he often taught the people, and preached the gospel, and openly afferted his authority and character: keeping the paffover with his difciples, and inftituting a memorial of himself: his last sufferings, and death, with the behaviour of Judas, the traitor, Peter, and the rest of the difciples: his burial, resurrection, with the evidences of it, and the general commiffion to his apoftles, to preach the gofpel in all the world, and to all forts of perfons therein.

Here are all the integrals of a gofpel. And they are properly filled up. And all these things are in all and every one of the first three evangelifts: which shows, that they did not know of each other's writings. For it cannot be thought, that they should be difpofed to fay the fame things over and over, or to repeat what had been well faid already. St. John, who had feen the other three gofpels, has little in common with them: almoft every thing in his gofpel is new and additional. So it would have been with every other writer in the like circumftances.

And if St. Matthew's gofpel had been written at about eight, or fifteen, or twenty years after our Lord's afcenfion, and had become generally known among the faithful, (as it certainly would, foon after it was written :) it is not improbable, that we should have had but two gofpels, his and St. John's. Or if there had been several, they would all, except the first, have been in the manner of fuppleinents, like St. John's, not entire gofpels, like thofe of the first three evangelifts.

This confideration appears to me of great moment, for fhowing that our first three evangelifts are all independent witneffes. Indeed it feems to me to be quite fatisfactory, and decifive.

4. There are in these three gofpels, as was obferved just now by Mr. Dodwell, many feeming contradictions: which have exercised the skill of thoughtful men to reconcile them. This is another argument, that thefe evangelifts did not write by concert, or after having feen each others gofpels.

5. In fome hiftories, which are in all these three evangelifts, there are fmall varieties and differences, which plainly fhow the fame thing. I fhall allege two or three inftances only.

Luke

1.) In Matth. viii. 28---34. Mark v. 1--20. viii. 26---40. is the account of the cure of the dæmoniac, or dæmoniacs, in the country of the Gadarenes. It is plainly

the

the fame hiftory, as appears from many agreeing circumftances: nevertheless there are several differences. St. Mathew fpeaks of two men, St. Mark and St. Luke of one only. In Mark alone it is faid, that the man was always night and day in the mountains, crying, and cutting himself with ftones. And he alone mentions the number of the swine that were drowned. He likewife fays, that the man befought our Lord much, that he would not fend them away out of the country. St. Luke fays: the dæmons befought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep, or abyfs. Surely thefe evangelifts did not abridge, or transcribe each others writings.

2.) In Matt. xvii. 1 13. Mark ix. 1 --- 13. Luke ix. 28 36. are the accounts of our Lord's transfiguration on the mount. Where St. Matthew fays: his face did fhine as the fun, and his raiment was white as the light. St. Mark: And his raiment became fhining, exceeding white as snow, fo as no fuller on earth can white them. St. Luke: And as be prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glittering. It is plain, I think, that none had feen what the other had written. In the defcription of the fplendor of our Lord's perfon, and garments, each one follows his own fancy. In St. Matthew and St. Mark are comparifons; but they are different. In St. Luke there is no comparifon at all.

3.) The third inftance fhall be what follows next in all the three evangelifts, after our Lord was come down from the mount. Matt. xvii. 14-21. Mark ix. 14 29. Luke ix. 37-42. In this hiftory of the healing the young man, who had the epilepfy, where St. Mark is more particular and prolix, than the other evangelifts, there are many differences: I take notice of a very few only. In St. Matthew the father of the child fays: Lord, have mercy on my fon, for he is lunatic, and fore vexed: and the healing him is thus related. And Jefus rebuked the demon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour. In St. Mark the father of the child fays to our Lord: Mafter, I have brought unto thee my fon, who has a dumb fpirit. when our Lord healed him, he rebuked the foul Spirit, faying unto him: Thou dumb and deaf fpirit, I charge thee, come out of bim, and enter no more into bim. And what follows. In St. Luke the father fays: Mafter, I beseech thee, look upon my fon, for he is my only child.

And

Certainly,

Certainly, he who obferves these things, muft be fenfible, that these hiftorians did not borrow from each other: there are many other like inftances: to mention them all would be endless. I fhall add a confideration or two more, which muft be allowed to be of fome weight in this question.

6. There are fome things in St. Matthew's gofpel, very remarkable, of which no notice is taken either by St. Mark, or St. Luke.

I intend, particularly, the vifit of the Magians, with the caufes of it, and its circumftances, and then the confequences of it, our Saviour's flight into Egypt, and the flaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, and near it. Matt. ii. The dream of Pilate's wife. ch. xxvii. 19. the affair of the Roman guard at the fepulchre. ch. xxviii. 11-15. an earthquake, rending of rocks, and the refurrection of many faints, who came out of their graves, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. ch. xxvii. 51—53.

These are as extraordinary things, as any in the gospels: and if St. Mark, or St. Luke, had written with a view of abridging, or confirming St. Matthew's hiftory, fome, or all of thefe things, would have been taken notice of by them. It is also very obfervable that St. Luke has no account of the miracle of feeding four thousand with feven leaves and a few little fibes, which is in Matt. xv. 32-39. Mark viii. 1-9.

And what has been juft now faid of St. Matthew, particularly, may be alfo applied to St. Luke, fuppofing his to have been the first written gofpel: for in him alfo are many remarkable things, not to be found in the other gofpels. And if St. Matthew or St. Mark had written with a view of abridging or confirming St. Luke's hiftory, thofe things would not have been paffed over by them without any notice.

7. All the first three evangelifts have many things peculiar to themfelves: which fhows, that they did not borrow from each other, and that they were all well acquainted with the things, of which they undertook to write a hiftory.

Many fuch things are in Matthew, as is well known to all I therefore need not enlarge on them; and a few of them were just now taken notice of.

St. Mark likewife has many things peculiar to himself, not mentioned by any other evangelist: a catalogue of them was made by us formerly, though far from being complete.

e See before, p. 99–104.

The fame is true of St. Luke. As much was observed by Irenæus, who fays, there are many, and thofe neceffary parts of the gofpel, which we know from Luke only.' His brief enumeration of thofe things was tranfcribed by us into this work f long ago. Let me alfo rehearse them here fomewhat differently. His general introduction, the birth of John the Baptift, and many extraordinary things, attending it. The Roman cenfus made in Judea, by Cyrenius, or before that made by Cyrenius, which brought Jofeph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; the mean circumftances of our Lord's nativity; the notification of it to fhepherds by an angel; his circumcifion; Mary's purification at the temple; the prophecies of Simeon and Anna there; our Lord's going up to Jerufalem at the age of twelve years. ch. ii. The names of the emperor and other princes, in whofe time John the Baptift and our Lord began to preach, and our Lord's age at that time; a genealogy different from Matthew, ch. iii. In St. Luke are alfo divers miracles, not recorded elfewhere. A numerous draught of fishes, ch. v. 4-9. The cures of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's fteward, and Sufanna, ch. viii. 2, 3; giving fpeech to a dumb man. ch. xi. 14; a woman healed in a fynagogue of an infirmity, under which he had laboured eighteen years. ch. xiii. 10-17. the man cured of a dropfy on a fabbath day, in the house of a pharifee, ch. xiv. 1-4. Ten lepers cured at once, ch. xvii. 12-19. the ear of Malchus healed, ch. xxii. 50, 51; the fon of a widow of Naim raised to life, in the fight of multitudes, when he was carried out to burial, ch. vii. 11-17; a miracle of refurrection, related by no other evangelift. In him alone is the miflion of the feventy difciples, ch. x. 1-20. Divers beautiful parables spoken by our Lord, which are not to be found elsewhere: the parable of the good Samaritan, ch. x. 25-37; the parable of the loft piece of filver, and the prodigal fon, ch. xv. 8—32 ; of the unjuft fteward, xvi. 1—12; the rich man and Lazarus, ver. 19-31; the importunate widow, xviii. 1-8. the pharifee and publican, that went up to the temple to pray, ver. 9-14. To St. Luke alfo are peculiar our Lord's entertainment at the house of a pharifee, where came in a woman that was a finner, ch. vii. 36-50; his entertainment at the house of Martha, ch. x. 38-42; the history of

f Vol. II. p. 159-161.

Zaccheus,

Zaccheus, ch. xix. 1—10; our Lord's agony in the garden, ch. xxii. 43, 44; the penitent thief on the crofs, ch. xxiii. 39-43; and a particular account of the two difciples going to Emmaus, ch. xxiv. 13-35.

All these, and many other things, which I omit, are peculiar to St. Luke. And did he tranfcribe many things from St. Matthew, and yet more from St. Mark?

Mill's argument, taken from the fimilitude of style and compofition, to prove, that thefe evangelifts had feen each other's writings, appears to be infufficient. And himself allows, that two authors writing upon the fame fubject in the Greek language may easily agree very much in expreffion.

I have infifted the more upon this point, because I think, that to fay the evangelifts abridged and transcribed each other, without giving any hint of their fo doing, is a great difparagement to them: and it likewife diminisheth the value and importance of their teftimony. Said Mr. Le Clerc, before quoted, They seem to think more juftly, who 'fay, that the first three evangelists were unacquainted with 'each other's defign. In that way greater weight accrues to their teftimony. When witneffes agree, who have first 'laid their heads together, they are fufpected. But wit'neffes, who testify the fame thing feparately, without know'ing what others have faid, are juftly credited.'

This is not a new opinion, lately thought of: nor has it been taken up by me, out of oppofition to any. I have all my days read, and admired the first three evangelifts, as independent, and harmonious witneffes. And I know not how to forbear ranking the other opinion among those bold, as well as groundlefs affertions, in which critics too often indulge themselves, without confidering the confequences.

* Verum quidem eft, eum effe linguæ hujus, quæ Evangeliftis in ufu erat, Hellenifticæ genium, eam indolem, ut in unum ferme eundemque dicendi characterem, quoties de una eademque materia agitur, fefe efformet: ita ut diverfi in hoc

genere fcriptores, unum idemque aliquod argumentum particulare tractantes, ftylo ac fermonis tenore haud abfimili ufuri effent, &c. Prol. num. 108.

h See Vol. V. p. 95.

СНАР.