all the earth, this, that this woman hath done, shall be told in memorial of her?

St. Matthew's, St. Luke's, and St. John's Gospels all contain similar accounts of our Lord's being anointed by a woman, and his vindicating her conduct in so doing. Nevertheless, it has been supposed, from some disagreement or apparent disagreement in the four narratives, that three different incidents have been placed in record. How far this is likely to be the case, it will be worth our while to inquire.

It will, I think, appear from that inquiry, that there were two anointings, which took place in the same house, and were performed by the same person, but at very different periods of our Lord's ministry. Both took place at Bethany, and in the house of Simon the leper, and the woman in both cases was Mary the sister of Lazarus; but her first act was performed early in Christ's ministry, and soon after her conversion; the last, a short time before the crucifixion.

In the first place, then, St. Matthew's account so exactly accords with this of St. Mark, that all are agreed in identifying the event intended by

c Matt. xxvi. 6. Luke vii. 37. John xii. 1.

R

these two.

Again, St. Luke's story agrees in

many remarkable particulars with the other two. He relates, for instance, that the event took place in the house of one Simon, and at Bethany; and that it called forth an expression of approbation from our Lord; and these are the main points which characterize the narrative in the former two. But then, according to St. Luke, it must have taken place two years before the period to which it is assigned in the narratives of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and also in that of St. John; and one circumstance is added, which would at least make it inconsistent with St. John's statement-that the woman was a notorious sinner, and that our Saviour, on this occasion, pronounced the forgiveness of her sins. Lastly, when we examine St. John's account, there appears to be an agreement as to time and other circumstances with St. Matthew and St. Mark; but, in common with St. Luke, he differs from both these Evangelists, in stating that the woman anointed the feet of Jesus, whereas the other two say that the ointment was poured on his head. This however cannot be insisted on as an irreconcilable disagreement; because, while the main

purpose of the woman's action might have been fulfilled in pouring the oil on the head of Jesus, it may have flowed over his body, and, like Aaron's of old, descended to the skirts of his garments d. Or, she may, through diffidence, have begun with his feet, which, from the oblique posture in which he reclined at his meal, would be most accessible. Even St. Matthew and St. Mark, who speak of the head being anointed, report our Lord's words to have been," she hath anointed my body." From St. John too we learn, beyond the statement of the others, that this woman was Mary the sister of Lazarus, and that it was Judas Iscariot who expressed discontent at the use of the ointment; whereas in the other Evangelists, the names of the woman and of the disciple are suppressed. For this variation there might be the same good reason, which has been suggested for the omission of the raising of Lazarus from the dead by the first three Evangelists, and the minute record of it subsequently by St. John. As long as Lazarus lived, and the Jews continued a nation, and there was consequently danger to be apprehended from

d Psalm cxxxiii. 2.

their malice; so long it might have been prudent to suppress the names of persons, the mention of whom was most offensive to them. With the

same view that induced St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke to omit the account of Lazarus's resurrection, lest perhaps he might become an object of persecution to the Jews, they might have concealed the sister's name in the record of an occurrence which took place at a feast where the dead man restored to life was present. Some similar motive of prudence might have suggested also the suppression of the traitor's name for a time, in connection with this transaction.

e

St. John's account then may so far be considered as the same with that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and differing from them only in certain specifications. But many commentators have nevertheless contended, that it was a distinct event which he relates, on the following grounds. I. That the incident recorded by St. John is said to have taken place six days before the passover; whereas that recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark appears to have happened only two. II.

Lightfoot, Whitby, and Macknight. See Mant's Bible, John xii. 3.

That in St. John's narrative the scene is laid in the house of Lazarus; while according to St. Matthew and St. Mark it took place in the house of Simon the leper.

Merely glancing at the first of these objections, one can hardly refrain from suspecting that it must be founded on some mistake. So improbable does it seem, that two events so very similar and so strongly marked by our Lord, and noticed as singular by all, should have occurred within four days of each other. To notice nothing else in this resemblance-how strange it seems, that the reproof of the Lord to the observation made on the first occasion, should not have prevented the renewal of a similar observation on the second. But in truth, the narrative of St. John does not state, or even imply, that the event he records took place six days before the Passover. All that can be inferred from it is, that it must have taken place some time within that period; and this exactly corresponds with the statements of St. Matthew and St. Mark. St. John relates, that Christ came to Bethany six days before the Passover, and this incident is mentioned as one of those which occurred whilst he was there.