and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden HIм saw it, he spake within himself saying, This Man, if He were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth HIM; for she is a sinner." Then follows our SAVIOUR'S reply in the parable of the two debtors, which is succeeded by this rebuke: "And He turned to the woman and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest ME no water for My feet; but she hath washed My feet with tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest ME no kiss; but this woman since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss My feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman hath anointed My feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins which are many are forgiven; for she loved much but to whom little is forgiven the same loveth little."

:

And now observe how different from this passage in tone, circumstances and especially in object, is the account which I shall extract and harmonise from the other Evangelists.

"Then JESUS,' six days before the Passover, came to Bethany (to the house of Simon the leper) where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead. There they made HIм a supper and

1

Compare throughout S. Matt. xxvi. 6; S. Mark xiv. 3; S. John xii. 1.

Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with HIM. Then came Mary, having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, a pound of ointment of spikenard, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat and anointed the feet of JESUS, and wiped His feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. But when Judas Iscariot Simon's son which should betray HIM and the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste, for this ointment might have been sold for much; why was it not sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? This Judas said, not that he cared r the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag and bare what was put therein. When JESUS understood it, He said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman, for she hath wrought a good work upon ME. Let her alone, against the day of My burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good, but ME ye have not always. She hath done what she could, she is come aforehand to anoint My body for the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her."

Such are the two accounts; and it is difficult to understand how statements so very diverse' should have been represented as two versions of the same action. 1 See Appendix.

If we consider the two accounts as differing in tone, what can be more unlike than the contritional temper exhibited in the commended work of the one story and the happy assured peacefulness manifest throughout the good work defended in the other. The Mary of the one appears before us as a tearful and suppliant penitent, the Mary of the other as a grateful and humble benefactor to CHRIST.

If we consider them as differing in circumstances, is it likely that the quiet rebuke and the somewhat lengthened conversation with Simon the Pharisee should have taken place at the same time with the complaint of the purse-loving Judas, and the indignant murmurs of the disciples? Or would it be likely, after Simon had been rebuked, that Judas should have been willing to contend against the act of Mary; or if Judas's complaint had been first made, that Simon would have entertained his secret objection after he had seen a disciple so promptly and decisively put to silence?

If we consider them as differing in their objectin the one, Pharisaism is confounded, true righteousness commended. In the other, false pretences to charity are laid bare, true charity upheld.

That not one, but two actions are here meant, I think may be clearly shown; for, first-the time at which what was done takes place, we may reasonably conclude, differs in the one Evangelist from that in the other three. But a little before the account as it stands in S. Luke,' that Evangelist represents 1 See Appendix.

our SAVIOUR as speaking of S. John the Baptist, as one still living; so early in His ministry did the anointing recorded by S. Luke take place. But the very first impression conveyed by the narratives of the other three Evangelists is, that the action of which they treat occurs late in His ministry. It not only speaks of His burial-our SAVIOUR declaring the ointment was a preparation thereto; but is set by them all, but a little before the crucifixion. So that here is a strong argument for two actions.

Another reason for entertaining the view of a double action, is our perplexity as to how any person can be brought to blend in one (as occurrences of one and the same time) the great perturbation of the woman in the city, with that quiet, calm, retiring behaviour which is Mary's characteristic, at the period when what we contend is the second anointing takes place, -for it was then our SAVIOUR'S great love to her and her family was in the course of manifestation.' This beautiful calm, and that wondrous perturbation are hardly, from their mutual repulsiveness, reconcileable as existing in the same person at one and the same period of time. How could our SAVIOUR say of her, "She hath chosen the good part;" how too could those interesting passages just after the death of Lazarus have taken place between herself and her LORD, if she had not as yet fully repented of her sins? That serene piety, that holy resignation, that wondrous faith she exhibited before her brother's resurrection, the results of some experience, at least, in a religious

'S. John xi. 5.

life, are by S. John related as taking place before that anointing which occasioned Judas's complaint. If then she were, at this time, in so advanced a stage of holy living, what need of penitential tears and such a scene of emotion as is described by S. Luke. Wipe His feet with her hair she might very naturally do, no less in the more advanced stages than in the beginning of a repentance; but where we first have "She hath chosen that good part" we hardly expect soon after" She washed His feet with tears."

Corresponding with this is the fact that no notice is taken by SS. Matthew, Mark, or John, of the penitential character of the action they recount. Tears are spoken of only by S. Luke.

It is quite plain then, that two actions, not one, are recorded in the Gospels. And this is one important step gained.

We will now proceed to consider more particularly if these actions were not performed by one person only; and first, if Mary sister of Lazarus, and the woman in the city are not really one and the same. And to obtain a clear view of this question the best course to be pursued is probably to start with an inquiry which the eleventh and twelfth chapters of S. John suggest. Both these chapters speak of an act of anointing, both of one and the same person, Mary sister of Lazarus, as being engaged in it. Now if we can show that the act alluded to in these two chapters may very well be a twofold, not a single act, and that, indeed, the words of the text