influenced our Lord to work the cure, and are an inftance and fign of a great and fingular Faith. 3. In both Jefus perform'd the cure in the abfence of the fick perfon; all which fettle it beyond difpute to be one and the fame relation. But in Matthew, the Centurion is introduc'd, addreffing Jefus in perfon; whereas in Luke he is defcrib'd fending the Jews, who excufe him as not daring to come: but thefe are no Inconfiftences, as fhall appear afterwards. And therefore this coincidence of the other circumstances, which are very remarkable, ought rather to be confider'd, than fuch a final variation; and Matthew and Luke are to be reckon'd to relate both the fame Story.

There is likewife another inftance of this nature in the curing of a blind man, or fome blind perfons mentioned in Matthew the 20. Mar. 10. Luke 18. In which accounts there are fome incidents, which obliged me, as I thought, to digeft them here in the fame Hiftory, altho there is fome variety in the circumstances. But in thefe particulars they agree: 1. Chrift cures them of their Blindness, not far from Jericho, in his Journey to Jerufalem. 2. The neceffitous Patients fat by the way-fide, where Jefus was to pass, and begun to cry with a loud voice, Jefus, thou Son of David, have mercy on us. 3. Upon their redoubling their Clamours, they are reprimanded by the Multitude that accompanied Jefus. 4. But Jesus orders the Blind to be brought unto him, and enquiring what they would have, he cures them, and was afterwards attended by thefe perfons, who had received fuch a fignal Bleffing from him. Thefe Paffages, being alike, perfuade me 'tis one and the fame, and not, as Ep Richardson would have it, two different Hiftories, one mention'd by Matthew and Mark, and the other by Luke, of a bufinefs that happened foon after that. For the Multitude, that followed Jefus, would never have reprov'd a blind man imploring his affistance, after they had but just feen two others, whom they had reprimanded, very kindly received, and cured by Chrift; they would rather have brought him directly to Jefus, that he might be made partaker of a like Benefit.

But 'tis objected, The Evangelifts vary in

the Relation. First, Matthew mentions two blind Perfons, Luke only one. This Objection fhall be fully anfwered in a Canon by it felf. In the mean time I fhall only obferve that Mark agrees with Matthew in that circumftance which is ufually objected, of which I fhall fpeak afterwards; and he also takes notice but of one blind perfon. Secondly, They are faid to differ, in that Matthew and Mark relate the thing to have happened after Jefus was gone from Jericho, enwogdouers & l'eer, but Luke reports the working of the cure, t (ev au rov eis l'sexw, upon his approach to Jericho, and adds afterwards, ilovтa Desgedar TA'Y I'ee, he entred and paffed through Jericho; whence they conclude, that the blind man in Luke was cured before Jefus made his entry into Jericho, being to pass through that City; but on the contrary, that the blind perfons in Matthew and Mark were reflor'd after he was departed from Jericho. But Criticks have remarked that

T few often implies not the tendency to a place, but only the distance from it, and amounts to the fame as if Luke had faid, Tavs v Ise, when he was near to Jericho. Which expreffion is the more general than thofe ufed by Matthew and Mark, and fignifies neither his Entry nor Departure. See Grotius upon Matthew. What follows in Luke is not fo to be connected to the foregoing Paffages, as if it exprefs'd fomething that immediatly happened after the cure of the blind men: For the Evangelift might return to his former Head; and Tranfitions of this kind are to be met with in every Writer, If thofe therefore are in an error, that would have this to be two Relations, certainly those that diftinguifh it into three, must be very wide of the Mark and the Argument taken from the Multitude repri manding the blind man, upon which I ground my opinion, must be more valid and conclufive against them.

CANON

might be more than one Woman that had Ointment, and more than one that would fpend it to honour Jesus; efpecially as the cuftem then was at the more genteel Entertainments, to be munificent in this manner. What one did by Chrift's permiffion, might be imitated by a fecond and third, being, as I faid what was cuftomary. Befides, the Evangelifts now cited by Grotius, obferve this anointing to have been in the Houfe of Sim. John plainly implies, that the Feaft where Mary was thus liberal to the Lord, was kept in the Houfe of her Sifter at Bethany, fince Martha waited upon the Gucfts, and Mary expended this Oinment upon Jesus. There (in Bethany) St. John fays, chap. 12. 2. they made him a Supper, and Martha ferved; but Lazarus was one of them who fat at the Table with him. Then took Mary a pound of Omtment of Spikenard, &c. 4. But, continues this Learned Critick, Matthew, Mark and John agree in that it was at Bethany, at a Feast; that coftly Ointment was brought by a Woman; that the Woman was thereupon reprimanded by one of the Difciples (Judas is exprefly nam'd by John) as too prodigal, under this colour of Reproof, that this had been better fold, and the Mony given to the Poor; that our Saviour vindicates the Woman in a kind interpretation of that A&tion, as an honour done him against the day of his Burying. Thefe Circumftances are fo pat, that they cannot be applied to different Times. Here is a great parity, I do not deny: but befides that there is fuch a difagreement about the place where the Feaft was kept, as I have before obferved; this may be alfo urg'd, that Judas is faid in John to reprove Mary, but in Matthew and Mark fome other Apoftles are introduced murmuring upon the fame account for in a large Feast of numerous Guefts, they might not all mind what Jefus had fpoken in that cafe; or a like action fo foon following, might be juftified by our Lord with the fame apology. 5. But, fays Grotius again, Luke and John agree that the Woman anointed Chrift's Feet, and wiped them with her Hair; which are fo very particular, as can hardly be imagined to have happen'd more than once. But there are three things in which Luke difagrees with John and the other Evangelifts. First, The Woman fpoken of by Luke, before the anointed our Lord's Feet,

washed them with her Tears; which remark able Circumftance would never have been omitted by them. Secondly, The Woman in Luke hath the character of dμagown, a perfon of lewd Life; which we have no umbrage to believe of Mary of Bethany, or the other Woman. Thirdly, there is a memorable Difcourfe of Chrift in Lake, inftead of which we meet with the reproof of the Woman, and her vindication in the two other Evangelifts. 6. This very Learned Man would have us mind, That Mary the Sister of Lazarus is diflinguifh'd by John under this particular Defcription, as the Woman that anointed and wiped the Feet of Chrift. But this had been no certain token, if others had done the fame. Right, if John had had refpect to the other Evangelifts, or ever made mention himself of any like Action done by a Woman: But fince he takes notice of none but Mary, and has no refpect to Accounts given by other Evangelifts, this Defcription is not at all ambiguous. But John methinks makes this Reflection, chap. 11. 2. not only to diftinguish her to have been Lazarus his Sifter, which had been fufficient by barely faying the was fo, but to remind his Reader of this her Action. To what is already faid might be farther added, that in Matthew and Mark, Jefus foretels that the memorial of this her Fact fhall be handed to all Pofterity. Which Circumstance we do not find in the other Gospels.

This Order therefore of the Evangelifts is fo well kept, and fo fitly framed together, that' I fee no juftifiable reafon to alter it, as if the fame Relation had been told by them at several times; fince matters of near refemblance have frequently happened upon like occafions, as fhall be farther illuftrated in the following Canon.

a refemblance, but appertain to different times, and fo break the tenour of the GofpelHiftory. I fhall therefore confirm this Canon with plain and evident Examples, that from them we may pass a judgment on other places that are not fo clear.

About the time of the first Passover, mention'd by John, chap. 2. 4, &c. Jefus went into the Temple, and drove out the Buyers and Mony-changers, and charged them not to make his Father's Temple a Houfe of Merchandise. The fame was done by him a little before the fourth Paffover, mentioned by the three other Evangelifts, Mat. 21. Mar. 10. Luke 19. and he rebuked the Merchants for converting the Temple into a Den of Thieves.

Jefus, Mat... having freely inftructed his Difciples in many things concerning Prayer, without any entreaty from them, and given them a Form alfo, is faid to do this at their requeft in Luke 11. where there are alfo other different Circumstances.

Having in the fecond year of his Ministry

fent his twelve Apoftles to preach the Gospel

throout all Galilee, he gives them Inftructions upon this, which we read in Mat. 10. Mar. 6. Luke 9. p. 207. of our Harmony. And being to fend feventy other Difciples throughout Judea upon the fame defign, he inftructs them in the like manner, Luke 10. p. 283. And all the reafon in the world for it; for being upon the fame Commiffion, they had need of the

fame Orders.

He very frequently inculcates his Doctrins and Admonitions, that are of high concern, by repetitions, to make them fink deeper into the minds of his Difciples, who were hard of apprehenfion, and apt to forget. And thus oftentimes, even from the firft opening of his Miniftry, as appears from John 2. 19. he foretold his Death and Refurrection to be within three days: For which there was a manifeft neceffity, in that the Apoftles could fcarce be convinc'd of it, even after the accomplishment of the Prediction. No wonder then that he us'd Repetitions to men that wanted them so much, and were at first so hard to be perfuaded. He often forewarns his Difciples of Perils and Tribulation to be undergone for his Gofpel; that they may not flatter themselves with better fortune, and fo,

upon events contrary to their expectation, be dafh'd and alienated from his Gofpel. And yet for all his Admonitions, fo many and fo perfpicuous, his Apoftles could not be perfuaded from the thoughts of his terrestrial Kingdom, but on the very day of his Afcenfion ask'd him concerning it; nor were to be brought from this habitual miftake by any thing but the affiftance of the Holy Ghoft. If therefore in my Harmony there occur, under diftinct portions of time, Sayings of our Saviour alike in fenfe, or even parallel in expreffion, I would not have it imagin'd, as fome will be apt to do, that I have not faithfully collated the Evangelifts.

CANON X.

Chrift at feveral times makes the fame answer to perfons that start the fame Objection, or put the fame queftion.

Meference here, but the fame thing

ANY of the foregoing Inftances have

may be fet in various Lights, if it deferves a ferious contemplation, as the matter doth to which this Canon belongs; as having been the main occafion that oblig'd the compilers of Harmonies to fanfy the Evangelifts had kept little order of time, and made them to blend and confound many things which are diftinguifh'd in my Harmony.

In the third year of his Miniftry, Jefus being come to Jerufalem to the Feast of the Dedication, fome of the Pharisees ask'd him when the Kingdom of God fhould come, Luke 17. 20. p. 363. of my Harmony. To which he makes anfwer, That Kingdom doth not come with observation; neither shall they say, lo here, or lo there, &c. and fhuts up his Reply with a Proverb: Wherefoever the Body is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. To the like queftions put to him by his Apoftles, in his fourth year, not long before his last Paffover, he returns this, and the like anfwers; Mat. 24. Mar. 13. Luke 21.

There is no reafon therefore to find fault with my Harmony, as if in it I had multiplied the fame Hiftories, and repeated them in different places, fince our Saviour refolves the

fame

fame questions the fame way. Thus in the fecond year of his Miniftry, being to crofs the Lake of Gennefareth from the Western Shore to the Eastern, Jefus is accofted by a Scribe in thefe words, Mat. 8. 19. p. 188. of the Harmony: Mafter, I will follow thee whitherfoever thou goeft. And Jefus faid unto him, The Foxes have Holes, and the Birds of the Air have Nefts, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his Head. Then Jefus commands another to follow him; who to excufe himself, pretends an old Father requir'd his care and dutiful affiftance, whom he would firft bury, and then engage to return. Which Apology our Lord confutes, faying, Let the dead bury their dead, &c. The fame likewife, in the third year of his Miniftry, our Saviour fpeaks in his Journey to ferufalem upon fuch another occafion. See Luke 9. 57, &c. and p. 282. of my Harmony.

F the Evangelifts had proceeded all in a

Iway fo as to have no difference in their

Narratives unless in Phrafe and Expreffion, a man might fufpect they had laid their heads together, or perus'd one another's Writings, to the intent they might not vary: A fufpicion not to be easily remov'd from the minds of the lets credulous, and much derogating from the Authority of the Gofpel. But the Divine Spirit influencing the Authors, hath fuffer'd them feemingly to differ in fome flight Circumftances, that it might be apparent nothing was done by Confederacy, and to obviate all fufpicion of a fraudulent Combination. But they are always agreed in the main, and it is no difficult matter to reconcile them. For infiance; the Voice from Heaven at our Lord's Baptifin is recited by Matthew, c. 3. 17. after this manner: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. But Mar. 1. II. Luke 3. 22. he is addreft in the second Perfon: Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am

well pleased. The first of which Forms fuppofes God fpeaking to John, and thofe that ftood by: The fecond addreffing Jefus alone. But the fenfe is plainly the fame in both. Thus alfo, in the account of the Temptation presently following, there is fome diveruty of method in Matthew and in Luke: for Matthew relates that part of it laft which was upon the high Mountain, but Luke that which happened upon the Pinnacle of the Temple, in which I have reduc'd Luke to Matthew, as may be feen from the Figures of the Verfes. But they do not however clash, fince neither of the Evangelifts pretends in this inftance to have kept to a ftrict Order of time.

St. Auftin, in his Harmony of the Evangelifts, lib. 2. n. 28. is of opinion that this was allow'd by the Divine Spirit for this reafon: To be fatisfied that we ought not to reckon a man a Lier, if in a story which many know befides him, from experience or hear-fay, he hits not upon the very words, but gives however the Subflance; or if he tranfpofes the method, or gives one Phrafe, which is equivalent, for another; or if he speaks not all, because it doth not prefently occur to his memory, or because he

thinks it fufficient to infer what is omitted, or if he explains not a matter throughly, but touches upon fome things only in part, that he may have time enough to spend in relating what is

more to his purpose; or if to illustrate or confirm

any thing, he does not indeed add to the things themselves, but puts in a Phrase, or fo, for which he has a good authority; or if he remembers the Occurrence never fo well, do all he can, his memory is not able to repeat the whole particulars in the words they were told him. He had better have faid, to ftop the mouths of perverfe Gainfayers; for none but fuch will reckon a fmall variation in a Narrative to be a Lie: So that the Gofpels, for fuch little differences, cannot be thought in any manner of reafon, falfe or contradictory. For altho St. Auftin draws what he fays as a Corollary from the diverfity in the Gofpels, yet I am much deceived, if we ought therefore to fay that this was God's intent in allowing that variety.