St. Luke, if he was not one of Christ's seventy disciples, nor an eye witness, was a disciple, and companion of apostles, especially of Paul, as is universally allowed: and he must therefore have been well qualified to write a gospel. Moreover," as has been shown, it is manifest from his introduction, that he knew not of any authentic history of Jesus Christ, that had been yet written. And he expressly says of himself," that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," and he professeth" to write of them to Theophilus in order." After all this, to say, that he transcribed many things from one historian, and yet more from another, so far as I am able to judge, is no less than a contradiction of the evangelist himself.

3. The nature and design of the first three gospels manifestly show, that the evangelists had not seen any authentic written history of Jesus Christ.

This is one of the observations of Le Clerc relating to this point. We can scarcely doubt, whether St. John 'had seen the other three gospels. For as he is said to 6 have lived to a great age, so it appears from his gospel itself, that he took care not to repeat things related by them, except a few only, and those necessary things. But I do not see how it can be reckoned certain that Mark knew of 'Matthew's having written a gospel before him: or that Luke knew, that they two had written gospels before him. 'If Mark had seen the work of Matthew, it is likely that he would have remained satisfied with it, as being the work ' of an apostle of Christ, that is, an eye-witness, which he was not.' And what there follows.

I must enlarge upon this observation. I forbear to insist now on the genealogies, which are in St. Matthew, and St. Luke only. But I say, that the writings of all and each one of these three evangelists contain an entire gospel, or a complete history of the ministry of Jesus Christ: or, to borrow St. Luke's expressions, Acts i. 1, 2, a history of "all that Jesus both did and taught, until the day, in the which he was taken up to heaven." For in all and every one of them is the history of our Lord's forerunner, his baptism, preaching, and death, and of our Lord's being baptized by him: when, by a voice from heaven, he was proclaimed to be the Messiah. Then follows our Lord's temptation in the wilderness. After which is an account of our Lord's preach

mam usque- ―adeo ut ex apostoli novoσoμevous acceperit necesse sit plenissimam et exactissimam historiæ totius evangelicæ cognitionem. Mill. Proleg. n. 102. " See before, p. 292–294.

• See Vol. iv. p. 504, 505.

ing, and his beginning to gather disciples, the choice of the twelve apostles, and their names: and our Lord's going over the land of Israel, preaching the doctrine of the kingdom, attended by his twelve apostles, in synagogues, and in cities and villages, working all kinds of healing and saving miracles, upon all sorts of persons, in all places, in the presence of multitudes, and before scribes and pharisees, as well as others. A particular mission of his apostles, in the land of Israel. Our Lord's transfiguration on the mount, when there appeared Moses and Elias talking with him, and there came a voice from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, hear him." His going up to Jerusalem, and making a public entrance into the city, then cleansing the temple, where he often taught the people, and preached the gospel, and openly asserted his authority and character: keeping the passover with his disciples, and instituting a memorial of himself: his last sufferings, and death, with the behaviour of Judas the traitor, Peter, and the rest of the disciples: his burial, resurrection, with the evidences of it, and the general commission to his apostles, to preach the gospel in all the world, and to all sorts of persons therein.

Here are all the integrals of a gospel. And they are properly filled up. And all these things are in all and every one of the first three evangelists: which show that they did not know of each other's writings. For it cannot be thought that they should be disposed to say the same things over and over, or to repeat what had been well said already. St. John, who had seen the other three gospels, has little in common with them: almost every thing in his gospel is new and additional. So it would have been with every other writer in the like circumstances.

And if St. Matthew's gospel had been written at about eight, or fifteen, or twenty years after our Lord's ascension, and had become generally known among the faithful, (as it certainly would, soon after it was written,) it is not improbable, that we should have had but two gospels, his and St. John's. Or if there had been several, they would all, except the first, have been in the manner of supplements, like St. John's, not entire gospels, like those of the first three evangelists.

This consideration appears to me of great moment, for showing that our first three evangelists are all independent witnesses. Indeed it seems to me to be quite satisfactory and decisive.

4. There are in these three gospels, as was observed just now by Mr. Dodwell, many seeming contradictions: which

have exercised the skill of thoughtful men to reconcile them. This is another argument, that these evangelists did not write by concert, or after having seen each others' gospels.

5. In some histories, which are in all these three evangelists, there are small varieties and differences, which plainly show the same thing. I shall allege two or three instances only.

(1.) In Matth. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke viii, 26-40, is the account of the cure of the dæmoniac, or dæmoniacs, in the country of the Gadarenes. It is plainly the same history, as appears from many agreeing circumstances: nevertheless there are several differences. St. Matthew speaks of two men, St. Mark and St. Luke of one only. In Mark alone it is said, that the man was always night and day in the mountains, crying, and cutting himself with stones. And he alone mentions the number of the swine that were drowned. He likewise says, that the man besought our Lord much, that he would not send them away out of the country. St. Luke says, the dæmons besought him, that he would not command them to go out into the deep, or abyss. Surely these evangelists 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 says: "His face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." St. Mark: "And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them." St. Luke: "And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glittering." It is plain, I think, that none had seen what the other had written. In the description of the splendour of our Lord's person and garments, each one follows his own fancy. In St. Matthew and St. Mark are comparisons; but they are different. In St. Luke there is no comparison at all.

(3.) The third instance shall be what follows next in all the three evangelists, after our Lord was come down from the mount. Matt. xvii. 14-21; Mark ix. 14-29; Luke ix. 37-42. In this history of the healing the young man, who had the epilepsy, where St. Mark is more particular and prolix than the other evangelists, there are many differences: I take notice of a very few only. In St. Matthew the father of the child says: Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: and the healing him is thus related. "And Jesus rebuked the dæmon, and he departed out of

1

66

him. And the child was cured from that very hour." In St. Mark, the father of the child says to our Lord : “ Master, I have brought unto thee my son, who has a dumb spirit," and when our Lord healed him," he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him: Thou dumb aud deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him." And what follows. In St. Luke the father says: "Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son, for he is my only child."

Certainly, he who observes these things, must be sensible, that these historians did not borrow from each other: there are many other like instances: to mention them all would be endless.

I shall add a consideration or two more, which must be allowed to be of some weight in this question.

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

I intend, particularly, the visit of the Magians, with the causes of it, and its circumstances, and then the consequences of it, our Saviour's flight into Egypt, and the slaughter 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 sepulchre, ch. xxviii. 11-15, “ an earthquake, rending of rocks," and "the resurrection of many saints, 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 history, some, or all of these things, would have been taken notice of by them. It is also very observable, that St. Luke has no account of the miracle of feeding "four thousand with seven loaves and a few little fishes," which is in Matt. xv. 32-39; Mark viii, 1–9.

And what has been just now said of St. Matthew, particularly, may be also applied to St. Luke, supposing his to have been the first-written gospel: for in him also are many remarkable things, not to be found in the other gospels. And if St. Matthew or St. Mark had written with a view of abridging or confirming St. Luke's history, those things would not have been passed over by them without any notice.

7. All the first three evangelists have many things peculiar to themselves: which shows 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 history.

Many such 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.

6

St. Mark likewise has many things peculiar to himself, not mentioned by any other evangelist: a catalogue of them was made by usP formerly, though far from being complete. The same is true of St. Luke. As much was observed by Irenæus, who says, There are many, and those necessary 'parts of the gospel, which we know from Luke only.' His brief enumeration of those things was transcribed by us into this work long ago. Let me also rehearse them here somewhat differently. His general introduction, the birth of John the Baptist, and many extraordinary things attending it. The Roman census made in Judea, by Cyrenius, or before that made by Cyrenius, which brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; the mean circumstances of our Lord's nativity; the notification of it to shepherds by an angel; his circumcision; Mary's purification at the temple; the prophecies of Simeon and Anna there; our Lord's going up to Jerusalem at the age of twelve years, ch. ii. The names of the emperor and other princes, in whose time_John the Baptist 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 also divers miracles, not recorded elsewhere. A numerous draught of fishes, ch. v. 4-9. The cures of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, ch. viii. 2, 3; giving speech to a dumb man, ch. xi. 14; a woman healed in a synagogue of an infirmity, under which she had laboured eighteen years, ch. xiii. 10-17, the man cured of a dropsy on a sabbath-day, in the house of a pharisee, ch. xiv. 1-4. Ten lepers cured at once, ch. xvii. 12-19, the ear of Malchus healed, ch. xxii. 50, 51; the son of a widow of Nain raised to life, in the sight of multitudes, when he was carried out to burial, ch. vii. 11–17; a miracle of resurrection, related by no other evangelist. In him alone is the mission of the seventy disciples, 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 lost piece of silver, and the prodigal son, ch. xv. 8-32; of the unjust steward, xvi. 1—12; the rich man and Lazarus, ver. 19-31; the importunate widow, xviii. 1-8; the pharisee and publican that went up to the temple to pray, ver. 9-14. To St. Luke also are peculiar our Lord's entertainment at the house of a pharisee, P See before, p. 345-350. 9 Vol. ii. p. 171-173.