is a question which belongs not to the present subject, and which will be examined in the sequel.

It is a considerable advantage, that an history of such importance as that of Jesus Christ, has been recorded by the pens of separate and independent writers, who from the very contradictions, whether real or apparent, which are visible in these accounts, have incontestably proved that they did not unite, with a view of imposing a fabulous narrative on mankind. That St. Matthew had never seen the Gospel of St. Luke, nor St. Luke the Gospel of St. Matthew is evident from a comparison of their writings. The Gospel of St. Mark, which was written later, must likewise have been unknown to St. Luke; and that St. Mark had ever read the Gospel of St. Luke is at least improbable, because their Gospels so frequently differ. That St. Mark made use of St. Matthew's Gospel in the composition of his own, has been a generally received opinion, to which I formerly subscribed: but I am at present of a different opinion, for which I shall allege the reasons in their proper place. We have therefore three distinct writers of the same history, who wrote independently of each other. It is true that the fourth Evangelist had read the works of the other three, but he is very far from having copied or even from having followed them in their descriptions. His Gospel has very little matter in common with the three first; but even where the same narrations are recorded, it seems to have been so little his intention to be directed merely by their contents, that we might rather suppose him to have sometimes corrected, in an indirect and delicate manner, the trifling inaccuracies of those who had written before him.

(

CHAPTER II.

ON THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

SECTION I..

Apparent contradictions of the Gospels.

I OBSERVED in the preceding chapter, that the accounts delivered by the several Evangelists do not at all times perfectly coincide: but this very circumstance, which I mentioned as an argument in their favour, has formed the subject of a very heavy and serious accusation. No one has urged the charge with so much bitterness, and so much force, as the anonymous author of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, published by Lessing', in which the resurrection of Christ is represented as a false and idle tale, because the historians, who have recorded it, disagree in their accounts. In opposition to this treatise, I published at Halle in 1783, an Exposition of the history of the death and resurrection of Christ, from which I shall frequently borrow materials in this and the following sections, and sometimes transcribe whole passages, where I think the subject would lose, if I made use of different words.

However dangerous these contradictions may appear to many friends of the Christian cause, and however forcibly they have been applied by its enemies, the disadvantage, which arises from them, is by no means so great, as is supposed, since they prove, what is of the utmost importance, that the Evangelists did not write in concert. If the three first Evangelists had entered into a combination, with a view of imposing a fiction on the world, they would certainly have avoided even the smallest appearance of disagreement, and if the miraculous events, which they had recorded, had been empty fables, it is probable, that St. John who had read their Gospels, before he wrote his own, would have

taken care to admit not the least deviation from the writings of his predecessors, in order that the fraud might be the less easily detected. The anonymous author of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments, whose object in general does not appear to have been a candid investigation of the truth, is guilty therefore of an egregious mistake, in suggesting, after an enumeration of ten contradictions in one chapter, that the whole history of the resurrection excites a suspicion, that the persons, who wrote the account of it, acted in concert.

Historical contradictions may be divided into two classes, real, and apparent: these must carefully be distinguished from each other, and each considered separately.

When several persons, who have been eye-witnesses to one and the same transaction, give separate and independent accounts of it, it is hardly possible that they should coincide in every trifling particular. I appeal to any experienced lawyer, whether he would not suspect the truth of a document containing an examination, on which twenty witnesses gave the same answers to the same interrogatories. And if they agreed likewise in their expressions, there would be ground to suspect that the examiner had drawn up the depositions himself, and either had not interrogated the witnesses at all, or had suggested to them the answers, in order to carry his point,

The reason why apparent contradictions are unavoidable in the deposition of several eye-witnesses to the same transaction is easy to be assigned. They do not all observe every minute circumstance of the transaction, but one pays particular attention to one circunstance, another to another circumstance; this occasions a variation in their accounts, which it is sometimes difficult to reconcile. This happened likewise to the Evangelists, as I will illustrate by the following instance. St. Matthew, ch. xviii. 1-14, and St. Mark, ch. ix. 33-50, relate the same transaction, but in different points of view, and for that reason appear at first sight to contradict

each other. St. Matthew says, 'At that time came the disciples to Jesus and said, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' St. Mark, on the contrary, He came to Capernaum, and having entered into an house, be asked them, What was it, that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they held their peace; for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.' According to St. Matthew, the disciples themselves lay the subject of their dispute before Jesus, for his decision: but according to St. Mark, they even refuse to relate the subject of their dispute, though Jesus requested it, because they were conscious to themselves, that it would occasion a reproof. The question is, how these accounts are to be reconciled.

Without entering into the various solutions, which have been given by the commentators, I shall only observe that, as this transaction relates to a matter of dispute among the disciples, it has of course two different sides, and therefore capable of two different representa tions. Some of the disciples laid claim to the title of the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, among whom we may probably reckon Peter, with the two sons of Zebedce, James and John. These could hardly expect to escape a reproof, and were undoubtedly ashamed, when questioned as to the subject of their dispute. Other disciples on the contrary may be considered as the party attacked, who without claiming the first rank for themselves, might yet think it unjust to be treated as inferiors, since they all appeared to be equal. The latter had less reason to fear a reproof, since the pure morality of Christ, which teaches that every action must be estimated by the motives which gave it birth, was not then fully understood by his disciples. In their outward behaviour at least there was nothing unreasonable, and without being guilty of a breach of propriety, they might lay their complaints before their master, and request his decision. It is probable that St. Matthew was of this party, since a man, who was by profession a taxgatherer, and never particularly distinguished himself

among the Apostles, would have hardly supposed, that he should become the first in the kingdom of God. He relates the transaction therefore, as one of that party to which he belonged: St. Mark on the contrary, who derived information from St. Peter, considers the matter from an opposite point of view. Let us suppose the full state of the case to be as follows,-Some of the disciples, who were of the diffident party, and laid no claim to the first rank, bring the matter before Christ, with the same kind of indignation, as was displayed by ten of the Apostles on another occasion". Christ reserves the decision of the dispute till they were entered into the house, where they were' accustomed to meet: he then calls his disciples together, and enquires into the subject of their dispute, to which Peter, James, John, and those in general who had laid claim to preeminence make no answer.-If the transaction was literally as here described, it is by no means impossible that Matthew and Mark might consider it from different points of view, and write what we find in their Gospels, without the least violation of truth. The one relates one part, and the other another part of the transaction, but neither of them relates the whole. If we read a few verses further in St. Mark's Gospel, we find a circumstance recorded of St. John, which St. Matthew passes over in silence, and from which it appears, that St. John was more concerned in this dispute, than most of the other disciples. He even ventured, when Christ, with a view of introducing a perfect equality among his disciples, said, "Whoever receiveth one of these children in my name receiveth me,' to doubt of the universality of this position, alleging that persons of unexceptionable characters might appeal to the name of Jesus, and giving an instance of one who had cast out devils in his name, whom the Apostles had rebuked. This again occasioned replies from Christ, which, though they are-mentioned by St. Matthew, have in his Gospel a different appearance, and are attended with less perspicuity, than Matth, xx. 24. 1. Mark ix. 37, 38.