THEORIA
Explore full early church libraryExplore library
Library
  1. Library
  2. St. Augustine of Hippo
  3. The Harmony of the Gospels

The Harmony of the Gospels

St. Augustine of Hippo

8h 35m read
Post-Nicene

De Consensu Evangelistarum, four books demonstrating the agreement of the four evangelists and refuting pagan and Manichaean claims that the Gospels contradict one another or misrepresent Jesus.

Table of Contents

1Translator’s Introductory Notice1Book I1On the Authority of the Gospels2On the Order of the Evangelists, and the Principles on Which They Wrote3Of the Fact that Matthew, Together with Mark, Had Specially in View the Kingly Character of Christ, Whereas Luke Dealt with the Priestly4Of the Fact that John Undertook the Exposition of Christ’s Divinity5Concerning the Two Virtues, of Which John is Conversant with the Contemplative, the Other Evangelists with the Active6Of the Four Living Creatures in the Apocalypse, Which Have Been Taken by Some in One Application, and by Others in Another, as Apt Figures of the Four Evangelists7A Statement of Augustin’s Reason for Undertaking This Work on the Harmony of the Evangelists, and an Example of the Method in Which He Meets Those Who Allege that Christ Wrote Nothing Himself, and that His Disciples Made an Unwarranted Affirmation in Proclaiming Him to Be God8Of the Question Why, If Christ is Believed to Have Been the Wisest of Men on the Testimony of Common Narrative Report, He Should Not Be Believed to Be God on the Testimony of the Superior Report of Preaching9Of Certain Persons Who Pretend that Christ Wrote Books on the Arts of Magic10Of Some Who are Mad Enough to Suppose that the Books Were Inscribed with the Names of Peter and Paul11In Opposition to Those Who Foolishly Imagine that Christ Converted the People to Himself by Magical Arts12Of the Fact that the God of the Jews, After the Subjugation of that People, Was Still Not Accepted by the Romans, Because His Commandment Was that He Alone Should Be Worshipped, and Images Destroyed13Of the Question Why God Suffered the Jews to Be Reduced to Subjection14Of the Fact that the God of the Hebrews, Although the People Were Conquered, Proved Himself to Be Unconquered, by Overthrowing the Idols, and by Turning All the Gentiles to His Own Service15Of the Fact that the Pagans, When Constrained to Laud Christ, Have Launched Their Insults Against His Disciples16Of the Fact That, on the Subject of the Destruction of Idols, the Apostles Taught Nothing Different from What Was Taught by Christ or by the Prophets17In Opposition to the Romans Who Rejected the God of Israel Alone18Of the Fact that the God of the Hebrews is Not Received by the Romans, Because His Will is that He Alone Should Be Worshipped19The Proof that This God is the True God20Of the Fact that Nothing is Discovered to Have Been Predicted by the Prophets of the Pagans in Opposition to the God of the Hebrews21An Argument for the Exclusive Worship of This God, Who, While He Prohibits Other Deities from Being Worshipped, is Not Himself Interdicted by Other Divinities from Being Worshipped22Of the Opinion Entertained by the Gentiles Regarding Our God23Of the Follies Which the Pagans Have Indulged in Regarding Jupiter and Saturn24Of the Fact that Those Persons Who Reject the God of Israel, in Consequence Fail to Worship All the Gods; And, on the Other Hand, that Those Who Worship Other Gods, Fail to Worship Him25Of the Fact that the False Gods Do Not Forbid Others to Be Worshipped Along with Themselves. That the God of Israel is the True God, is Proved by His Works, Both in Prophecy and in Fulfilment26Of the Fact that Idolatry Has Been Subverted by the Name of Christ, and by the Faith of Christians According to the Prophecies27An Argument Urging It Upon the Remnant of Idolaters that They Should at Length Become Servants of This True God, Who Everywhere is Subverting Idols28Of the Predicted Rejection of Idols29Of the Question Why the Heathen Should Refuse to Worship the God of Israel; Even Although They Deem Him to Be Only the Presiding Divinity of the Elements?30Of the Fact That, as the Prophecies Have Been Fulfilled, the God of Israel Has Now Been Made Known Everywhere31The Fulfilment of the Prophecies Concerning Christ32A Statement in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Apostles as Opposed to Idolatry, in the Words of the Prophecies33A Statement in Opposition to Those Who Make the Complaint that the Bliss of Human Life Has Been Impaired by the Entrance of Christian Times34Epilogue to the Preceding35Of the Fact that the Mystery of a Mediator Was Made Known to Those Who Lived in Ancient Times by the Agency of Prophecy, as It is Now Declared to Us in the Gospel2Book II1The Prologue2A Statement of the Reason Why the Enumeration of the Ancestors of Christ is Carried Down to Joseph, While Christ Was Not Born of that Man’s Seed, But of the Virgin Mary3An Explanation of the Sense in Which Christ is the Son of David, Although He Was Not Begotten in the Way of Ordinary Generation by Joseph the Son of David4A Statement of the Reason Why Matthew Enumerates One Succession of Ancestors for Christ, and Luke Another5Of the Reason Why Forty Generations (Not Including Christ Himself) are Found in Matthew, Although He Divides Them into Three Successions of Fourteen Each6A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke’s Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony with Matthew’s in Those Matters Concerning the Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of Christ, Which are Omitted by the One and Recorded by the Other7On the Position Given to the Preaching of John the Baptist in All the Four Evangelists8Of the Two Herods9An Explanation of the Statement Made by Matthew, to the Effect that Joseph Was Afraid to Go with the Infant Christ into Jerusalem on Account of Archelaus, and Yet Was Not Afraid to Go into Galilee, Where Herod, that Prince’s Brother, Was Tetrarch10An Explanation of the Circumstance that Matthew States that Joseph’s Reason for Going into Galilee with the Child Christ Was His Fear of Archelaus, Who Was Reigning at that Time in Jerusalem in Place of His Father, While Luke Tells Us that the Reason for Going into Galilee Was the Fact that Their City Nazareth Was There11A Statement of the Reason Why Luke Tells Us that ‘His Parents Went to Jerusalem Every Year at the Feast of the Passover’ Along with the Boy; While Matthew Intimates that Their Dread of Archelaus Made Them Afraid to Go There on Their Return from Egypt12An Examination of the Question as to How It Was Possible for Them to Go Up, According to Luke’s Statement, with Him to Jerusalem to the Temple, When the Days of the Purification of the Mother of Christ Were Accomplished, in Order to Perform the Usual Rites, If It is Correctly Recorded by Matthew, that Herod Had Already Learned from the Wise Men that the Child Was Born in Whose Stead, When He Sought for Him, He Slew So Many Children13Concerning the Words Ascribed to John by All the Four Evangelists Respectively14Of the Baptism of Jesus15Of the Words or the Voice that Came from Heaven Upon Him When He Had Been Baptized16An Explanation of the Circumstance That, According to the Evangelist John, John the Baptist Says, ‘I Knew Him Not;’ While, According to the Others, It is Found that He Did Already Know Him17Of the Temptation of Jesus18Of the Calling of the Apostles as They Were Fishing19Of the Date of His Departure into Galilee20Of the Lengthened Sermon Which, According to Matthew, He Delivered on the Mount21An Explanation of the Circumstance that Matthew Tells Us How the Centurion Came to Jesus on Behalf of His Servant, While Luke’s Statement is that the Centurion Despatched Friends to Him22Of the Order in Which the Narrative Concerning Peter’s Mother-In-Law is Introduced23Of the Order of the Incidents Which are Recorded After This Section and of the Question Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Consistent with Each Other in These24Of the Person Who Said to the Lord, ‘I Will Follow Thee Whithersoever Thou Goest;’ And of the Other Things Connected Therewith, and of the Order in Which They are Recorded by Matthew and Luke25Of the Lord’s Crossing the Lake on that Occasion on Which He Slept in the Vessel, and of the Casting Out of Those Devils Whom He Suffered to Go into the Swine; And of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of All that Was Done and Said on These Occasions26Of the Man Sick of the Palsy to Whom the Lord Said, ‘Thy Sins are Forgiven Thee,’ And ‘Take Up Thy Bed;’ And in Especial, of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark are Consistent with Each Other in Their Notice of the Place Where This Incident Took Place, in So Far as Matthew Says It Happened ‘In His Own City,’ While Mark Says It Was in Capharnaum27Of the Calling of Matthew, and of the Question Whether Matthew’s Own Account is in Harmony with Those of Mark and Luke When They Speak of Levi the Son of Alphaeus28Of the Feast at Which It Was Objected at Once that Christ Ate with Sinners, and that His Disciples Did Not Fast; Of the Circumstance that the Evangelists Seem to Give Different Accounts of the Parties by Whom These Objections Were Alleged; And of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark and Luke are Also in Harmony with Each Other in the Reports Given of the Words of These Persons, and of the Replies Returned by the Lord29Of the Raising of the Daughter of the Ruler of the Synagogue, and of the Woman Who Touched the Hem of His Garment; Of the Question, Also, as to Whether the Order in Which These Incidents are Narrated Exhibits Any Contradiction in Any of the Writers by Whom They are Reported; And in Particular, of the Words in Which the Ruler of the Synagogue Addressed His Request to the Lord30Of the Two Blind Men and the Dumb Demoniac Whose Stories are Related Only by Matthew31Of the Section Where It is Recorded, that Being Moved with Compassion for the Multitudes, He Sent His Disciples, Giving Them Power to Work Cures, and Charged Them with Many Instructions, Directing Them How to Live; And of the Question Concerning the Proof of Matthew’s Harmony Here with Mark and Luke, Especially on the Subject of the Staff, Which Matthew Says the Lord Told Them They Were Not to Carry, While According to Mark It is the Only Thing They Were to Carry; And Also of the Wearing of the Shoes and Coats32Of the Account Given by Matthew and Luke of the Occasion When John the Baptist Was in Prison, and Despatched His Disciples on a Mission to the Lord33Of the Occasion on Which He Upbraided the Cities Because They Repented Not, Which Incident is Recorded by Luke as Well as by Matthew; And of the Question Regarding Matthew’s Harmony with Luke in the Matter of the Order34Of the Occasion on Which He Calls Them to Take His Yoke and Burden Upon Them, and of the Question as to the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Luke in the Order of Narration35Of the Passage in Which It is Said that the Disciples Plucked the Ears of Corn and Ate Them; And of the Question as to How Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in Harmony with Each Other with Respect to the Order of Narration There36Of the Man with the Withered Hand, Who Was Restored on the Sabbath-Day; And of the Question as to How Matthew’s Narrative of This Incident Can Be Harmonized with Those of Mark and Luke, Either in the Matter of the Order of Events, or in the Report of the Words Spoken by the Lord and by the Jews37Of Another Question Which Demands Our Consideration, Namely, Whether, in Passing from the Account of the Man Whose Withered Hand Was Restored, These Three Evangelists Proceed to Their Next Subjects in Such a Way as to Create No Contradictions in Regard to the Order of Their Narrations38Of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew and Luke Regarding the Dumb and Blind Man Who Was Possessed with a Devil39Of the Occasion on Which It Was Said to Him that He Cast Out Devils in the Power of Beelzebub, and of the Declarations Drawn Forth from Him by that Circumstance in Regard to the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit, and with Respect to the Two Trees; And of the Question Whether There is Not Some Discrepancy in These Sections Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists, and Particularly Between Matthew and Luke40Of the Question as to the Manner of Matthew’s Agreement with Luke in the Accounts Which are Given of the Lord’s Reply to Certain Persons Who Sought a Sign, When He Spoke of Jonas the Prophet, and of the Ninevites, and of the Queen of the South, and of the Unclean Spirit Which, When It Has Gone Out of the Man, Returns and Finds the House Garnished41Of the Question as to Whether There is Any Discrepancy Between Matthew on the One Hand, and Mark and Luke on the Other, in Regard to the Order in Which the Notice is Given of the Occasion on Which His Mother and His Brethren Were Announced to Him42Of the Words Which Were Spoken Out of the Ship on the Subject of the Sower, Whose Seed, as He Sowed It, Fell Partly on the Wayside, Etc.; And Concerning the Man Who Had Tares Sowed Over and Above His Wheat; And Concerning the Grain of Mustard Seed and the Leaven; As Also of What He Said in the House Regarding the Treasure Hid in the Field, and the Pearl, and the Net Cast into the Sea, and the Man that Brings Out of His Treasure Things New and Old; And of the Method in Which Matthew’s Harmony with Mark and Luke is Proved Both with Respect to the Things Which They Have Reported in Common with Him, and in the Matter of the Order of Narration43Of His Coming into His Own Country, and of the Astonishment of the People at His Doctrine, as They Looked with Contempt Upon His Lineage; Of Matthew’s Harmony with Mark and Luke in This Section; And in Particular, of the Question Whether the Order of Narration Which is Presented by the First of These Evangelists Does Not Exhibit Some Want of Consistency with that of the Other Two44Of the Mutual Consistency of the Accounts Which are Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of What Was Said by Herod on Hearing About the Wonderful Works of the Lord, and of Their Concord in Regard to the Order of Narration45Of the Order in Which the Accounts of John’s Imprisonment and Death are Given by These Three Evangelists46Of the Order and the Method in Which All the Four Evangelists Come to the Narration of the Miracle of the Five Loaves47Of the Question as to How the Four Evangelists Harmonize with Each Other on This Same Subject of the Miracle of the Five Loaves48Of His Walking Upon the Water, and of the Questions Regarding the Harmony of the Evangelists Who Have Narrated that Scene, and Regarding the Manner in Which They Pass Off from the Section Recording the Occasion on Which He Fed the Multitudes with the Five Loaves49Of the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and John on the Other, in the Accounts Which the Three Give Together of What Took Place After the Other Side of the Lake Was Reached50Of the Woman of Canaan Who Said, ‘Yet the Dogs Eat of the Crumbs Which Fall from Their Masters’ Tables,’ And of the Harmony Between the Account Given by Matthew and that by Luke51Of the Occasion on Which He Fed the Multitudes with the Seven Loaves, and of the Question as to the Harmony Between Matthew and Mark in Their Accounts of that Miracle52Of Matthew’s Declaration That, on Leaving These Parts, He Came into the Coasts of Magedan; And of the Question as to His Agreement with Mark in that Intimation, as Well as in the Notice of the Saying About Jonah, Which Was Returned Again as an Answer to Those Who Sought a Sign53Of Matthew’s Agreement with Mark in the Statement About the Leaven of the Pharisees, as Regards Both the Subject Itself and the Order of Narrative54Of the Occasion on Which He Asked the Disciples Whom Men Said that He Was; And of the Question Whether, with Regard Either to the Subject-Matter or the Order, There are Any Discrepancies Between Matthew, Mark, and Luke55Of the Occasion on Which He Announced His Coming Passion to the Disciples, and of the Measure of Concord Between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the Accounts Which They Give of the Same56Of the Harmony Between the Three Evangelists in the Notices Which They Subjoin of the Manner in Which the Lord Charged the Man to Follow Him Who Wished to Come After Him57Of the Manifestation Which the Lord Made of Himself, in Company with Moses and Elias, to His Disciples on the Mountain; And of the Question Concerning the Harmony Between the First Three Evangelists with Regard to the Order and the Circumstances of that Event; And in Especial, the Number of the Days, in So Far as Matthew and Mark State that It Took Place After Six Days, While Luke Says that It Was After Eight Days58Of the Harmony Between Matthew and Mark in the Accounts Given of the Occasion on Which He Spoke to the Disciples Concerning the Coming of Elias59Of the Man Who Brought Before Him His Son, Whom the Disciples Were Unable to Heal; And of the Question Concerning the Agreement Between These Three Evangelists Also in the Matter of the Order of Narration Here60Of the Occasion on Which the Disciples Were Exceeding Sorry When He Spoke to Them of His Passion, as It is Related in the Same Order by the Three Evangelists61Of His Paying the Tribute Money Out of the Mouth of the Fish, an Incident Which Matthew Alone Mentions62Of the Little Child Whom He Set Before Them for Their Imitation, and of the Offences of the World; Of the Members of the Body Causing Offences; Of the Angels of the Little Ones, Who Behold the Face of the Father; Of the One Sheep Out of the Hundred Sheep; Of the Reproving of a Brother in Private; Of the Loosing and the Binding of Sins; Of The Agreement of Two, and the Gathering Together of Three; Of the Forgiving of Sins Even Unto Seventy Times Seven; Of the Servant Who Had His Own Large Debt Remitted, and Yet Refused to Remit the Small Debt Which His Fellow-Servant Owed to Him; And of the Question as to Matthew’s Harmony with the Other Evangelists on All These Subjects63Of the Harmony Subsisting Between Matthew and Mark in the Accounts Which They Offer of the Time When He Was Asked Whether It Was Lawful to Put Away One’s Wife, and Especially in Regard to the Specific Questions and Replies Which Passed Between the Lord and the Jews, and in Which the Evangelists Seem to Be, to Some Small Extent, at Variance64Of the Little Children on Whom He Laid His Hands; Of the Rich Man to Whom He Said, ‘Sell All that Thou Hast;’ Of the Vineyard in Which the Labourers Were Hired at Different Hours; And of the Question as to the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists on These Subjects65Of the Occasions on Which He Foretold His Passion in Private to His Disciples; And of the Time When the Mother of Zebedee’s Children Came with Her Sons, Requesting that One of Them Should Sit on His Right Hand, and the Other on His Left Hand; And of the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists on These Subjects66Of the Absence of Any Antagonism Between Matthew and Mark, or Between Matthew and Luke, in the Account Offered of the Giving of Sight to the Blind Men of Jericho67Of the Colt of the Ass Which is Mentioned by Matthew, and of the Consistency of His Account with that of the Other Evangelists, Who Speak Only of the Ass68Of the Expulsion of the Sellers and Buyers from the Temple, and of the Question as to the Harmony Between the First Three Evangelists and John, Who Relates the Same Incident in a Widely Different Connection69Of the Withering of the Fig-Tree, and of the Question as to the Absence of Any Contradiction Between Matthew and the Other Evangelists in the Accounts Given of that Incident, as Well as the Other Matters Related in Connection with It; And Very Specially as to the Consistency Between Matthew and Mark in the Matter of the Order of Narration70Of the Harmony Between the First Three Evangelists in Their Accounts of the Occasion on Which the Jews Asked the Lord by What Authority He Did These Things71Of the Two Sons Who Were Commanded by Their Father to Go into His Vineyard, and of the Vineyard Which Was Let Out to Other Husbandmen; Of the Question Concerning the Consistency of Matthew’s Version of These Passages with Those Given by the Other Two Evangelists, with Whom He Retains the Same Order; As Also, in Particular, Concerning the Harmony of His Version of the Parable, Which is Recorded by All the Three, Regarding the Vineyard that Was Let Out; And in Reference Specially to the Reply Made by the Persons to Whom that Parable Was Spoken, in Relating Which Matthew Seems to Differ Somewhat from the Others72Of the Marriage of the King’s Son, to Which the Multitudes Were Invited; And of the Order in Which Matthew Introduces that Section as Compared with Luke, Who Gives Us a Somewhat Similar Narrative in Another Connection73Of the Harmony Characterizing the Narratives Given by These Three Evangelists Regarding the Duty of Rendering to Cæsar the Coin Bearing His Image, and Regarding the Woman Who Had Been Married to the Seven Brothers74Of the Person to Whom the Two Precepts Concerning the Love of God and the Love of Our Neighbour Were Commended; And of the Question as to the Order of Narration Which is Observed by Matthew and Mark, and the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Them and Luke75Of the Passage in Which the Jews are Asked to Say Whose Son They Suppose Christ to Be; And of the Question Whether There is Not a Discrepancy Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists, in So Far as He States the Inquiry to Have Been, ‘What Think Ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?’ And Tells Us that to This They Replied, ‘The Son of David;’ Whereas the Others Put It Thus, ‘How Say the Scribes that Christ is David’s Son?’76Of the Pharisees Who Sit in the Seat of Moses, and Enjoin Things Which They Do Not, and of the Other Words Spoken by the Lord Against These Same Pharisees; Of the Question Whether Matthew’s Narrative Agrees Here with Those Which are Given by the Other Two Evangelists, and in Particular with that of Luke, Who Introduces a Passage Resembling This One, Although It is Brought in Not in This Order, But in Another Connection77Of the Harmony in Respect of the Order of Narration Subsisting Between Matthew and the Other Two Evangelists in the Accounts Given of the Occasion on Which He Foretold the Destruction of the Temple78Of the Harmony Subsisting Between the Three Evangelists in Their Narratives of the Discourse Which He Delivered on the Mount of Olives, When the Disciples Asked When the Consummation Should Happen79Of the Question Whether There is Any Contradiction Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and John on the Other, in So Far as the Former State that After Two Days Was to Be the Feast of the Passover, and Afterwards Tells Us that He Was in Bethany, While the Latter Gives a Parallel Narrative of What Took Place at Bethany, But Mentions that It Was Six Days Before the Passover80Of the Concord Between Matthew, Mark, and John in Their Notices of the Supper at Bethany, at Which the Woman Poured the Precious Ointment on the Lord, and of the Method in Which These Accounts are to Be Harmonized with that of Luke, When He Records an Incident of a Similar Nature at a Different Period81Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which are Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of the Occasion on Which He Sent His Disciples to Make Preparations for His Eating the Passover3Book III1Prologue2Of the Method in Which the Four Evangelists are Shown to Be at One in the Accounts Given of the Lord’s Supper and the Indication of His Betrayer3Of the Proof of Their Freedom from Any Discrepancies in the Notices Given of the Predictions of Peter’s Denials4Of the Manner in Which It Can Be Shown that No Discrepancies Exist Between Them in the Accounts Which They Give of the Words Which Were Spoken by the Lord, on to the Time of His Leaving the House in Which They Had Supped5Of What Took Place in the Piece of Ground or Garden to Which They Came on Leaving the House After the Supper; And of the Method in Which, in John’s Silence on the Subject, a Real Harmony Can Be Demonstrated Between the Other Three Evangelists—Namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke6Of the Accounts Which are Given by All the Four Evangelists in Regard to What Was Done and Said on the Occasion of His Apprehension; And of the Proof that These Different Narratives Exhibit No Real Discrepancies7Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which These Evangelists Give of What Happened When the Lord Was Led Away to the House of the High Priest, as Also of the Occurrences Which Took Place Within the Said House After He Was Conducted There in the Nighttime, and in Particular of the Incident of Peter’s Denial8Of the Thorough Harmony of the Evangelists in the Different Accounts of What Took Place in the Early Morning, Previous to the Delivery of Jesus to Pilate; And of the Question Touching the Passage Which is Quoted on the Subject of the Price Set Upon the Lord, and Which is Ascribed to Jeremiah by Matthew, Although No Such Paragraph is Found in the Writings of that Prophet9Of the Absence of Any Discrepancies in the Accounts Which the Evangelists Give of What Took Place in Pilate’s Presence10Of the Mockery Which He Sustained at the Hands of Pilate’s Cohort, and of the Harmony Subsisting Among the Three Evangelists Who Report that Scene, Namely, Matthew, Mark, and John11Of the Method in Which We Can Reconcile the Statement Which is Made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to the Effect that Another Person Was Pressed into the Service of Carrying the Cross of Jesus, with that Given by John, Who Says that Jesus Bore It Himself12Of the Consistency of Matthew’s Version with that of Mark in the Account of the Potion Offered Him to Drink, Which is Introduced Before the Narrative of His Crucifixion13Of the Concord Preserved Among All the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Parting of His Raiment14Of the Hour of the Lord’s Passion, and of the Question Concerning the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Mark and John in the Article of the ‘Third’ Hour and the ‘Sixth.’15Of the Harmony Preserved Among All the Evangelists on the Subject of the Two Robbers Who Were Crucified Along with Him16Of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the Subject of the Parties Who Insulted the Lord17Of the Derision Ascribed to the Robbers, and of the Question Regarding the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and Luke on the Other, When the Last-Named Evangelist States that One of the Two Mocked Him, and that the Other Believed on Him18Of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists in Their Notices of the Draught of Vinegar19Of the Lord’s Successive Utterances When He Was About to Die; And of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark are in Harmony with Luke in Their Reports of These Sayings, and Also Whether These Three Evangelists are in Harmony with John20Of the Rending of the Veil of the Temple, and of the Question Whether Matthew and Mark Really Harmonize with Luke with Respect to the Order in Which that Incident Took Place21Of the Question as to the Consistency of the Several Notices Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the Subject of the Astonishment Felt by the Centurion and Those Who Were with Him22Of the Women Who Were Standing There, and of the Question Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Who Have Stated that They Stood Afar Off, are in Antagonism with John, Who Has Mentioned that One of Them Stood by the Cross23Of the Question Whether the Evangelists are All at One on the Subject of the Narrative Regarding Joseph, Who Begged the Lord’s Body from Pilate, and Whether John’s Version Contains Any Statements at Variance with Each Other24Of the Question Whether the First Three Evangelists are Quite in Harmony with John in the Accounts Given of His Burial25Of the Absence of All Discrepancies in the Narratives Constructed by the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Events Which Took Place About the Time of the Lord’s Resurrection26Of Christ’s Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the Disciples, and of the Question Whether a Thorough Harmony Can Be Established Between the Different Narratives When the Notices Given by the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those Presented by the Apostle Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together4Book IV1Prologue2Of the Question Regarding the Proof that Mark’s Gospel is in Harmony with the Rest in What is Narrated (Those Passages Which He Has in Common with Matthew Being Left Out of Account), from Its Beginning Down to the Section Where It is Said, ‘And They Go into Capharnaum, and Straightway on the Sabbath-Day He Taught Them:’ Which Incident is Reported Also by Luke3Of the Man Out of Whom the Unclean Spirit that Was Tormenting Him Was Cast, and of the Question Whether Mark’s Version is Quite Consistent with that of Luke, Who is at One with Him in Reporting the Incident4Of the Question Whether Mark’s Reports of the Repeated Occasions on Which the Name of Peter Was Brought into Prominence are Not at Variance with the Statement Which John Has Given Us of the Particular Time at Which the Apostle Received that Name5Of the Words, 'The More He Charged Them to Tell No One, So Much the More a Great Deal They Published It;' And of the Question Whether that Statement is Not Inconsistent with His Prescience, Which is Commended to Our Notice in the Gospel6Of the Statement Which John Made Concerning the Man Who Cast Out Devils Although He Did Not Belong to the Circle of the Disciples; And of the Lord’s Reply, ‘Forbid Them Not, for He that is Not Against You is on Your Part;’ And of the Question Whether that Response Does Not Contradict the Other Sentence, in Which He Said, ‘He that is Not with Me is Against Me.’7Of the Circumstance that Mark Has Recorded More Than Luke as Spoken by the Lord in Connection with the Case of This Man Who Was Casting Out Devils in the Name of Christ, Although He Was Not Following with the Disciples; And of the Question How These Additional Words Can Be Shown to Have a Real Bearing Upon What Christ Had in View in Forbidding the Individual to Be Interdicted Who Was Performing Miracles in His Name8Of the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord’s Supper, with Which Act the Discussion of All the Narratives of the Four Evangelists Conjointly Commenced, No Question Calling for Special Examination is Raised by Mark’s Gospel9Of Luke’s Gospel, and Specially of the Harmony Between Its Commencement and the Beginning of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles10Of the Question How It Can Be Shown that the Narrative of the Haul of Fishes Which Luke Has Given Us is Not to Be Identified with the Record of an Apparently Similar Incident Which John Has Reported Subsequently to the Lord’s Resurrection; And of the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord’s Supper, from Which Event Onwards to the End the Combined Accounts of All the Evangelists Have Been Examined, No Difficulty Calling for Special Consideration Emerges in the Gospel of Luke Any More Than in that of Mark11Of the Evangelist John, and the Distinction Between Him and the Other Three