on this occasion to follow Jesus, (a thing which he does record,) agrees, no less than the mending of the nets, with that extraordinary event; for what more natural than that men should leave all for a master whose powers were so commanding?

II.

Matth. iv. 21.-" And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their Father." Ch. viii. 21.-"And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father." Ch. xx. 20." Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children, with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him."

Ch. xxvii. 55, 56.—" And many women were there, beholding afar off, which

followed Jesus from Galilee, minAmong which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and

istering unto him.

the mother of Zebedee's children.

WHEN the coincidence which I shall found upon these

currences, concluding the whole " and he preached in the synagogues of Galilee." This had carried him too much in medias res, and therefore in ch. v. he brings up some of the work-day events, which a wish to pursue his former subject without interruption had led him to withhold for awhile, though of prior date. And only let us observe how clumsily the narrative would proceed upon any other supposition-Jesus calls Andrew and Peter, James and John, as he was walking by the sea-side—then he goes to Capernaum-heals Peter's wife's mother, performs other cures, and retires to a solitary place (Mark i. 16—36). Then, supposing St. Luke here to take up the parable, (ch. iv. 42,) he goes again to the sea-side, and again calls Peter, James, and John; which would surely be one call too much. I doubt not, therefore, the identity of the events described.

passages first occurred to me, I felt some doubt whether, by producing it, I might not subject myself to a charge of over-refinement. On further consideration, however, I am satisfied that the conjecture I hazard (for it is nothing more) is far from improbable; and I am the less disposed to withhold it from having observed, when I have chanced to discuss any of these paragraphs with my friends, how differently the importance of an argument is estimated by different minds; a point of evidence often inducing conviction in one, which another would find almost nugatory.

Whoever reads the four verses which I have given at the head of this number in juxtaposition, will probably anticipate what I have to say. The coincidence here is not between several writers, but between several detached passages of the same writer. From the first of these verses it appears that, at the period when James and John received the call to follow Christ, Zebedee their father was alive. They obeyed the call, and left him. From the last two verses it appears, in my opinion, that, at a subsequent period of which they treat, Zebedee was dead. Zebedee does not make the application to Christ on behalf of his sons, but the mother of Zebedee's children makes it. Zebedee is not at the crucifixion, but the mother of Zebedee's children. It is not from his absence on these occasions that I so much infer his death, as from the expression applied to Salome; she is not called the wife of Zebedee, she is not called the mother of James and John, but the mother of Zebedee's children. The term, I think, implies that she was a widow.

Now from the second verse, which relates to a period between these two, we learn that one of Jesus' disciples asked him permission "to go and bury his father." The interval was a short one; the number of persons to whom the name of disciple was given, was very small (see Matt.

ix. 37); a single boat seems to have contained them all (viii. 23). In that number we know that the sons of Zebedee were included. My inference, therefore, is, that the death of Zebedee is here alluded to, and that St. Matthew, without a wish, perhaps, or thought, either to conceal or express the individual, (for there seems no assignable motive for his studying to do either,) betrays an event familiar to his own mind, in that inadvertent and unobtrusive manner in which the truth so often comes out.

The data, it must be confessed, are not enough to determine the matter with certainty either way; it is a conjectural coincidence. They who are not satisfied with it may pass it over I am persuaded, however, that nothing is wanted but the discovery of a fifth or sixth Gospel to multiply such proofs of veracity as these I am collecting to a great extent. It is impossible to examine the historical parts of the New Testament in detail, without suspicions constantly arising of facts, which, nevertheless, cannot be substantiated for want of documents. We have very often a glimpse, and no more. A hint is dropped relating to something well known at the time, and which is not without its value even now in evidence, by giving us to understand that it is a fragment of some real story, of which we are not in full possession. Of this nature is the circumstance recorded by St. Mark, (xiv. 51,) that when the disciples forsook Jesus, "there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, and the young men laid hold of him; and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." This is evidently an imperfect history. It is an incident altogether detached, and alone another Gospel might give us the supplement, and together with that supplement indications of its truth. As another example of the same kind, may be mentioned an expression in the beginning of the second chapter of

the Gospel of St. John, "and the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee" (ver. i.); the Apostle clearly having some other event in his mind which does not transpire, from which this third day dates. Meanwhile let us but apply ourselves diligently to comparing together the four witnesses which we have, instead of indulging a fruitless desire for more, and if consistency without design be a proof that they are "true men," I cannot but consider that it is abundantly supplied.

III.

Matth. viii. 14-" And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever."

THE coincidence which I have here to mention does not strictly fall within my plan, for it results from a comparison of St. Matthew with St. Paul; if, however, it be thought of any value, the irregularity of its introduction will be easily overlooked.

In this passage of the Evangelist, then, by the merest accident in the world, we discover that Peter was a married man. It is a circumstance that has nothing whatever to do with the narrative, but is a gratuitous piece of information, conveyed incidentally in the designation of an individual who was the subject of a miracle.

But that Peter actually was a married man, we learn from the independent testimony of St. Paul: "Have we not power," says he, "to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" 1 Cor. ix. 5. Where it may be remarked that the difference in name, Cephas in the one passage, Peter in the other, is in itself an argument that the one passage

was written without any reference to the other that the coincidence was without design. Here again, be it observed, as in the former instance, the indication of veracity in the Apostle's narrative, is found where the subject of the narrative is a miracle; for Christ having "touched her hand, the fever left her, and she arose and ministered unto them," (ver. 15.)

I cannot but think that any candid sceptic would consider this coincidence to be at least decisive of the actual existence of such a woman as Peter's wife's mother; of its being no imaginary character, no mere person of straw, introduced with an air of precision, under the view of giving a color of truth to the miracle. Yet, unless the Evangelist had felt quite sure of his ground, quite sure, I mean, that this remarkable cure would bear examination, it is scarcely to be believed that he would have fixed it upon an individual who certainly did live, or had lived, and who therefore might herself, or her friends might for her, contradict the alleged fact, if it never had occurred.

IV.

Matt. viii. 16.-" 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."

THE undesignedness of many passages in the Gospels. is overlooked in our familiar acquaintance with them. They have been so long the subject of our reading and of our reflection, that the evidence they furnish of their own veracity does not always present itself to us with that freshness which is necessary to give it its due effect. We often, no doubt, fill up an ellipsis and complete a meaning almost