Nowhere in these Gos

flames had been kept down for a time, but afterwards burst forth with greater fury than ever. pels do we meet with such violent discrepancies as I had in the statements of these four men.

"As to the apparent discrepancies between the Evangelists, there is often room for difference of opinion as to the proper reconciliation; and a candid man may often find it proper to say, I believe both accounts, and I am sure they could be reconciled if we knew the whole facts. Sometimes the difficulty is to be removed by supposing that the two Evangelists are not recording the same events, but different incidents so far alike. It is clear that our Lord proceeded on a system or method in the deeds He performed, and was in the way of performing very much the same sort of deeds at different times and places. Thus we have Him multiplying loaves and fishes on two several occasions. Matthew tells us (xv. 32-39; see also Mark viii. 1-9) that Jesus fed four thousand, but he had previously told us that He had fed five thousand; and if He had not done so, the infidel might have urged that Matthew (xv. 32-39) was contradicted by John (vi. 5-16), where we are told that five thousand were fed. It is clear that there were two such transactions; that Mark records the one and John the other, while Matthew details both. "More frequently we are to account for the seeming discrepancy by the very simple and intelligible fact, that one witness gives one feature, and another supplies a different feature, and that we are to combine the two if we would have the whole figure before us. . . .

....

"There is a palpable discrepancy between the genealogy of our Lord as given by Matthew and by Luke. In saying so, I do not refer merely to the circumstance that the one

goes back only to Abraham, whereas the other ascends to Adam; but to real differences in the account. The number of ancestors in the two rolls is not the same, nor are the individual names identical. Matthew's division into three fourteens gives forty-two ancestors from Jesus to Abraham, whereas Luke reckons fifty-six. Matthew (i. 6) makes the descent from David through Solomon; whereas Luke (iii. 31) makes it from David through Nathan, 'which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David.' . . . The subject has been taken up and discussed with great care and a large amount of success, by Lord Arthur Hervey, in an elaborate volume. Matthew's genealogy, he argues, is meant to show that Jesus was legal successor to the throne of David; and, therefore, His descent is traced through the line of Kings-through Solomon, Rehoboam, Abia, and Asa, and Jehosaphat, and Jehoram, and so forth. Luke, on the other hand, gives His private, His natural, His family genealogy, which he traces back to David through Nathan. Matthew shows that He was legally the heir of the throne of David through the monarchs of Judah and their legal descendants. Luke brings out the real progenitors, who were not kings, though descended from David. You may understand what I mean, if you consider that a man might be the legal heir of a property which was not possessed by his father or grandfather, or actual progenitors for generations immediately passed. In such a case he might have two genealogies, one through the persons possessing the property, the other of his proper natural progenitors. By this simple principle the author brings the two accounts into harmony. Thus the simple principle that one Evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heirs to David and Solomon's throne, while the

1 "Genealogies of our Lord."

other exhibits the paternal stem of Him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees - their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of their being two at all. .

"Matthew wrote specially to the Hebrews; and as he declares (i. 1), he sets before us Jesus as the son of David and the son of Abraham, the Messiah promised by the prophets. Mark exhibits Jesus (see i. 1) as the Son of God, and dwells forcibly on His deeds of power.

6

Luke,

the companion of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, shows, as he professes (iii. 38), how Jesus was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.'

"As to the obvious circumstance that John's Gospel differs so much from the others, not only in the narrative, but in the sort of discourses put into our Lord's mouth, I have never thought that it raises any very formidable difficulty. John tells us at the close of his Gospel, 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself [A hyperbolic expression common in the East,1] could not contain the books that should be written. Of the things which He did, of the words which He spoke, we have only a few recorded. The first three Evangelists give us so much; they give us what had been inscribed most deeply on the hearts and memories of the Apostles at Jerusalem, each, however, writing independently of the others. John wrote his Gospel at a later date, and he studiously brings out other incidents of our Lord's life, and new features of His character. I believe that each writer presents our Lord under the aspect which most impressed him. . . . In the one we have certain qualities which all

1 See Josephus, Antiq. lib. xix. c. Also Philo in his Tract 66 De Ebriet." T. I. p. 362, 10. Also Homer's Illiad, c. 20.

the disciples comprehended and relished, and we have specially His human side brought fully into view; whereas the apostle who leaned on His bosom, and evidently looked into that bosom, and was warmed by it, has brought out perfections of our Lord founded on the depths of His divine nature. From that day to this, the great body of Christians have always turned first to the synoptic Gospels; while there have always been a select few who have felt that the disciple of love carries them closer to the inner nature, to the heart of Jesus. We should thank God for providing both, that all and each may find something to attract the eye and gain the confidence of the heart.

"The light which comes from the sun is one and the same; but how different are the colours as reflected from different objects! The same rays fall on every part of that plant, but from the leaves are reflected the soft and lively green, and from the flowers the deep purple or the brighter red or yellow. So it is with Him who is expressly called the Sun of righteousness and light of the world: He shone on all the Evangelists alike, but each reflects the hue that most impressed Him. I am tempted once more to use a familiar illustration from my own history. My father died when I was a boy, and I have a dimmer recollection of him than I could wish. In order to get a clearer idea of him, I have applied to different persons. I have applied to neighbours; I have applied to elder sisters; I have applied to a nearer still, to his widow and my mother. The accounts given by them were substantially one; but they differed in some points, and the most endearing of all was by the dearest friend. I believe that the disciple whom Jesus loved was able to enter into and reciprocate some of the deepest and yet the most delicate of the characteristics

of our Lord. As being himself struck with them, he has recorded the incidents and preserved the discourses in which they were exhibited. I am inclined to think

that, while all received much, John took in most, and so has given out most, of the profundity of our Lord's doctrine and the tenderness of His sentiment.

"And as to the Apostle's own style in his Gospel and in his three Epistles being so like that of our Lord, we are to account for it as we explain the sameness of style in prose, poetry, and painting, on the part of pupils, and the masters whom they admire. I believe it is to be traced to the circumstance that John, as he leant upon the bosom of his Master, had drunk into His spirit, and moulded himself in style as in character upon the great Exemplar."1

Allow also a quotation bearing on the all-important subject of the Gospels' authenticity, from the able pen of the Rev. Dr. Hamilton. Speaking of the four Gospels, he says: "They are not four productions of one biographer, but each is the work of a distinct individual. In other words there are four Evangelists, as well as four Gospels. To say nothing of external evidence, but judging entirely from their intrinsic style and manner, especially when read in the original, these four memoirs are the work of four separate biographers.

'Looking at them again, we are struck with their circumstantial minuteness. One canvas may be more crowded than another; but each of them contains, perhaps, a hundred heads, and many of them with very decided and definite features. Not only is the great central object carefully depicted in all, but there is no tendency to slur over in safe and shadowy vagueness, the subordinate and accessory

1 See this subject fully treated in "Christianity and Positivism," by James McCosh, D.D., LL.D.