St. Mark saith, the superscription on the cross was this, THE KING OF THE JEWS; chap. xv. 26. According to St. Matthew it was thus, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; chap. xxvii. 37.

St. Mark, chap. xv. 34. gives us our Saviour's dying words upon the cross, all in Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic, viz. Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabactthani; which was the language of the country, and that in which our Saviour spake s. On the other hand, St. Matthew puts down these words partly in pure Hebrew and partly in Syriac, Eli, Eli, lama Sabactthani; chap. xxvii. 46.

These are some of those instances in which these two evangelists differ; there are several other such to be found. But as there is not any one which will not admit a very reasonable reconciliation, so I think there is scarce any one of them but is of itself sufficient to prove, that neither of these Gospels was transcribed from the other. How can St. Mark be supposed to have had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, and to have made that (as Mr. Whiston would have it) his almost only guide, when he differs in so many particulars from him? I desire Mr. Whiston, and those who are of the same opinion with him in this matter, to consider this argument impartially; and to tell us, if it be possible, what those reasons were which made St. Mark differ so much from St. Matthew in his accounts, when he had his Gospel lying before him at the time of his writing. Were not St. Matthew's accounts just and true, and expressed as they ought to have been? This cannot be supposed. One inspired writer certainly never entertained such thoughts of another. Or did St. Mark make these differences with design to prevent any suspicions men might have that his Gospel was not his own, but borrowed, and made out of another? Indeed if this had been the case, he could not have taken a better method to have accomplished his end. One would have thought, that such and so many differences would have effectually screened and protected his Gospel from such a charge. But far be it thoughts of an inspired writer.

See the Syriac translation of Mark xv. 34. Instead of Eli, Eli, he renders it Eloi, Eloi, as it is in St. Mark. And though he use the word Lemono

from us to have any such Until therefore it be shewn, instead of Lama, yet there is no doubt but Lama or Lomo was a very proper Chaldaic word.

how it could come to pass, that there should be so many different circumstances in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, when the latter is supposed to have made use of the Gospel of the former in composing his, I must conclude he did not make use of it at all. I own indeed there is one method supposable, by which we may account for these differences between St. Matthew and St. Mark, though the latter did make use of the former's Gospel. The method I mean is that which Mr. Whiston has taken to reconcile their disagreement as to the order of time, viz. Supposing our present copies corrupted in all these places, where they differ in other circumstances, as Mr. Whiston does suppose them to be in all these places where they disagree as to time. But it being certain that no such corruption ever happened to the sacred text of either St. Matthew or St. Mark, it still remains unaccountable how these differences should have happened between them, supposing the one to have made use of the other's Gospel. Hence it was justly argued by Mr. Dodwell; "That the "later evangelists did not see the writings of the former; for "if they had, it is impossible there should have been so many "seeming contradictions, which have exercised the minds of “learned men almost ever since the first constitution of the "canon." To the same purpose says Mr. Le Clerc "; "It is "not credible that Mark or Luke had seen the Gospel ac"cording to St. Matthew, who otherwise would have avoided "-all seeming clashings."

CHAP. IX.

The fourth argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because it has a great many histories which are not in St. Matthew. A catalogue of them. The fifth argument, viz. that it wants several remarkable histories.

Arg. IV. ST. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Mat

t—

Ut ne quidem resciverint recentiores evangelistæ, quid scripsissent de iisdem rebus antiquiores; aliter foret, ne tot essent ivavropavã, quæ fere a prima usque canonis constitu

tione eruditorum hominum ingenia exercuerint. Dissert. i. in Iren. §. 39.

u In his third Dissertation, concern. ing the Four Gospels, annexed to his Harmony.

thew's, because he hath related several very considerable histories, of which there is not the least mention made by St. Matthew. I have already proved, that he does, for the most part, add many more particular circumstances to his stories, than St. Matthew. I shall now shew, that he relates several entire histories, which St. Matthew does not; not only a few additions which St. Peter informed him of, (as Mr. Whiston y supposes,) but many remarkable and useful stories. This observation will be sufficiently supported by the following in

stances.

A Catalogue of some histories in St. Mark's Gospel which are not in St. Matthew.

Chap. i. 21, &c. The history of our Saviour's casting the unclean spirit out of the man in the synagogue at Capernaum. Ver. 35, &c. The account of our Lord's retiring to a solitary place to pray, and Peter and many others following him.

Ch. iii. 13, &c. Our Saviour's going up to a mountain to pray, there first choosing his twelve disciples; their names, commission, office, &c.

Ch. iv. 26, &c. The parable of the kingdom of heaven coming without observation.

Ch. vi. 12, 13. The disciples going out to preach, casting out devils, recovering many that were sick by anointing with oil.

Ver. 30, &c. The apostles' report of their success, &c.

Ch. vii. 2, &c. The pharisees observe our Lord's disciples eating with unwashen hands, and the custom of the Jews in this matter, ver. 3, 4.

Ver. 32, &c. The miracle of the deaf and dumb person being restored to his hearing and speech.

Ch. viii. 22, &c. The history of a blind person restored to his sight at Bethsaida.

Ch. ix. 14, 15. The disciples' dispute with the scribes, and Christ's inquiry into it.

Ver. 33, &c. The disciples' dispute among themselves by the way, who should be the greatest.

Ver. 38, &c. The story of John's forbidding a person to cast

out devils in the name of Christ, with Christ's discourse to

John thereupon.

Ch. x. 10, &c. The disciples' inquiry about the business of divorce.

Ch. xii. 41, &c. Our Saviour's observing the money cast into the treasury, the widow's mite, &c.

Ch. xiv. 51, 52. The account of the young man that appeared naked with a linen cloth about his body, at the time when our Saviour was taken.

Ch. xvi. 9, &c. Christ's first appearance, after his resurrection, to Mary Magdalen.

Ver. 12. His appearing to the two disciples on the road.

These several histories (besides a great many particular circumstances already mentioned) are in St. Mark, and not in St. Matthew; which certainly never would have been, if he had designed his Gospel only for an abridgment of St. Matthew's. It is a thing unusual; nay, I believe I may venture to say, it is a thing which never has been known, for an epitomizer to make such large additions to the history which he abridges. St. Mark's Gospel therefore is not an epitome of St. Matthew's.

Arg. V. Perhaps, on the other hand, it may add to the improbability of St. Mark's Gospel being an epitome of St. Matthew's, that there are several things wanting in it, and not so much as hinted at, which are in St. Matthew. He that undertakes to epitomize a history, ought not to omit any considerable part of it. Now it is evident, that St. Mark has not the least remote regard to many of the parts of St. Matthew's Gospel. As near as I can guess, St. Matthew is about one fourth part larger than St. Mark, and those things in which he is larger are some sermons and discourses of our Lord, especially the sermon on the mount; besides, St. Mark entirely omitteth the genealogy, and the birth of Christ with all its circumstances. There are also two or three miracles mentioned by St. Matthew, and not by St. Mark. Now if St. Mark had St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, and designed to make an abridgment of it, it is strange he should entirely omit, and not so much as slightly mention these things. He could not think that which an inspired writer had penned not worthy his notice; if therefore he had had St. Matthew by him when he

wrote, it is reasonable to suppose he would have mentioned these things, though he had omitted some circumstances, and done it more briefly. If any person were now to make an epitome of St. Matthew, and were in this respect to make it like St. Mark's, I am sure every one would blame it as not duly done. Mr. Whiston has made an epitome of the Gospel his tory; and it is no compliment at all, nor a character so great as that ingenious performance deserves, to say, it is a much better epitome of the Gospels (not only in this respect, but many others) than St. Mark's Gospel is of St. Matthew's. A just epitomizer should have at least the general heads of the history, which he abridges, in his epitome; St. Mark has not so much as this, and therefore Father Simon hath reasoned very justly in this matter z; "It is," says he, "worth observing, that "St. Mark cannot pass for a simple abbreviator of St. Mat"thew, because he insists more at large than he doth in some places; besides, if he had only a design to publish an epitome "of St. Matthew's Gospel, he would not have taken away the "entire genealogy of Jesus Christ, which makes one of the "most principal parts of it: it is not the custom of those that "epitomize the works of others to retrench the most consider"able part of them."

CHAP. X.

The sixth argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because that supposition makes its inspiration more dubious and uncertain; it makes the author look like a plagiary. Two objections against this argument answered. The seventh argument, the supposing this Gospel an epitome detracts from its honour and usefulness. Spinoza and Father Simon for this reason assert most of the books of the Old Testament to be only epitomes made out of records that are lost. Lastly, the supposing this Gospel an epitome invalidates in a great measure its testimony to the truth of Christianity. The evangelists did not see one another's Gospels.

Arg. VI. ST. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome or abridgment

z Critic. Histor. of the New Test. part 1. c. 10. p. 89.