Ver. 32. The disciples afraid, when they were going up to Jerusalem.

Ver. 49, 50. Christ's ordering the blind man to be called, comforting him, his casting away his garment, and coming to Christ.

Ch. xi. 4, 5. A description of the place where the colt was found, and the owners demanding the reason of the two disciples, why they took it away.

Ch. xii. 32, 33, 34. The scribe approves what our Lord had said, repeats it, makes a just and useful remark upon it: our Saviour approves him, &c.

Ver. 37. The common people take pleasure in hearing Christ.

Ch. xiii. 3. The names of the apostles, who made the inquiry concerning the destruction of the temple.

Ch. xiv. 3, &c. Several particulars in the story of the woman's anointing our Saviour; such as the quality of the ointment, the breaking of the box, the value of the ointment in money, &c. Ver. 12. The passover was to be killed on the first day of unleavened bread.

Ver. 54, 67. Peter sat warming himself at the fire.
Ver. 70. Peter said to be a Galilean.

Ch. xv. 7. The crime for which Barabbas was imprisoned. Ver. 8. The Jews plead their privilege of having a criminal released at the passover.

Ver. 25. The precise hour in which our Saviour was crucified.

Ver. 42. The reason why Joseph of Arimathea came on that day to beg the body of Jesus, viz. because it was the preparation, i. e. the day before the sabbath.

Ver. 43. The character and office of Joseph of Arimathea. Ver. 44. Pilate wonders Christ was so soon dead. His inquiring about it.

Ch. xvi. 1. The design of Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary, to embalm the body of Jesus with ointments they had bought for that purpose.

These are some instances of circumstances related by St. Mark in his histories, and not by St. Matthew; a person that will be at the pains carefully to compare these Gospels,

with this view, will find many more.

But these seem to be sufficient for my present purpose, sufficient to evidence, that St. Mark did not design to abridge or epitomize St. Matthew's Gospel.

CHAP. VIII.

The third argument, by which it appears that St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. the remarkable disagreement there seems to be between these two evangelists, in several parts of their Gospels. It is first premised, that all these are reconcileable. Then the particular instances of their disagreement produced.

Arg. III. THE disagreement which there seems to be between these two evangelists, viz. St. Matthew and St. Mark, in relating several circumstances of their history, is a clear and demonstrative evidence, that St. Mark did not abridge St. Matthew, nor had his Gospel lying before him when he wrote his. To go about to collect the difference of these sacred writers, to make them appear as many and as great as possible, may seem very strange and unnecessary work in one who professes a value and respect for them. I think it needful therefore to premise, that however great and many the differences may seem to be between these two, (or indeed between any of the evangelists,) yet they have all been happily reconciled by the labours of ingenious and learned men. Of the many that have undertaken this matter, there are none who seem to have been more successful therein, than Austin n among the ancients, and the learned Frederick Spanheim • among the more late writers. Surprising discoveries have been made in the last age in this matter, by a further acquaintance with the customs and manners of the Jews, among whom our Saviour and his apostles conversed; difficulties, which seemed to be insuperable, have been sometimes easily solved by the discovery of some particular custom that was among the Jews at that time; and these discoveries have

"In his book entitled, De Consensu Evangelistarum.

In his excellent dissertations, which he calls Dubia Evangelica.

been so many, and our helps of all sorts in this matter so great, that I will not be afraid to assert, that whatever disagreement may seem to be between these two evangelists, or either of the other, it is capable of a very satisfying and reasonable solution.

This premised, I say the difference between St. Matthew and St. Mark is so great, and in so many instances, as evidences almost to a demonstration, that St. Mark did not collect his Gospel out of St. Matthew: I do not now regard the difference that is between them in respect of the order of time, but in other circumstances.

I shall not be at the pains to observe every small difference which there is between these two evangelists in their histories. Those which are in the following catalogue will be sufficient to my present purpose.

A Catalogue of some instances in which the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark do seem to disagree.

The first remarkable instance we find of any difference between them is in the story of the miracle, which our Saviour wrought, in casting the devils into the herd of swine, in the country of the Gadarenes, or Gergesenes. The accounts we have, Matth. viii. 28, &c. and Mark v. 1. in which accounts we may observe a disagreement in two particulars.

I. As to the place where the miracle was wrought.
II. As to the number of persons dispossessed.

1. As to the place or country where the miracle was wrought, according to St. Matthew, it was when our Saviour was landed εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν, in the country of the Gergesenes; see ch. viii. 28. according to St. Mark, v. 1. and so St. Luke, viii. 26. it was when our Saviour was come εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, into the country of the Gadarenes. Now these were certainly the names of the inhabitants of two different places, as is very plain from Josephus, who several times mentions them as such. So when he is reckoning up p some of those cities, which the Jews had destroyed in Syria, he first mentions their coming to Tépara, the city of the GerP De Bell. Judaic. lib. 2. c. 18. §. 1. N 2

gesenes, and after that Tasápois, to the city of the Gadarenes. And in the same chapter 9, mentioning the several cities, that fell upon the Jews, who dwelt in them, he names the Tadages, the Gadarenes; and immediately after', reckoning up the cities, that were kind to the Jews, who dwelt among them, and did not destroy them, he mentions the Tepanyol, the Gergesenes ; for there can be no doubt but Γερασηνοί and Γεργεσηνοί were the same persons. The old Syriac interpreter, who was perhaps a native of this or some country near it, perceiving this difference between the evangelists, thought it too great a one to be admitted into his version, and therefore in St. Matthew, as well as in St. Mark, translates it by the same word, the country of the Gadarenes.

2. They differ, as to the number of persons dispossessed. St. Matthew tells us they were two, St. Mark mentions only one. These, though they are not circumstances contrary to each other, yet are so different, that they undeniably prove, that neither of these sacred writers could make use of the other's Gospel in composing his.

Another instance to the same purpose is the story of the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, being restored to life again by our Saviour, told by St. Mark, chap. v. 22, &c. with circumstances very different from those with which it is told by St. Matthew, chap. ix. 18. For instance, according to St. Matthew's account, the ruler told our Saviour, that his daughter äpti éteλeútnoev, was already dead, and desired that he would restore her to life again: but according to St. Mark, the young woman was not dead when the ruler came to our Saviour; for he only says, Ovɣáτρióv μov éσxáτWS EXEI, my little daughter lieth at the point of death; and afterwards, when our Saviour was going along with him, some of the family came, and told him, his daughter was actually dead, and therefore it would be needless to give our Saviour any further trouble.

St. Mark, chap. viii. 10. tells us, that, after the miracle of multiplying the loaves and the fishes, our Saviour immediately

a De Bell. Judaic. lib. 2. c. 18. §. 5.

Ibid. Vid. Suid. ad rádaga et rigara, et Lud. Dieu ad Matth. viii. 28.

took ship, and sailed into the parts of Dalmanutha; St. Matthew, chap. xv. 39. tells us, that in this voyage he went to the coasts of Magdala.

St. Mark, chap. x. 35, &c. tells us, that the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, came themselves with a petition to our Saviour, that they might be advanced to the highest places of dignity in his kingdom; that our Lord spoke to them, and reproved them for their ambition: according to St. Matthew, chap. xx. 20. not they, but their mother, came with this petition to Christ, and he spake to her.

St. Mark, chap. x. 46. relates the account of our Lord's restoring a blind person to his sight, when he was coming out of Jericho; St. Matthew, chap. xx. 30, &c. tells the very same story, with most of the same circumstances, concerning two blind persons.

St. Mark, chap. xii. 9. in the parable concerning the letting out of the vineyard, mentions a question of our Lord's, viz. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do? and makes him to answer it himself; on the contrary St. Matthew, chap. xxi. 40. intimates, that our Lord put this question to the Jews, and tells us, ver. 41. that they made him the answer; and so those words are a confession extorted from the Jews, and not the words of Christ, according to St. Mark.

St. Mark, chap. xiv. 30, and 68, 72. recites our Saviour's prediction concerning Peter's denial of him, and his actual denying of him, in a very different manner from St. Matthew. Our Lord tells him, ver. 30. Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice; and accordingly St. Mark tells us, ver. 68, &c. that he denied him once, and then the cock crowed; denied twice afterwards, and the cock crowed again on the other hand, according to St. Matthew, our Saviour told him (chap. xxvi. 34.) that he should deny him three several times before the cock should crow at all; and accordingly he makes him actually to deny Christ three times before the cock crew. See ver. 69-74.

St. Mark, chap. xv. 23. tells us, that when our Saviour was upon the cross, they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; according to St. Matthew, (chap. xxvii. 34.) that which they gave him to drink was vinegar mingled with gall.