figures. Each is given fresh and firm, and with the precision of those who had the originals before them. Looking at these historic sketches, you instantly observe the copiousness of truth, and the exactitude of personal information. Romancers lay the scene in a distant region or a departed time; the Evangelists recount events happening in their own country, and in their living day. And deceivers confine the story to their own immediate coterie, and take care to introduce no names which might be apt to resent the fraud and publish the imposition. But, strong in conscious truthfulness, the Evangelists abound in dates, and in names of well-known persons and places, Jerusalem, and Jericho, and Nazareth, are introduced as freely as Capernaum or Bethsaida; men in public station, like Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, and hostile personages, like Annas and Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, the Herods, and Herodias, are brought in with no more hesitation than Peter, and James, and John. Miracles do not happen to nameless people in unknown regions: but it is on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem, and on the eve of a memorable Passover, that Bartimeus, the blind beggar, the son of Timeus, is restored to sight; and it is at Bethany, a village two miles from the capital, that Lazarus, a few days afterwards, is recalled from the tomb. Everything is distinct and express; and having nothing to fear from contradiction, by multiplying incidents, and by introducing well-known persons and places, they put it in the power of every contemporary to ascertain the truth of their testimony.

"Surveying our picture once more, we are finally struck with sundry delicate and undesigned coincidences between them; and when we say, 'delicate and undesigned,' we purposely exclude those obvious and outstanding features which could

scarcely elude the notice of even a copyist; but we refer to those little and recondite ingredients which can only occur in sketches direct from the original. For instance, in numbers one and two this grey speck might pass for a stone or a sheep, and it is only when we refer to number three that we find it is meant for a human figure. In the corner of one picture is what seems to be a single tree; in another, a lozenge of light opens through the trunk; and in a third. sketch, the perforated bole resolves into two distinct trees planted near to one another. And as these remote agreements and recondite mutual illustrations successively arise to our earnest gaze, the conviction grows at last irresistible, that whatever they may have known of one another, there was a common original to which the artists were indebted alike for their variations and their concord. When we take up the Evangelists we are struck with that free and independent way in which each gives his version of events, as if secure that his statement will speak for itself, and no less confident in the veracity of his several colleagues. He shows no nervousness as to his reception. He makes no effort to soften down what is strange, or to give extra effect to what is surprising. He offers no explanation to make his narrative tally with some previous history, or to establish its own self-consistency. But on the other hand, there is occasionally a seeming contradiction, a pretermission of particulars, or a condensation of incidents, or a peculiarity in the spectator's standing point, which gives to the narrative an obscurity of meaning, or all the air of an entirely different story, till a careful comparison supplies the gap and completes the harmony.

"For instance, in his account of the crucifixion, Matthew tells that the soldiers smote Jesus with the palms of their

hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote Thee?' And in this challenge there seems nothing very difficult, and we could not have seen the force of the insult nor the meaning of the passage, had not another Evangelist written down, And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, saying, Prophesy who is it that smote Thee?' (Luke xxii. 64).

6

"All the Evangelists agree in telling, that when the high priest's officers came out to arrest Jesus, Peter drew a sword and smote off the servant's ear. And yet, both Matthew and Mark agree in relating, that when Christ's persecutors sought all sorts of evidence against Him, so as to make out a case before the Roman Governor, they could procure none. But is it not very strange, that when the high priest had in his own palace such a striking proof of the violent character and dangerous designs of these Galileans, he should not have called as a witness his own wounded servant? Had we possessed no information beyond the narratives of Matthew and Mark, this would have been a flagrant difficulty. You say that the whole effort of the priests. was to prejudice Pilate against Jesus, as a seditious and turbulent character; but they could substantiate nothing. Why was not this recent and conclusive witness forthcoming? Especially when Jesus said to Pilate, 'My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.' Why did none of his accusers reply, 'Yes, but your servants did fight, and one of them has inflicted a wound on the sacred person of the high priest's servant?' Now had we possessed no Gospels except these two, we could not have accounted for so strange an oversight on the part of the priestly faction. But Luke mentions a circumstance

which sufficiently explains it. From his account we find, that as soon as Peter smote off the ear Jesus healed it again; and by doing this He effectually disqualified the wounded servant from appearing as a witness against Him. The priests were in this dilemma :-If next morning, they produced the servant as a proof of the violence of Christ and His followers, how could Pilate credit them? That wound was never inflicted over night, or it could not be cured so Or if, to explain this latter circumstance, they acknowledged that Christ had instantaneously healed it, they would at once have trod on dangerous ground, and would have given Pilate another reason for suspecting— what he was already very apt to surmise-the superhuman character of his Prisoner.

soon.

"In Matthew (viii. 16) we read, that 'when the even was come they brought unto Him many that were possessed with devils, and He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that were sick.' But why was it evening when they brought to Jesus those demoniacs and sick persons? From Mark (i. 21-32) we find that it was the Sabbathday; and from Luke (xiii. 14) we find that the Jews thought it sinful for men to come and be healed on the Sabbathday.' But we also know that the Jewish Sabbath ceased at sunset; so that when the evening was come the people would feel no scruple in bringing their afflicted friends to Jesus to be healed. But observe how far we have to travel before we can complete Matthew's simple statement. He merely mentions that it was in the evening Jesus wrought these cures; and had we possessed Matthew's narrative alone, we might have laid no particular stress on the time of day. But we go on to Mark, and we find that it was the Sabbath evening, when. the sun was set.'

6

And we go on

to Luke, and find, though in a totally different connection, that these Jews would have thought it very wicked to carry the sick, or to accept a cure on the Sabbath. And it is just because the particulars are so minute that the coincidence is so valuable. They are just such trifles which a true historian is apt to omit, and just such trifles that a fabricator would never think of supplying. Or if we could imagine a forger systematically attempting to complete the omissions of his predecessor, he would not deposit his supplemental information in nooks and by-paths, where ages might elapse before it was discovered; but he would exhibit his addendum in some conspicuous position, and would take care that it should arrest the reader's attention.

"The more delicate these coincidences are, the surer is the inference from them. If you were comparing a cheque with the cheque-book from which it was said to be taken, and found not only the cut portion to correspond with the counterfoil, but if on microscopic examination the torn corner finely coincided,—if you found its rough and ragged edge and each riven fibre to match exactly the surface from which it was said to be sundered, you could no longer doubt that the piece of paper in your hand had been taken from that book. And these delicate agreements of one evangelist with another, show that their story is an extract from the Book of Truth-a leaf from the volume of actual occurrences -a derivation from a counterpart original. The Evangelist John tells us (vi. 5), that on one occasion, when surrounded by a weary multitude, Jesus said, 'Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?' And in putting this question He addressed Himself to Philip. But John hints no reason why He should have put this enquiry to Philip rather than to any other apostle. Luke, however (ix. 10), mentions that