they are in St. Mark's Gospel, because St. Matthew has not related the causes which gave them birth.

When the same event is either related in common conversations by different speakers, or committed to writing by different and independent historians, of which we may mention an engagement between two armies as an instance, we frequently find a contradiction in their accounts, though each of them has no other. object in view, than to relate the truth'. If the Evangelists appear to contradict each other more frequently than other historians, the cause does not lie in the Evangelists themselves, but in the diligence and attention of the reader. The Gospels are not read by thousands, but by millions, who carefully compare the one with the other: whereas the stories related in common conversation are hardly ever compared with each other, and it is not often that we find a critical historian, who takes the trouble of accurately collating his written documents. But the most convincing proof, that apparent contradictions are no proof of a bad cause, is the circumstance, that we often meet with them in the writings of one and the same historian, where he relates the same thing at different times. St. Luke, for instance, relates twice the ascension of Christ, and three times the conversion of St. Paul, and in consequence of his omitting at one time what he had mentioned at another, and vice versa, he differs as much from himself, as the Evangelists differ from each other. In courts of justice, where practical logic, as far as concerns the examination of evidence, is extremely well understood, not every apparent contradiction between two or more witnesses is immediately considered as a proof, that the fact which they attest is false. The advocates on both sides examine and crossexamine, and consider whether the differences in the reports are not capable of a reconciliation. As the Evangelists themselves cannot be questioned with respect to their apparent contradictions, it is the duty of commentators to undertake in their name the office of advocate: it is an office which they have frequently executed

with success, but through want of sufficient knowledge of the subject they are still embarrassed with difficulties, which the Apostles themselves, if they were now alive, would undoubtedly be able to remove.

SECTION II.

Answers to the objections made to the Evangelists, on - account of the apparent contradictions in respect to the order of time.

ONE of the most frequent apparent contradictions among the Evangelists relates to the order of time, the same fact being reported earlier by one, than by another. This appearance of disagreement arises from the circumstance, that neither St. Matthew, St. Mark, nor St. Luke wrote in chronological order *.

No bistorian can be expected to relate every thing in the order of time unless he is writing a journal, which is the most tedious and disagreeable kind of history. In writing a perspicuous, and at the same time an agreeable narrative, it is frequently necessary to unite with a cause the effect to which it gave birth, even though that effect should belong to a distant period, when the historian must consequently return from a later time to a former: or an historian is often under the necessity of uniting facts, which are far asunder in point of time, because they are connected by their subject. In biography especially, it is not unusual to disregard the order of time, in relating the remarkable circumstances of a life, to which the name of Singularia is applied. It seems therefore extraordinary that severer rules should be prescribed to the Evangelists, than are followed by historians in general: and one might suppose that it arose from a want of sufficient acquaintance with the practice of profane writers, unless various commentators, to whom this ignorance cannot possibly be imputed,

had still considered the Gospels as simple diaries, or journals',

To

The Gospel of St. Luke in particular is supposed to have been written according to the order of time; because the Evangelist declares in his preface, that he intends to relate every thing in order. But we must not forget that the order of time is not the only order, which an historian may follow. To illustrate this by an example. The unction of Christ at Bethany took place six days be fore the passover1: yet St. Matthew relates it after he was advanced with the rest of his history to within two days of the passover ". The reason is, that on this second day before the passover Judas offered to the assembly of the scribes and chief priests to betray Jesus: which resolution he had been induced to form by the rebuke which he had received when Jesus was anointed. return however to the Gospel of St. Luke, it appears that the word kalεng implies nothing more, than an intention to collect accounts of the several wonders and discourses of Christ, and to form them into one uniform whole, that is, ανατάξασθαι διηγησίν, as he says of the writers, of whom he speaks in the first verse of his Gospel. Now we cannot suppose that these numerous writers composed entirely according to the order of time. Nay, there are some commentators, which go so far as to assert that of the four Evangelists St. Luke deviates the most from the order of time: whether they are mistaken or not I shall not at present inquire, because the examination of the proofs would take up too much room, but this I will venture to assert, that the word кałɛžng no more affords an argument against this opinion, than the word avaračaola applied to those who wrote Gospels before St. Luke, would disprove the assertion, that these writers deviated more from the order of time than our four Evangelists. The account which we read in St. Luke's Gospel, ch. iv. 23. where Jesus speaks of miracles performed at Capernaum, though St. Luke had

hitherto made no mention, that Jesus had even been at Capernaum, united with the circumstance that the important miracles performed by Jesus at Capernaum appear to be recorded by St. Luke in the fifth chapter, favours at least the opinion that St. Luke has not related the coming of Jesus to Nazereth, according to the period in which it really happened.

The opinion that the Evangelists have constantly written according to the order of time has led the harmonists to this very extraordinary conclusion, that, if a fact is recorded by two or more Evangelists, and the period allotted to it by the one corresponds not to the period allotted to it by the other, the fact with all its concomitant circumstances must have happened so many different times". According to this principle, the whole series of events recorded in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel happened twice, if not thrice: that is, Jesus twice healed a man sick of the palsy, who was let down through the roof of the house with exactly the same circumstances; in both cases he spake the same words, and the spectators were affected in the same manner: in two instances (immediately after such a miracle) he called a disciple from the receipt of custom; he twice raised a child aged twelve years from the dead, and by the way healed a woman, who had an issue of blood, by the touch of his garment; he was twice asked the same questions by John, &c. The late Dr. Hauber has applied, in support of this opinion, the principium indiscernibilium; saying, that things which agree in 9999 points, but differ in a single point, cannot be one and the same thing; now the events above-mentioned have a difference in point of time in the different Evangelists, therefore they cannot be the same events. The truth of the first proposition no one will dispute, but we cannot assert the second, without being guilty of a petitio principii, since the question, whether each of these events really did happen more than once is the very thing to be determined. And, since it is at least highly improbable that two

8

series of facts should perfectly resemble each other in every circumstance except that of time, the principium indiscernibilium, when applied to the present case, should lead us in fact to a conclusion directly contrary to that which was drawn by Dr. Hauber". Even without the aid of philosophy, the matter is itself so clear, that if any other biographer should so circumstantially relate the same transactions twice, or pretend that a whole series of extraordinary events happened twice in the space of four years, he would forfeit all credit with his reader. I candidly declare for my own part, that, were it necessary to believe that the above-mentioned series of events with all their circumstances, happened more than once, my faith would waver: and if I doubted not of the truth of the Gospel itself, I should at least doubt of the inspiration of the Evangelists, and conclude that the one or the other was mistaken.

At the same time I would not, have it understood, that the supposition of an event's having happened more than once, where different periods are assigned to it by different Evangelists, is in no case whatsoever admissible. But then it must not be an event of the most extraordinary kind, nor attended in every instance by the same minute circumstances. For instance, since various persons at various times may have offered themselves to be the disciples of Christ, induced either by the high expectations, which were formed of his character, or by the interested motive of receiving from him their daily support, to whom the answer Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has not where to lay his head' is well adapted, it is not improbable that this answer was given on more than one occasion, When St. Matthew therefore, ch. viii. 19, 20.. relates this answer as given by Christ at the lake of Gennesaret, and St. Luke, ch. ix. 57, 58. as given during the journey through Samaria toward Jerusalem, we must

See my Programma, de principio indiscernibilium, particularly p. 11, where I have explained myself more fully, and p. 15, where I have given the proof.