MATT. xiv. 22.-" And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary."

It appears from St. John, that the people thought Jesus was still on the side of the lake where the miracle had been wrought. And this they inferred, because there was no other boat on the preceding evening, except that in which the disciples had gone over to Capernaum on the other side, and they had observed that Jesus went not with them. It is added, however, that, "there came other boats from Tiberias," (which was on the same side as Capernaum,) nigh unto the place where the Lord had given thanks. Now, why might they not have supposed that Jesus had availed himself of one of these return-boats, and so made his escape in the night. St. John gives no reason why they did not make this obvious inference. Let us turn to St. Matthew's ac

count of the same transaction, (which I have placed at the head of this paragraph,) and we speedily learn why they could not. In this account we find it recorded, not simply, that the disciples were in distress in consequence of the sea arising "by reason of a great wind that blew," but it is further stated that "the wind was contrary," i. e. the wind was blowing from Capernaum and Tiberias, and therefore not only might the ships readily come from Tiberias, (the incident mentioned by St. John,) a course for which the wind (though violent,) was fair, but the multitude might well conclude that with such a wind Christ could not have used one of those return-boats, and therefore must still be amongst them.

Indeed, nothing can be more probable than that these ships from Tiberias were fishing vessels, which, having been overtaken by the storm, suffered themselves to be driven before the gale, to the opposite coast, where they might find shelter for the night; so that here again is another instance of undesigned consistency in the narrative; the very fact of a number of boats resorting to this "desert place," at the close of day, strongly indicating (though not incidentally,) that the sea actually

was rising, (as St. John asserts,) "by reason of a great wind that blew."

I further think this to be the correct view of a passage of some intricacy, from considering, 1st, the question which the people put to Christ on finding him at Capernaum the next day. Full as they must have been of the miracle which they had lately witnessed, and anxious to see the repetition of works so wonderful, their first inquiry is, "Rabbi, when camest thou hither?" Surely an inquiry, not of mere form, but manifestly implying, that, under the circumstances, it could only have been by some extraordinary means that he had passed across; and, 2d, from observing the satisfactory explanation it affords of the parenthesis of St. John, "howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias," . which no longer seems a piece of purely gratuitous and irrelevant information, but turns out to be equivalent with the expression in St. Matthew, that "the wind was contrary;" though the point is not directly asserted, but only a fact is mentioned from which such an assertion naturally follows.

It might indeed be said, that the circumstance of the ships coming from Tiberias was mentioned for the purpose of explaining how

the people could take shipping, (as they are stated to have done, to go to Capernaum,) when it had been before affirmed that there was no other boat there, save that into which the disciples were entered; such caution, however, I do not think at all agreeable to the spirit of the writings of the Evangelists, who are always very careless about consequences, not troubling themselves to obviate or explain the difficulties of their narrative. But, whatever may be judged of this matter, the main argument remains the same, and a minute coincidence between St. John and St. Matthew is made out, of such a nature as precludes all suspicion of collusion, and shows consistency in the two histories, without the smallest design.

And here again, I will repeat the observation which I have already had occasion more than once to make-that the truth of the general narrative in some degree involves the truth of a miracle. For if we are satisfied by the undesigned coincidence, that St. Matthew was certainly speaking truth when he said, the wind was "boisterous," how shall we presume to assert, that he speaks truth no longer, when he tells us in the same breath, that Jesus "walked on the sea," in the midst

of that very storm, and that when "he came into the ship the wind ceased ?"

Doubtless, the one fact does not absolutely prove the others, but in all ordinary cases, where one or two particulars in a body of evidence are so corroborated, as to be placed above suspicion, the rest, though not admitting of the like corroboration, are nevertheless received without dispute.

XVIII.

JOHN, Xviii. 10.-" Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus." 15.-" And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

16. But Peter stood at the door without.

Then went out that other disciple which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter."

5