54. Luke xxii. 56. #pоç TO OWS 8. -Matth. xxviii. 1. Luke xxiii. 54. Eπipwoкw, a harsh Syriasm explained above, Vol. I. ch. iv. § 5.