JESUS WARNS HIS DISCIPLES TESTIMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

Having made these preliminary remarks, we are now prepared to compare the statements of Luke with those of the other Evangelists; and for the convenience of the reader, we propose to place a figure on the margin, whenever we discover a mark of truth in the narrative, made by an incidental and undesigned coincidence, or in any of the modes above indicated. These marginal figures will show when a point is made, and will at the same time give the number of points made up to the place under consideration.

We will begin our investigation with the 31st verse of the twenty-second chapter of Luke. We there read, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat," &c. To this Peter replies, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death." The abruptness and evident incompleteness of our Saviour's address show plainly that we have reported here the mere fragment of a conversation. The singularity too of Peter's reply proves the same thing. Why does he speak of going with his Master? Had Jesus spoken of going anywhere, that it was thus necessary to show his attachment by avowing his determination to go with him? On turning to the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, we find a partial explanation of what seems strange in the language of Christ, and the answer of his disciple. We there learn, that our Saviour had introduced the conversation by telling his disciples that the prophecy was about to be fulfilled, in reference to the smiting of the shepherd and the scattering of the sheep. We might have inferred from these statements, that the ardent and impetuous Peter had, in reply to this announcement, solemnly expressed his determination to abide with the shepherd, and go with him whithersoever he went, and not be scattered with the flock. But John leaves us no room to doubt how Peter got the idea of going into his mind. We read in this Evangelist, " Whither I go, ye cannot come. . . . . Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I am ready to lay down my life for thy sake."

1. We have in these corresponding statements, just that sort of agreement which would weigh most with an intelligent jury. One of the witnesses uses an expression which needs some explanation, two others throw some light upon it, while a fourth relieves it entirely from all mystery and strangeness.

Christ replies to the strong profession of attachment by Peter, " I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." As it was already night when this was said, it is plain that the word day is here used in the sense of shortly, in a little while. John does not specify any time at all. Matthew says, " This night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." And Mark makes plain what was meant by the word "day." His account is, "This day, even in this night, before the cock crows twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."

2. An apparently objectionable phrase in Luke furnishes thus the occasion of showing that the gospel narratives agree in regard to the fact, but employ different language to relate that fact. And this is just the sort of testimony that carries with it the most sure conviction of its truth.

But we notice here an apparent discrepancy, which makes another point of greater importance in favour of the reliability of the witnesses. Matthew, Luke, and John mention but one crowing of the cock: "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." Mark, on the other hand, says, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." Now, remembering that Mark wrote under the direction of Peter, and that poor Peter would be more likely than the other disciples to recollect the very words of our Saviour, we will have no difficulty in reconciling the seeming differences. Suppose that in a case of assault and battery, three of the witnesses swore that they saw a man struck, without saying whether he was struck once or twice; but the man himself, when put upon the stand, swore to having received two blows. 3

3. Would not the difference in evidence confirm the truth of the fact of the man having been struck, by showing that there had been no previous understanding between him and the other three?

By turning to the epistles of Peter, we find numerous incidental allusions to his fall; and we may probably learn from them, too, what our Saviour meant by saying to him, " When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." The word "converted" means, literally, turned. Peter needed to be converted or turned from his overweening self-confidence, and needed to learn the great lesson, to trust in God alone for power to resist temptation. His writings show that his fall did turn him from self-boasting and self-reliance, and did teach him to lean for support upon the Almighty Arm. Hear his language: "Who are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation." "Pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." "That your faith and hope might be in God." " For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." "He that believeth on him (Christ) shall not be confounded." "Commit their souls unto him, as unto a faithful Creator." "For God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time." "According as his divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness." "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation." How different is all this from the proud and boastful exclamation, " Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." Ah, Peter had found out, that " He who trusteth in his own heart is a fool." And how feelingly does the recollection of the victory won by Satan, by playing upon his false trust, make him warn us against the wiles of the great adversary of souls: "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour." "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial, which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you." " That the trial of your faith being much more precious than that of gold which perisheth, though it be tried by fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearance of Jesus Christ."

4. These incidental allusions of Peter to trial and temptation, are strong proofs of the truth of the narrative in regard to his denial of his Master; and their deep-toned humility shows, too, that he had learned to "put no confidence in the flesh," and to rely solely upon the sustaining grace of God.

The honesty of Matthew is made apparent by his relating a circumstance not noticed by Luke and John, and one by no means creditable to himself. Mark tells us, that when Peter had solemnly declared that he would die rather than deny his Master, "all the disciples said so likewise." Matthew records this fact also; and it is remarkable that he and Mark alone tell us of the flight of all the disciples at the time of the arrest of our Saviour. We thus have shown the great candour of Matthew in mentioning his disgraceful desertion of his Master, notwithstanding his voluntary promise to cling to him.

5. We need scarcely say, that a like candour in a witness would strongly impress the court with the fairness and impartiality of his testimony.

The omission by Luke and John, of the joint declaration of all the disciples, is readily explained. Luke not being a disciple, nor yet writing under the direction of a disciple, may never have heard of it; and even if he had, he naturally would not attach so much importance to the declaration as those who made it. John, in common honesty, could not have recorded the declaration, without also recording how little it was regarded. And the latter he could not do without self-praise; for it appears from his narrative, that he fled but a little way and then returned, and accompanied our Lord to the palace of Caiaphas. We find, accordingly, that he mentions neither the profession of devotion by the whole body of disciples, nor yet their flight at the first appearance of danger.

6. It may be well to notice here, that though neither Luke nor John expressly mentions the flight of the disciples, they allude to it incidentally as a fact. Luke says, "And Peter followed afar off," when they were conducting Christ to the high-priest. John says, "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple." Of course it would be absurd to call attention to the following of one or two disciples, if all had followed. The special allusion of Luke to Peter following, shows that he had in his mind the absence of the other disciples, though he does not mention it in so many words. So in like manner, the reference of John to himself and Peter as following in the distance, would be wholly unmeaning, if others had followed as well as they. We have then here the very strongest sort of proof of the integrity of the witnesses. Two of them speak of an incident as having occurred; while the other two, without making any direct allusion to it, employ such language as satisfies us that they were fully apprized of it.

We propose to give, at the proper place, an explanation of the omission by three of the Evangelists, to notice John following the mob that arrested his Lord and Master. In the mean time, we will pursue the order of events as recorded by Luke. With his usual particularity, this writer relates in the 35th and three following verses, a conversation not recorded by Matthew, Mark, or John. We read, "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." As we understand these verses, the Saviour did not refer to any present exigency, but meant nothing more than to tell his disciples that they had hitherto been under his special care, and had been preserved by him from temporal want and personal danger; hereafter, however, they must expect to be thrown, in a measure, upon their own resources, and must learn to provide for their own subsistence, and their own security, by their individual prudence and courage. Perhaps his caution was not meant so much for them as for the ministers of the gospel after the apostolic age, when miraculous interposition should cease altogether. These "children of the light" are here taught to be "wise in their generation," like "the children of this world;" and are exhorted to practice that economy, that prudence, and that indifference to danger, which secures success in all avocations in life. But from the reply of the disciples, it is plain that they totally misunderstood their glorious Teacher, and supposed that he was directing them to prepare for an impending attack. "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords;" and he said, "It is enough." The answer of Christ ("It is enough") ought to have convinced them, when they saw the immense host that came out from the chief priests and elders, that he did not mean for them to resist his arrest. What could two poor swords effect against an armed band, which included in it some of the trained warriors of Rome? But it seems that the delusion was kept up to the last, and that Peter actually drew his sword, and cut off the right ear of one of the assailants. The point to which we wish to call the reader's special attention is this: all the Evangelists record Peter's mad assault upon the guard sent to seize Christ, while there is but one of them (Luke) who throws any light upon an act, apparently so singular and so absurd. The conversation related by Luke explains Peter's conduct most satisfactorily, and shows that he believed he was acting under his Master's order, and doubtless expected aid from the Almighty arm of Him whom he had declared, a little while before, to be "the Christ of God." Now suppose that Luke's Gospel had never been written, would not Peter's abortive defence seem a most unlikely and incredible thing? Would it not seem not merely foolish in itself, but utterly inconsistent with the character of a disciple of him who constantly taught, "I say unto you, resist not evil"? But, blessed be God, the transaction which seems so strange in the records of three of the Evangelists, appears in the annals of the fourth as nothing more than the obedience of a good soldier of the cross to an order from the Captain of his salvation.

7. We can scarcely conceive of a stronger form of argument than is presented here by a comparison of the four narratives. Three of the witnesses depose to a fact which seems highly improbable; but a fourth lets fall, as it were by accident, a remark which changes its entire aspect, and makes it seem reasonable, right, and proper. Now it is to be observed, that the explanation of Luke is just of the character here described. He does not relate the conversation above quoted, as a solution of the mystery of Peter's foolish attack. It is not even mentioned in the same connection. Surely we hazard nothing in saying that such a nice adaptation, fitting in, dovetailing, as it were, of testimony, would satisfy any court in Christendom, of the perfect credibility of the witnesses. Ought not infidelity to hide its head, and, at least, affect a blush of shame?