Mark's account, as to the order, was regular-as to the number, was incomplete. St. Luke's serves an equal purpose with respect to both; filling up the deficiency in St. Mark, and reducing to order the irregularity in St. Matthew. The two single miracles, therefore, of the later Evangelists are exactly equivalent to the one double miracle of the earlier, and the accounts of the two former, laid together, will be just coextensive with the account of the latter by itself. Nor is there any thing in them separately to militate against such a construction of their relation in common. Had St. Matthew affirmed that both his miracles were wrought after Jesus left Jericho, then indeed St. Luke's miracle could not have been one of those, though it might still have been matter of fact. Had St. Luke asserted that the name and description of his blind man were Timæus, the son of Timæus, his authority would have been committed recta fronte with St. Mark's. But, as it is, each account in particular may be true-and all in common may be consistent.

The nature of the case itself is enough to prove that it is by no means an improbable supposition, which merely assumes that two blind men, neither of whom had any means of subsistence, except from the benevolence of private charity, should have been found sitting and begging, in the vicinity of a city like Jericho, in point of size, only one third, or not much more, less than Jerusalem, and containing, probably, more than one hundred thousand inhabitants; and upon two such thoroughfares, as the road from the Jordan to Jericho, and from Jericho to Jerusalem. But, even in this case, it is much more likely they would be found apart, than in conjunction. The procession of our Saviour would, consequently, pass by them at separate times; and there is no circumstance in the situation, behaviour, or treatment, of the one, which was not a priori to be just as much expected of the other. The similarity, then, of the different accounts is no proof of the identity of these occasions; for they could not have been otherwise than similar. It was

d Epiphanius Oper. i. 702.

this very similarity which brought them readily within the scope of St. Matthew's plan of conciseness in such details as these, and induced him to blend them both into one narrative. The particulars of the story, which he has thus given in reference to both, must have been individually applicable to either. Both must have been sitting by the road side, and both must have been begging, when Jesus passed by— both must have enquired who was passing, and both must have been told it was Jesus of Nazareth-both must have implored his mercy-both must have been rebuked by the people-both must have cried out the more-both must have been conducted to Christ-both must have been questioned alike—both must have returned the same answerboth must have been restored to sight by a word and a touch-and both must have followed him in the way. Each I say must have done all these things, if either of them did: and St. Luke, or St. Mark, will merely have related of one, what St. Matthew, with equal truth, had recorded of two.

END OF VOL. II.