tion of men who had no creed of their own. Gallio, we hear in after-times, "cared for none of these things ;" and, in the same spirit, Lysias writes to Felix about Paul, that "he perceived him to be accused of questions concerning their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds." (Acts, xxiii. 29.)

It may be remarked, that this is not so much a casual coincidence between parallel passages of several Evangelists, as an instance of singular, but undesigned harmony, amongst the various component parts of one piece of history which they all record; the proceedings before two very different tribunals being represented in a manner the most agreeable to the known prejudices of all the parties concerned.

XII.

MATT. XXVI. 71.-" And when he was gone out into the Porch (τòv ävλõvα), another maid saw him, and said unto them, This man was also with Jesus of Nazareth."

How came it to pass that Peter, a stranger, who had entered the house in the night, and

under circumstances of some tumult and disorder, was thus singled out by the maid in the Porch?

Let us turn to St. John, (ch. xviii. v. 16,) and we shall find, that, after Jesus had entered, "Peter stood at the door without, till that other disciple went out which was known unto the high-priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter." Thus was the attention of that girl directed to Peter, (a fact of which St. Matthew gives no hint whatever,) and thus we see how it happened that he was recognized in the Porch. Here is a minute indication of veracity in St. Matthew, which would have been lost upon us, had not the Gospel of St. John come down to our times;—and how many similar indications may be hid, from a want of other cotemporary histories with which to make a comparison, it is impossible to conjecture.

XIII.

My next instance of coincidence without design is taken from the account of certain circumstances attending the feeding of the five thousand. And here And here again, be it remarked,

an indication of veracity is found, as formerly, where the subject of his narrative is a miracle.

In the sixth chapter of St. Mark, we are told, that Jesus said to his disciples, "Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, (it was there where the miracle was wrought,) and rest awhile; for there were many," adds the Evangelist, by way of accounting for this temporary seclusion, "coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat." How it happened that so many were coming and going through Capernaum at that time, above all others, this Evangelist does not give us the slightest hint; neither how it came to pass, that, by retiring for a while, Jesus and his disciples would escape the inconvenience. Turn we then to the parallel passage in St. John, and there we shall find the matter explained at once, though certainly this explanation could never have been given with a reference to the very casual expression of St. Mark. In St. John we do not meet with one word about Jesus retiring for a while into the desert, for the purpose of being apart, or that he would have been put to any inconvenience by staying at Capernaum; but we are told, (what

perfectly agrees with these two circumstances,) that "the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh," vi. v. 4. Hence, then, the "coming and going" through Capernaum was so unusually great; and hence, if Jesus and his disciples rested in the desert "a while," the crowd, which was pressing towards Jerusalem from every part of the country, would have subsided, and drawn off to the capital.

The confusion which prevailed throughout the Holy Land at this great festival we may easily imagine, when we read in Josephus,* that, for the satisfaction of Nero, his officer Cestius, on one occasion, endeavored to reckon up the number of those who shared in the national rite at Jerusalem. By counting the victims sacrificed, and allowing a company of ten to each victim, he found that nearly two millions six hundred thousand souls were present; and it may be observed, that this method of calculation would not include the many persons who must have been disqualified from actually partaking of the sacrifice, by the places of their birth and the various causes of uncleanness.

I cannot forbear remarking another incident in the transaction we are now considering; in

* Bel. Jud. vi. 9. § 3.

itself a trifle, but not, perhaps, on that account, less fit for corroborating the history. We read in St. John, that when Jesus had reached this desert place, he "lifted up his eyes, and saw a great multitude come unto him, and he said unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" vi. 5. Why should this question have been directed to Philip in particular? If we had the Gospel of St. John, and not the other gospels, we should see no peculiar propriety in this choice, and should probably assign it to accident. If we had the other gospels, and not that of St. John, we should not be put upon the inquiry, for they make no mention of the question having been addressed expressly to Philip. But, by comparing St. Luke with St. John, we discover the reason at once. By St. Luke, and by him alone, we are informed, that the desert place where the miracle was wrought "was belonging to Bethsaida." (ix. 10.) By St. John we are informed, (though not in the passage where he relates the miracle, which is worthy of remark, but in another chapter altogether independent of it, ch. i. 44,) that "Philip was of Bethsaida." To whom, then, could the question have been directed so properly as to him, who, being