THE DENIAL OF PETER.

To convey a clear impression of this sad affair and its attendant circumstances, we will describe the better sort of Jewish houses. The Israelites most likely derived their ideas of architecture from the Egyptians. Those nations which had intercourse with Egypt when preeminent in letters, arts, and sciences, would naturally imitate her architecture. Traces of her style of building are still to be found in Southern Europe. The Moors introduced Egyptian architecture into Spain, and the Spaniards and Portuguese brought it to this continent. We find, accordingly, that the houses in Mexico, Central America, and South America, are built at this day just as they were in Judea in the time of Joshua and the Judges.

We will try to describe the Jewish buildings from our personal knowledge of the Spanish. They were in the form of a hollow square, built around on four sides, thus leaving a court or open space in the centre. This enclosed area is called by Luke "the hall," and we will see that Matthew and Mark also designate it by the same name. The entrance to the court was by a large covered archway deeper than the front of the building; that is, it extended back into the court, and also projected forward into the street. It was closed by large folding gates through which horses and chariots could pass. The large gates were usually kept closed, and ingress and egress were given by a wicket-gate made in one of the larger gates, and of size great enough to permit persons on foot to pass through. Matthew calls this archway or vestibule "the pylon." Matt. xxvi. 71. Mark calls it "the fore-court," proaulion. Mark xiv. 68. In our English translation, both words are rendered "porch." In large edifices, such as the palace of Caiaphas, there was always considerable room in this porch; and as it was the coolest part of the house, it was ever a favourite resort for the servants and retainers, and their visitors. It was also the place of traffic for family supplies, luxuries, &c. Permanent seats made in the walls extended the entire length of the archway on both sides, and were often used as couches for repose in warm weather. The gateways leading into walled towns were, in all respects, similar to those leading into private residences, and were visited by the elders and influential men, for the purpose of discussing the affairs of the commonwealth and the municipality. Deut. xvii. 5, 8; xxv. 6, 7: Ruth iv. 1, &c.

The rooms on the lower floor of the houses were a little elevated above the central court, and were entered from it. The office, or place of business of the master of the family, the kitchen and the apartments of the servants were on this floor. Some eight or ten feet in front of these rooms was a colonnade extending entirely around the four sides, in order to support a piazza or stoop, which gave access to the rooms of the second story. The piazza itself was reached by a flight of stairs from the court beneath. The space between the colonnade and rooms of the first story is used at the present day for feeding horses, mules, and camels in the caravansaries or inns of Asia. The Jews most likely appropriated this space for the same purpose, and here most probably Solomon made the four thousand stalls for his horses. 2 Chron. ix. 25.

The Jewish houses were seldom more than two stories high. The proprietor and his family occupied the second story. One of the rooms on this floor, that immediately over the archway, was the largest and best furnished in the house, and was known as the "guest-chamber." (See Mark xiv. 14.) The roofs of the houses were flat, and were favourite places for walking, and for meditation in the cool of the evening. David often resorted thither, and Peter had gone "up upon the house-top to pray," when he fell into the trance, which was to teach him that the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down. (See Acts x. 9.)

To prevent accidents to persons walking on the roof, the law of Moses required that a battlement should extend entirely around the edges. (See Deut. xxii. 8.) In midsummer, an awning was frequently suspended from the inner battlements, so as to cover the court beneath. When Mark tells us that the friends of the man "sick of the palsy," "uncovered the roof," that they might let him down into the presence of Jesus, he means nothing more than that they removed the awning, so that the paralytic could be lowered into the area below. (See Mark chap, ii.) Now, we will be able to understand all the transactions in the palace of Caiaphas, if we assume that his office was on the lower floor opposite the gate, so that it would be the first room seen by a person passing through the archway. Let us assume, too, that a bema or platform was just in front of this office, and between it and colonnade. Such an assumption is in entire accordance with the known customs of that period. Suppose, also, Caiaphas seated upon this rostrum, with Jesus and his accusers beside him; keep distinctly. in mind the shape of the palace; remember that the open court is called the "hall," and that the gateway is called the " porch." With these things in view, a clear idea will be gotten of the proceeding against our blessed Lord and Redeemer.

The Evangelists, in their account of the denial of Peter, afford a perfect example of the mutual supplement by the witnesses of deficiencies in the narrations of one another, and of their mutual finishing out of incomplete statements. Matthew says, "But Peter followed him afar off, unto the high-priest's palace (literally hall or court of the high-priest) and went in and sat with the servants to see the end." The question naturally arises, "Where did he sit? Was it in the court? or in the porch provided with permanent seats? or in some of the servants' apartments? Mark says, "And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high-priest: (literally court of the high-priest) and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself by the fire." From this it appears that Peter sat down by a fire; and it would be fair to infer, that the fire was in the kitchen, or a servant's room. But Luke says, that "When they had built a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down with them." The fire was, then, in the court or open space, and not in the kitchen or servants' room. We learn, too, another fact not before communicated, and that is, that the arresting party made the fire.

Why did they make it? Was it that they might have a better and steadier light than that afforded by their "lanterns and torches"? Were they cold, too, as well as Peter? Or was his chilliness only the result of fright and excitement upon a singularly nervous temperament? John says, that the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold, and they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself." We now learn, for the first time, that the weather was cold, and that others besides Peter felt it. Observe, too, that John, who usually pays so little attention to details, speaks here with the precision of an eyewitness. He tells us the very material of which the fire was made.

On summing up our evidence, we see that Matthew tells of Peter sitting down with servants; Mark, of his sitting by a fire; Luke tells who built this fire, and where it was built; John, why it was made, and of what it was made. The statement, too, of John about the coldness of the night, agrees exactly with all that travellers say of the climate of Judea. The nights there are cool, even when the days are warm. There is still another point that claims our notice. Though Matthew and Mark do not directly tell us that Peter seated himself by a fire in the court, yet they evidently had this fact in their minds; for, instead of speaking, as Luke does, of coming to the high-priest's house, (oikon,) they speak of coming to this hall. Moreover, the first two Evangelists, a little farther on in their narratives, confirm what Luke had explicitly stated in reference to the place where Peter was seated. The English reader would scarcely suspect, that when Matthew says, "Peter sat without in the palace," the literal rendering is, "Peter sat without in the court." So, too, when Mark says, "And as Peter was beneath in the palace," the literal translation is, "And as Peter was beneath in the court." The Greek word (aule) translated "hall," in Luke, is the same as that translated "palace," in Matthew and Mark.

43. If we combine the three points in one — first, the beautiful adjustment of part to part, in the several independent statements; second, the confirmation of John's declaration about the cold, by all who visit Judea; third, the incidental agreement of Matthew and Mark with Luke, as to Peter sitting in the court, we will have a triune argument, which cannot be overthrown. It has its foundation on the eternal rock of the truth of God's word, and the petty storms raised by the Prince of the power of the air will beat upon it in vain.

The next verse (the 56th) is in these words: "But a certain maid beheld him, (Peter,) as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man also was with him."

Who was this maid? Did she belong to the household of Caiaphas, or was she one of the rabble collected to see the trial of Jesus? Was she one of those seated around the fire, or did she come there after Peter? Why did she look earnestly upon him? Why did she suspect him? Who is the other person referred to in her accusation, "This man also was with him"? Finally, who is the person Peter is charged with following? Matthew answers two of these questions. He says, "Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." The damsel, then, was not seated by the fire, but came there; and we learn now, also, that Peter was accused of being with Jesus of Galilee. Mark answers another question. He says, "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high-priest; and when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth." We now know that the damsel was one of the maidservants of Caiaphas. Still we do not know from what part of the building she came; nor how she came to suspect Peter of being a disciple of Jesus; nor yet who is the other person alluded to in her declaration, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth." John, however, supplies all that is lacking in the other narratives. He tells us that " 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 {mile) of the high-priest. 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. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not."

The whole thing is now perfectly plain to us. Peter and John both followed Jesus, but John entered boldly into the palace with his Master. Peter followed afar off, and when he reached the archway, his courage failed him, and he was afraid to go in. He, however, hung about the door, too cowardly to enter, and too much attached to his Lord to go away. This extraordinary conduct excited the suspicion of the portress; and when John, a known disciple of Jesus, came out, and brought him in, she was led to suspect that Peter was also a disciple. Peter's hesitation about entering, and, it may be, some trepidation of manner after he had gotten in, induced her to follow him to the fire in the central court, and there charge him with being a disciple, as well as his friend John.

A casual inspection of John, would dispose one to think that the portress addressed Peter in the archway; but on a more thorough examination, it is evident that the Evangelist did not seek to produce that impression. For immediately after recording the conversation of the damsel with Peter, he adds, "And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold, and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself." This verse is not connected with what succeeds it; and the sole object of it is plainly to tell us where Peter was at the time of his being challenged by the damsel. There is, then, perfect harmony among the four Evangelists, in every particular.

But not only do they agree, and mutually supplement one another; they moreover mutually remove the obscurities that pertained to the several narratives. Thus the first three put the word "also" in the mouth of the damsel; and John explains it by showing that it referred to himself. Thus Matthew and Mark speak of the maid coming to the fire; and John explains the expression, by showing that she came from the gate. Thus Luke tells us of the damsel lookingly earnestly upon Peter; and John explains the reason of her earnest scrutiny, by showing that her suspicions had been excited at the gate, and that she had therefore followed him to the light, in order to examine him more carefully.⁵

Observe, moreover, that John is accurate, even in his allusion to a local custom. We know from profane history, that the gate-keepers of the Greeks and Romans were men; but the Jews employed women for this service. (See Acts xii. 13.) Hence John's declaration, that the maid who accosted Peter was a portress, accords with the known domestic policy of the Jews.

Observe, too, that what Matthew and Mark say of the position of Peter, agrees exactly with the more explicit statements of Luke and John, and corresponds to the known structure of Jewish houses. Thus when Matthew says, " Peter sat without in the hall," (aule,) he evidently means that he was without the colonnade, where was the bema, upon which stood Christ and his accusers. And when Mark says, " Peter sat beneath in the hall," he plainly means that he was beneath this bema.

44. On reviewing our evidence, we find — first, exact harmony among the Evangelists; second, mutual explanations of doubtful expressions; third, a reference to a known peculiarity in the household arrangements of the Israelites; fourth, several allusions to the internal structure of the Jewish houses, in strict conformity with the architecture of that people. We think that this four-fold cord cannot be easily broken. It was wrought by the four "witnesses chosen of God," and not by the feeble hand which traces these lines.

An objection may be raised, that much of the supplementing noticed above has been done by John, the last of the Evangelists. The answer to this weak objection is easy. It is the most difficult of all tasks to finish a work in the spirit and manner of the original designer. Military writers tell us that there is nothing more dangerous than to change commanders, during the active prosecution of hostilities. None but he who has planned and begun a campaign, can successfully carry it out. None but he who has projected the order of battle is fit, to direct the subsequent movements on the field. This principle was well understood by the humblest private in the army of Napoleon. Hence the confidence inspired by the promise, "Soldiers! I myself will direct all your batallions." The confidence was not inspired merely by the fact that their beloved Emperor would attend to all the details of the battle, and control them by his wonderful genius; but by the fact that his personal supervision would prevent confusion and any change in the original plan of operations. At the battle of Saltzbach, the great Austrian leader, Montecuculi, stood gazing intently upon the terrible conflict, when his quick eye suddenly detected a movement of the French troops inconsistent with their previous arrangement, and inconsistent with their previous order of attack. So satisfied was he by this change in their operations, that a different mind was now directing the columns of the enemy, that he exclaimed aloud, "Turenne is dead, or mortally wounded." And so it proved to be. The French Marshal had been killed by a cannon-ball before the evolution took place, which attracted Montecuculi's notice. But not only is it hazardous to change commanders during the conduct of a campaign, it is also exceedingly hazardous for the same commander to change his own pre-concerted plans. The great military captain forms a distinct conception of the scene of operations, the numerical strength and capabilities of his enemy, the number and quality of his own troops, &c. From all these data, he devises his system of strategy, before he breaks up his encampment and puts his troops in motion. Circumstances may imperatively demand a modification of his well-digested scheme, but even the slightest alteration will be attended with immense peril. And there is scarcely anything that will justify a change in the presence of of an active and intelligent foe. "I have them!" was the exultant cry of Napoleon at Austerlitz, when he saw the Russians attempting to change their order of battle. A similar mistake to that of the allies in the campaign of 1805, was made by the Americans at Brandywine, and resulted most disastrously to our arms. At the battle of New Orleans, Packenham becoming fretted and annoyed at the inefficiency of Colonel Mullens, changed his mode of attack just as his troops were going into action. The issue is well known. "Wellington's invincibles" were driven from the field with fearful loss, by the untrained militia of the West.

These illustrations serve to show that whenever the unity of plan is broken up, a grave error is committed. Now to apply this truth to the ease in point. John could not have told a consistent story without having a preconceived plan. But upon the hypothesis of a forged narrative, his plan would have been constantly broken in upon by his effort to adapt his story to the statements of the other three witnesses. And since his narrative, while forming a harmonious sequel to theirs, has still preserved unity and congruity in all its parts, the inference is inevitable that all four witnesses were under the direction of the same controlling mind, even the mind of the Spirit of God.

We have drawn our illustrations from a single department of human effort, and that the most remote from literary enterprise. It is easy to draw our parallels nearer, and to show that whatever the work may be, the man who first projected and began it can alone be trusted with finishing it in harmony with the original conception. Sculptors, painters, poets, philosophers, historians, &c, have often been called to render an account of the deeds done in the body, before the great works of art, science and literature, which they had begun, had been fully completed. And in most cases, no one has had the presumption or the hardihood to attempt the completion of their labours.

St. Peter's at Rome was designed by the celebrated Bramante; but he only lived to carry it on as far as " the springing of the four great arches of the central intersection." The work was then entrusted to several architects in succession, who all failed most signally, since they tried to ingraft their own plans upon the original design. At length Pope Paul III. appointed Michael Angelo architect of the building, though the great artist was then in his seventy-second year. " He immediately laid aside all the drawings and models of his immediate predecessors, and taking the simple subject of the original idea, he carried it out with remarkable purity, divesting it of all the intricacies and puerilities of the previous successors of Bramante, and by its unaffected dignity and unity of conception, he rendered the interior of the cupola superior to any work of modern times. He was engaged upon it seventeen years, and at the age of eighty-seven, he had a model prepared of the dome, which he carried up to a considerable height; in fact, to such a point as rendered it impossible to deviate from his plan, and it was completed in conformity with his plan by Giacomo della Porta and Domenico Fontana." The success of Angelo was then due to his adhering to the original design, and yet, great as were his powers, we are told that he hesitated about undertaking to finish that which another had begun. In fact, on another occasion, he positively declined a similar task. An ancient work of art, the celebrated group of Laocoon and his children, was found in a vineyard, A. D., 1506, on the site of the baths of Titus. From the writings of Pliny, it was known that there was such a group, and that found, corresponded exactly with his description, except that the arm of the principal figure was broken off. Pope Julius II. commissioned Michael Angelo to restore the mutilated limb, but he refused to attempt it. Though the greatest of modern sculptors, he felt his inability to make an arm in perfect proportion with the rest of the figure, designed and executed by another. We think, too, that no one ever attempted to complete Angelo's own unfinished paintings for the Sistine Chapel. It is said that Da Vinci intended to give some additional touches to the head of the Saviour in his picture of the Last Supper; but after his death, no artist ever dared to give those last finishing strokes of the brush. Raphael left a little work undone on his incomparable painting, the Transfiguration of Christ. This was committed to his pupil Romano, thoroughly imbued with his style and manner, and thoroughly acquainted with his design. In the picture gallery of the Boston Athenaeum hangs Washington Allston's last and greatest work — Belshazzar's Feast, just in the condition in which he left it at death. Stuart began a portrait of J. Q. Adams, but died when he had almost completed the head. The picture was finished by Sully, but he would not touch the head.

Niebuhr, Arnold, and Mackintosh, left their historical works incomplete. The son of the former edited his father's papers, but the labours of the last two have been left in their unfinished state. Pascal had projected a great work on theology and the internal evidences of Christianity, and had thrown together fragmentary ideas, which he meant to develope; but death arrested him in his work. No one has presumed to expand these fragments into a system, and they have been published in their original form under the title of "Pascal's Thoughts." If we mistake not, the Lectiones Opticse of Newton were never completed, and were published posthumously without any additions. Kepler left some eighteen volumes of manuscript, which were never edited. So it has been supposed that Livy left several volumes of his History in an unfinished condition, and that they were never given to the world. Virgil died leaving portions of the last six books of his Æneid incomplete. And so fearful was he of their being issued in that condition, that in his last moments he requested the Emperor to have them destroyed. Augustus did not comply with his wishes, but had them published just as they came from the hands of the poet, and gave the strictest orders that there should be no supplementing of the incomplete lines and broken stanzas. And these orders were given, as we believe, not because there was no poet equal to Virgil, but because there was none so like him in taste, sentiment, style, and manner as to be able to compose lines which should possess exactly the same rhythm and tone of thought. Augustus may have been led to think thus by an incident, which was the means of introducing Virgil to him; an incident which illustrates the point we are contending for, viz., that it is the most difficult of all tasks to finish successfully that which another has begun. Virgil wrote a complimentary couplet, and pasted it on the walls of the Emperor's palace. Augustus was so pleased with it, that he demanded the author. A poet, named Bathyllus, claimed the couplet, and was rewarded for it by the Emperor. Virgil pasted, by night, another piece on the walls, complaining that the wrong man had received the credit of the distich; and said that the true author was he who could finish the five lines which he appended, each beginning with the same three words. Caesar, to discover the writer, ordered the poets of Rome to finish the lines. All failed, Bathyllus included, except Virgil. Thus we see, that the Mantuan bard risked his reputation, and desire of the monarch's favour, upon his belief that he only who had commenced the lines could complete them.

It has been regarded as a most wonderful effort of geometrical genius, that Robert Simson, of Edinburgh, could restore the Porisms of Euclid, by means of certain hints left by Pappus. Why has the world regarded this as one of the grandest triumphs of mathematical talent? Is it not because of the universal belief, that there is no task more arduous than that of carrying out the thoughts of another?

We will add another illustration. An eminent theologian died a few years ago, after completing his great work on Moral Science, so far as it relates to man's duty to God. His scarcely less distinguished sons were urged to finish the second part — that which would embrace the reciprocal duties of man to man. But, although aided by their father's copious notes on the subject, they felt unable to write a sequel, which would preserve the same terseness of thought, form of argument, unity of plan, and simplicity of illustration.

If in sculpture, painting, poetry, science, and literature, it be found to be next to impossible to supply increments which shall blend so harmoniously with the primitive work, as to form one congruous, symmetrical whole, what right has infidelity to assume that it was an easy matter for John to write an elaborate narrative, which so admirably fills out the deficiencies of the preceding narratives? We readily grant, that if three men had concocted together a fiction, a fourth false witness, who had heard their evidence, might make his statements touch theirs at a few salient points. But we hold it to be utterly impossible for such a witness to give testimony enough to constitute a volume, comprising hundreds of personal incidents, minute particulars, local allusions, descriptions of character, doctrinal truths, speeches, conversations, and public acts — all agreeing with the declarations of the other three, sometimes reiterating them, sometimes removing their obscurities, sometimes adding to what was incomplete, sometimes giving new but consistent facts, sometimes seeming to differ, but really harmonizing always. We hold, that such multiplied consistencies, under such multifarious aspects, would be a greater miracle than any recorded in the Bible.

Let us look, too, at John as the finisher of the portrait of our Lord. The other Evangelists made the outline, and he gave colouring, soul, and life to the whole figure. Their combined work has produced a picture, faultless in beauty and grace, inimitable, unrivalled, unsurpassed — a picture which has been gazed upon with admiration, reverence and awe, by sinners as well as saints, infidels as well as believers, savage as well as civilized nations; by learned and by unlearned, by wise and by foolish, by the young and by the aged, by all classes and by all conditions. And as we love to look upon the portraits of our friends, taken at different periods of their lives, so we may imagine that angels and glorified spirits from other worlds, turn to this picture, made by the Evangelists, to trace with adoring rapture the lineaments of their Sovereign and King, in the face of the lowly man of Nazareth.

How is it possible to believe, that the fishermen of Galilee could, by their own unaided power, produce such a perfect picture? Even Rousseau thought that the conception and the portraiture of the character of our blessed Redeemer were miraculous. Let modern infidels blush to hear him say: "It is more inconceivable that a number of persons should agree to write such a history, (of Christ,) than that one man only should form the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the Gospel, the marks of whose truth are so striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero." But if it be difficult to conceive how four men working together could produce so matchless a picture, how much is the difficulty enhanced in our estimation, by the reflection that three of them merely began it, while the fourth was left to complete it!

And thus we see, that the supplementing by John, of the accounts of the other Evangelists, so far from constituting an objection against the credibility of the Evangelists, is truly the very strongest proof of their reliability.

The 57th verse reads thus: "And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not."

John tells us that when the portress asked Peter, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? he saith, I am not." And it is remarkable, that this is the strongest form of denial which John puts into the mouth of Peter. The denial, as recorded by Matthew, is much more emphatic: "And a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou say est." Mark relates the denial with additional emphasis: "And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest; and he went out into the porch, and the cock crew."

We see, that while the witnesses agree substantially about the fact, they have related it, each in his own peculiar way. We will make a few comments upon their respective accounts, beginning with that of Luke. Our impression of this Evangelist is, that like the sinner of his own touching story, his sins, which were many, had been forgiven; for he loved much. Luke vii. 47. He is essentially the Evangelist for the sinner. There is more encouragement for the penitent offender in his Gospel, than in the other three Gospels combined. We propose to show this more fully hereafter. Assuming it for the present, we can point to some traces of that overflowing love to Christ which is to be expected in one who had been freely and fully forgiven. The story of Peter's denial contains one of those natural and exquisite touches, which thrill so upon the heart of the long-estranged, but now recovered child of God. With melting tenderness, Luke tells us, that Peter denied him, his Master, his Leader, his Friend, his Saviour. It is the denial of Jesus which excites the astonishment and regret of "the beloved physician." He does not stop, with Mark, to notice the emphatic form of the falsehood, nor with Matthew, to notice its publicity — that it was uttered "before them all." The enormity of the offence, in his estimation, consisted, not in the manner, nor in the place where it was committed, but in the fact that it was a wrong to the Redeemer of sinners.

John preserves his individuality as well as Luke. With characteristic mildness, he tells the tale in its least offensive form. He does not, with Mark, notice the repetition of the same idea, " I know not, neither understand;" nor does he, with Luke, call attention to the offence as committed against Jesus; nor yet does he, with Matthew, mention, as an aggravation of the sin, that it was in the presence of the enemies of our Lord.

Mark, writing under the direction of Peter, gives us, doubtless, the very language used by that frail disciple: and it is a clear proof of Peter's honesty, that he permitted the record of his denial, aggravated by the double falsehood of not knowing nor understanding what he was charged with. Mark, furthermore, tells us of another circumstance that enhanced the guilt of the second denial of Peter. As this Evangelist had alone mentioned two crowings of the cock, in the prediction of our Saviour concerning the defection of Peter; so he alone tells of the first crowing. This was immediately after the first denial, and ought to have recalled Peter to a sense of duty. That it did not have that effect, we can only attribute to his being under the influence of the "hour and the power of darkness." In warning Peter by means of the first cock-crow, God dealt with him just as he now deals with us all. He admonishes for the first offence, and seeks to bring us back to the path of rectitude. But we go off, like Peter, and commit the same sin again and yet again. The Evangelist, in noticing the fruitless admonition has but given us a single leaf in the folio history of the world. But that which we call attention to now, is the honesty of Peter in permitting the relation of an unheeded warning. If he had not communicated this fact to Mark, the amanuensis could not have gotten it from any other source.

45. On summing up our evidence, we find once more a triune argument for the credibility of the witnesses — First, Substantial agreement coupled with an independent mode of narration by the respective witnesses; Second, The preservation of individual characteristics by Luke and John; Third, The record by Peter's secretary, of things discreditable to that disciple.

The 58th verse is in these words: "And after a little while another saw him and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not."

We would naturally infer from this verse in connection with the preceding, that Peter was still by the fire in the court, when he denied his Master the second time. John leaves us no ground to doubt it. He says, "And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said, therefore, unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not." Matthew and Mark seem to differ from both Luke and John, with respect to the person who interrogated Peter, and also in regard to the place of the second denial. Matthew says, "And when he was gone out into the porch (entry,) another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man." Mark says, "And he went out into the porch, (entry;) and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again."

Before attempting to reconcile the testimony of the first two Evangelists with that of the last two, we will notice the mutual supplementing between Matthew and Mark. While the former leaves it doubtful at what time Peter went out into the porch, the latter shows that it was immediately after the first denial, and unquestionably with the view of escaping the searching scrutiny of those around the fireside. "We do not agree with the commentators in supposing that Peter meditated an escape from the palace. His character was a strange compound of strength and weakness. Love to Christ was singularly blended in him, with intense regard for his personal safety. He had come "to see the end," and was resolved to accomplish that object, without danger to himself. He, therefore, left the court, to escape the troublesome inquisition, facilitated by the light of the fire, and sought the darkness of the archway. But here he encountered another maid. In this case, Matthew supplements Mark. We might have supposed from what the latter says, that it was the same watchful portress, who pertinaciously persisted in her suspicions. And from the indefinite allusion of Mark to the bystanders, we might have been led to believe that reference was had to those around the fire. But Matthew tells us expressly that this other maid spake to " them that were there," that is, to those in the porch. And thus the two writers in turn correct the errors that we might have fallen into, by reading separately their respective narratives.

From Matthew's reference to the two maids, and other persons in the archway, we conclude that there was quite an assemblage of servants and idlers in their wonted place of gossip, drawn there partly by the force of habit, partly to guard the entrance, and partly by the desire to use the benches of the entry as seats or couches. With this in view, there will be no difficulty in reconciling the statements of the Evangelists. We imagine that when Peter heard the maid accuse him to the bystanders, he naturally supposed that there would be less safety for him in the porch among a crowd of lawless servants, than in the court, where the presence of the military might serve as a check to personal violence. Unwilling to flee, yet extremely solicitous for his own safety, he returned to the fireside as the place of greatest security. Some of the menials followed him from the entry, and once more aroused the suspicions of those about the fire. Several of these, according to John, began simultaneously to speak among themselves, or to him personally, accusing him of being a disciple of Jesus. Peter then addressed himself to the most vociferous of his accusers, or to the principal personage among them, and said, "Man, I am not."

We do not pretend to assert that the things occurred just as we have described them. All that we aim at is a plausible explanation of supposed difficulties. We are bound to believe witnesses, if we do not detect them tripping in their evidence. We are bound to receive their statements as true, if they contain no irreconcilable discrepancies. We are bound to accept their testimony, if apparent differences can be made to harmonize by any reasonable system of interpretation. The onus lies upon the objector. It is for him to prove their falsehood, by showing that their evidence cannot be made to correspond by any device whatever. Let the Evangelists be tried by this well known rule. It will then be seen how weak and frivolous is the allegation of infidelity, that the four witnesses contradict each other, when Matthew and Mark speak of the second accusation against Peter, as having been made by a woman; while Luke speaks of it as having been made by a man; and John, as having been made by several men. There would be some ground for this confident assertion had Matthew and Mark said that none but a woman made it, and Luke had declared with equal precision that none but a man made it. There would be in that case a flat contradiction on the part of Luke of the statements of Matthew and Mark. Furthermore, had Luke explicitly declared that the charge against Peter was made by one man only, while John as distinctly stated that several men spoke personally to Peter; the last two Evangelists would then contradict one another. But so far are Matthew and Mark from saying that a maid was the only person to accuse Peter, they do not even say that he was accused by a maid at all. Matthew tells us that a maid spake "unto them that were there;" and Mark says that she spake "to them that stood by/' Neither of them intimates that she addressed a single word to Peter. The much vaunted disagreement between the first three Evangelists falls then to the ground. And upon such a frail thing as this does infidelity build its hopes that the gospel is a fiction! Upon a seeming difference, which a Sabbath-school scholar might reconcile, does it place its trust that there is no world of endless woe for those who reject the gospel of the Son of God. Alas! how has sin darkened the understanding, perverted the judgment, and seared the conscience!

The difference between Luke and John is just of the character that might be expected between independent witnesses, who had had no consultation with each other about what they should respectively depone. Nothing could be more natural than the several accounts of these two Evangelists. No statements when combined ever exhibited more intrinsic marks of truthfulness. Let us try to form an idea of the scene described by them. Let us imagine a promiscuous assembly gathered at this moment around a fire in some open yard, for the purpose of witnessing the trial of a supposed malefactor, and that a stranger has just joined himself to the crowd. Let it now be suddenly whispered that the stranger is a friend, an accomplice even, of the man under trial. What more natural than that the tale should be repeated from mouth to mouth, until one bolder, or of more official dignity than the rest, should fling it in the teeth of the new-comer. And what more natural than that he should reply to this man, and not to the whole crowd. And this is exactly the order of relation by Luke and John. The difference between them amounts to nothing more than this — the one tells of the indefinite accusation by the mixed company; the other of its personal application to Peter by a single individual of the company.

46. So far are we from seeing any difficulty in the two accounts, that if called upon to give an example of the happy correspondence of independent evidence, we would select this very case. But in addition to this, John employs a word, which is, to our mind, full of meaning: "They said, therefore, unto him." It is evident that the therefore refers to something not expressed. With the light thrown upon this word by Matthew and Mark, we think that we are not straining a point, when we suppose that it refers to the report of the servants from the archway. These had excited suspicion against Peter in the minds of the men about the fire, and the latter therefore said unto him, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?"

The 59th verse is as follows: "And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth, this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

A cursory inspection of this verse seems to show that the third denial of Peter was made about an hour after the second denial to some man, who had detected about him something of a Galilean character. We are not told who the man was, nor yet what it was about Peter which led to the suspicion of his being from the north of Palestine. Was the challenger of the apostle a ruthless Roman soldier? Was he a Jewish officer, ever keen on the scent of blood? Was he a vindictive Pharisee, burning for another victim? Was he a Scribe, "remorseless as death, and cruel as the grave"? Was he an elder, inflamed with hate against our glorious elder Brother, and all who adhered to him?

John informs us that the man who accosted Peter was none of these: " One of the servants of the high-priest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off) saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with him?" The man, then, was a servant of the high-priest, and the kinsman of Malchus. So far the testimony of John is explicit; but it does not explain why Peter was suspected of being a Galilean. The suspicion may have been excited by his personal appearance, or by his dress, or by his deportment, or by his accent, or by some allusion to Galilee in his fireside talk with the bystanders. We might have conjectured that the place of his nativity was discovered in any one of these ways. Matthew, however, shows that he was detected by something in his speech: "And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee." Some of our conjectures are now thrown out as inadmissible. Peter was not discovered to be a Galilean by his personal appearance, nor by his dress, nor yet by his deportment. He was betrayed by his speech. How was he thus betrayed? Was there some peculiarity in his pronunciation? Or had he been entrapped into some reference to his home in Galilee? On turning to Mark, we find that the manner, and not the matter of his talk, led to Peter's exposure: "And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." Poor Peter was then found out by his accent, his brogue. He had probably tried to put on a bold face before his accusers, and enter into a free and easy conversation; and in his case, as in many other cases, the effort at concealment but led to detection.

There is much in these parallel statements of the Evangelists that deserves our consideration. We observe, in the first place, that while there is no disagreement among them as to the challenger of Peter, nor as to the manner of his detection, yet their joint testimony is necessary to the full understanding of the whole matter. Matthew and Mark show that several persons gathered around Peter, denouncing him as a Galilean. Luke shows that one of them took upon himself the office of speaker, and John shows that this man was the kinsman of Malchus. In the second place, we notice that Luke tells of the suspicion that Peter was a Galilean. Matthew informs us that something in his speech caused this suspicion, and Mark shows that this peculiarity in his speech was one of pronunciation. We notice, in the third place, that the nice attention to detail exhibited, is wholly at variance with forgery. Men who were relating a fictitious story, would never have thought of telling so natural an incident as that of the exposure of Peter by means of his dialect. Still less would they have told it in such an artless, offhand manner. We notice, in the fourth place, that the reference to the dialect of Galilee, comports with the historical fact. It is well established by profane writers, as well as by the Old Testament Scriptures, that the pronunciation of this country was "broader and flatter than that of Judea, and differed from the latter in confounding the gutturals and the last two letters of the Hebrew alphabet."

We have a notable instance of this difference recorded as far back as the twelfth chapter of Judges. And so marked was the distinction between the Judean and Galilean accents, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, were able to recognize the speakers as Galileans, by their peculiar pronunciation. Acts xii. 6. Nor need we be surprised that people of a common origin and a common faith should speak so differently. The dialect of several counties in England is imperfectly understood in other parts of the same country. And in our own land, there are local phrases and accents in one section, which are almost wholly unintelligible in other sections, even of the same State.

47. On reviewing our evidence, we find that we have a four-fold argument for the credibility of the witnesses — an argument of the very kind which barristers love to have when they make their appeals to intelligent juries.

So far, we have only observed differences arising from the evident incompleteness of the respective accounts taken by themselves. But now we have to examine what seems to be real discrepancies. We have seen that Luke appears to place the third denial of Peter, about one hour after the second denial. And this inference from Luke's language has been so generally made, that we know not a single expositor who has taken a different view. But we think that the popular notion is wrong, and that the second denial was succeeded in a few moments by the third. We adhered to the common opinion in attempting to estimate the time spent in the garden. It was then premature to attempt a refutation of the received theory. Besides, our calculation of the time spent in the house of Caiaphas was in no wise affected by the common, but, as we believe, erroneous construction put upon Luke's words.

John evidently means to teach that Peter was challenged by the kinsman of Malchus, immediately after his second denial. But even if we set down John's testimony as doubtful, we cannot put aside the direct declarations of Matthew and Mark. The former, after recording the second denial, adds, "And after a while (meta mikrori) came unto him they that stood by, &c." Mark uses the same Greek word to designate the little interval of time between the two denials; but our translators have given it the more appropriate rendering of " a little after." We are not disposed to spread this little time over an hour, and to believe with expositors that the hour of Luke is the same as the little while of Matthew and Mark. This assumes carelessness either on the part of Luke, or on that of the first two writers. But Luke is too circumstantial, and too exact in his details, to permit us to imagine any loose use of language from him. He frequently makes omissions, but what he does relate is related with minuteness and care. And, however we might be inclined to reconcile the difference by an assumption of negligence on the part of Matthew, it plainly will not do to charge the Secretary of Peter with any such negligence. Every circumstance connected with the denial must have been stereotyped upon the brain of the penitent disciple. If he had made any mistake at all in regard to the time that elapsed between his second and third denials, the mistake would have been on the side of the greater length. If he were really accosted for the third time, an hour after his second denial, it is inconceivable that he, so tortured with fear for himself, and solicitude for his Master, should have shortened the interval. Men, who have undergone great mental or bodily distress, often exaggerate the length of their suffering, but they never suppose the period to have been less than it really was.

The common solution of the difficulty seems then, to us, to be too absurd to be admitted for a moment. We can reconcile the discordant accounts by a simpler and, we think, more natural hypothesis. Our theory is, that the "hour" of Luke is measured from the first denial, and that the "little after" of Matthew and Mark is measured from the second denial. Luke tells us of the first denial, and then adds, "And after a little while another saw him, &c," and then he subjoins in the same connection, "And about the space of one hour after," that is, about one hour after the first denial. There is nothing either in the Greek text, or in the English translation, which forbids us from estimating the hour from the time of the first denial. And, in fact, we think that this is the most natural mode of estimation. The defeat of Gates at Camden occurred in August, 1780. The victory at King's Mountain, probably the most brilliant of the Revolution, was gained in October of the same year. The British were again defeated on Broad River in November. Now, suppose that some one should say that the battle of King's Mountain was won two months after Gates's defeat, and that three months after, the battle on Broad River was also won; would there be any violation of grammatical construction, or the rules of common sense, in counting the three months from the defeat at Camden. Would not this in fact be the most natural mode of computation?

Apply this process of calculation to the hour of Luke, and you will have the most perfect agreement between him and the other three Evangelists. This affords a plausible solution of the difficulty, and this is all that we are bound to give. It shows how the discrepancy may be reconciled; and it is for the objector to show that it cannot be thus reconciled. But this is an impossible task for him. The Greek text admits our explanation, and will not be bent and twisted to suit the cavils of infidelity.

A comparison of the Evangelists reveals an exquisite touch, so true to nature, that it claims our attention. Matthew and Mark speak of Peter as seated by the fire, when accosted by the maid; but John tells us of his standing by the fire. And in like manner, Matthew, Mark, and John represent the last two who accosted Peter, as standing at the time they made their accusation. All this is exceedingly natural. Peter and all the rest were doubtless seated at first round the fire, just as Matthew and Mark describe them; but when the maid accused Peter, he and all about him rose to their feet.

48. We have, in this case, a two-fold proof of the truth of the evidence — first, from the reconcilement of a difficulty; second, from the naturalness of the narration.

The 60th verse reads thus: "And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew."

The Evangelist tells us merely of the denial of Peter, without telling us that this was made in an emphatic or a profane manner. John, too, simply records the fact, "Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew." But Matthew and Mark show that Peter added profanity to the sin of falsehood: "Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew." (Matthew.) "But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And the second time the cock crew." (Mark.)

We remark, upon these parallel statements, that there is a difference between them, but no disagreement. The first two Evangelists tell more than the last two, but they do not contradict them. The four witnesses agree perfectly, when speaking of the same thing; but Matthew and Mark give particulars which Luke and John pass over. Surely, a sin-darkened vision alone is keen enough to see discrepancy in this.

A traveller visits Westminster Abbey, and describes certain monuments of the illustrious dead. A second traveller gives corresponding descriptions of the same monuments; but in addition, he speaks of many more, not noticed by the first. No man of common sense would say that the two travellers disagreed, because the second was a more acute observer or circumstantial writer than the second. How great then must be the effrontery of infidelity, in asserting a contradiction between the Evangelists, for the reason that Matthew and Mark give more copious details than do Luke and John, touching the third denial of Peter!

Again, two historians write concerning the same period of time. The incidents, which they handle in common, are treated precisely in the same way; but one of them mentions facts and circumstances that the other does not. Is there any one so foolish as to contend that the voluminous writer contradicts the epitomist? Macaulay expands into several chapters, that which the author of a historical compend would dispose of in a single page. Does the diffuseness of Macaulay falsify the condensation of the other? The very schoolboy can see that this is not the case. Shall we apply rules of common sense to books of travel and of history, and withhold them from the records of the Evangelists?

Having shown that the several accounts do not clash, it only remains to examine their bearing upon the truthfulness of the Evangelists. We observe, in the first place, that the circumstantiality of Matthew is no small proof of his integrity as a witness. He wrote for the Jews, and in the life-time of some, if not of most of those who stood around the fire in the central court of the palace of the high-priest. If the facts were not just as he related them, there were men still living to impugn his veracity. It is preposterous to suppose that he would have made statements which, if untrue, could have been contradicted so easily. A false witness, with the least modicum of prudence, never ventures to give minute particulars; still less does he attempt to falsify, touching known and familiar incidents. The most bungling perjurer does not thus stultify himself. If John, instead of Matthew, had told with circumstantial exactness, the precise manner of Peter's third denial, infidelity would have been swift to raise the objection that John wrote after all the witnesses of the transactions had passed from time to eternity. We would like to turn their own guns upon the ranks of the enemy. We would like to confound them with their own favourite objection. Let them ponder well the fact that John is the least circumstantial of the four Evangelists. He deals in doctrines, not in the events. In this respect, his Gospel stands out in remarkable contrast with that of Matthew, the Evangelist of the Jews.

Thus it is the latter, and not the former, who records the Sermon on the Mount. If there were no such address delivered, there were thousands still alive when Matthew wrote, who could denounce him for falsehood. Thus it is Matthew, and not John, who tells that "four thousand men, besides women and children," were miraculously fed with "seven loaves and a few little fishes." And though John tells of the feeding of the five thousand, yet the miracle is plainly subordinate to the doctrine inculcated by it. And it was plainly recorded in order to teach the great truth, that Jesus was "the bread of life." And this remark may be made of most of the miracles related by John. They are merely introductory to the vital and essential doctrines which " the beloved disciple" wished to impress upon his readers. Again, it is Matthew and not John, who tells of Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, amidst the rejoicing hosannahs of the multitude. If there had been no such triumphant procession, the whole city could have disproved it. Thus, too, it is Matthew and not John, who tells of Christ's prediction of the destruction of .Jerusalem. Infidelity, then, with all its impudence and recklessness, cannot say that the writer shaped the prediction to suit the event. For Matthew wrote before "the abomination of desolation" was seen in the holy place. Thus, too, it is Matthew and not John, who tells of the rending of the veil of the temple, the quaking of the earth, and the shivering of the rocks, at the death of Christ. If these displays of divine power were not really exhibited, Matthew made his statements in the face of the millions of Judea still living, who had been present at the feast of the passover. If these facts had been recorded by John alone, how infidelity would have exulted over the omission of the other Evangelists; how the scoffer would have sneered, and said that the occurrences were not related until there was none left who could gainsay or deny them.

Again, it is Matthew and not John, who tells that when the Lord of life gave up the ghost, "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Thus, too, it is Matthew and not John, who tells how the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will arise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead; so the last error shall be worse than the first." Many of these priests and Pharisees must have been still living when Matthew wrote, and could have demonstrated his want of veracity, if these things were not so. Matthew, moreover, is the only Evangelist who tells of the sealing of the sepulchre of our Lord, and of the setting of the watch. He is the only Evangelist who tells of the bribing of the Roman soldiers to say that the body was stolen while they slept. He is the only Evangelist who tells that this story "is commonly reported among the Jews until this day," viz., until the time in which he wrote. This statement, if untrue, was made in the face of the direct knowledge to the contrary, not of two or three individuals, but of the whole Jewish nation.

The boldness of Matthew in speaking of public and notorious occurrences, and the entire silence of John with respect to them, ought to satisfy the most sceptical of the honesty of the witnesses.

But to return to the verse under consideration. The circumstantiality of Mark is no less noteworthy than that of Matthew. According to the ordinary principles of human nature, we would expect the Secretary of Peter to smooth over and soften down the asperities of the language of denial. On the contrary, Mark gives it in all its rough and ugly reality. He does not shrink from telling us, that Peter descended to the bar-room vulgarity of confirming his lie with blasphemous oaths and imprecations. Cursing and swearing, in the mouth of Cephas, the rock, the bold, confident disciple of Jesus! Has he, who so stoutly declared, "I will lay down my life for thy sake," resorted to the low expedient of profanity, to prove that he knew nothing of the immaculate Son of God? How little was the boaster acquainted with the deceit and desperate wickedness of his own heart! How little do any of us know, when not exposed to strong temptation, of the depths of pollution into which we may yet plunge, if not held up by the mighty hand of God.

"Heaven's Sovereign saves all beings, but himself,
That hideous sight, a naked human heart."

If we could but see our own hearts as God sees them, with what horror, amazement, and alarm, would we be filled! Heavenly Father! we would be taught by the fall of the proud and self-reliant Peter, to be very humble, and to trust in thy sustaining grace, and not in our own feeble strength. We would deplore as the greatest of evils, the being left a single moment without the guiding, directing, and controlling influences of thy Spirit. Leave us not, neither forsake us, thou God of our salvation!

The men of blood, assembled around that fire in the court of the malignant Caiaphas, paid a tacit, but glorious tribute to the religion of Jesus! It seems that they were satisfied, by the cursing and swearing of Peter, that he had no connection with the pure and holy Prisoner, surrounded by his ruthless accusers! It would seem, too, that they even let the swearer leave the palace without further molestation, (verse 62.)

We thank you, ye haters of Jesus, for your implied acknowledgment that a profane blusterer could have nothing in common with the holy Man of Nazareth! Although burning with hellish malice against Him who loved you then, and loved you afterwards, even unto death — praying for you when murderous hands were nailing him to the cross — yet by your act ye have confessed the excellency of his religion, since ye took it for granted that a coarse, vulgar swearer could not be his disciple! Just as you judged then, the world judges now, and is ever ready to denounce as hypocrites, those professed followers of Christ, whose life is not guileless, and whose conversation is not free from all impious expressions. Strange that the father of lies, and his mendacious children, should give such honest and truthful testimony to the purity of the Gospel of the Son of God!

49. On summing up our evidence, we find a twofold argument for the credibility of the witnesses — first, the boldness of Matthew in giving circumstantial details, which, if untrue, could have been denied so readily; second, the honesty of Mark in telling of the aggravated manner of the denial of his friend and teacher.

The 61st verse is in these words: "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter: and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly."

The parallel statements of Matthew and Mark are as follows: "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." (Matthew.) "And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept." (Mark.) John is altogether silent with respect to the repentance of Peter.

We remark, in the first place, upon these several accounts, that Mark, who alone in recording the prediction of Christ, had mentioned two crowings of the cock, and who alone had told of the first cock-crow, when Peter went out into the porch, so is now the only Evangelist who refers to the fact, that the cock did crow twice. We have had occasion before, to attribute Mark's precision to his being the Secretary of Peter, upon whose mind every circumstance connected with his denial must have made an indelible impression. The particularity of Mark is then easily explained; and we think that the omission, by the other writers, of any reference to the first cock-crow, is also as readily accounted for. The second cockcrow was about daylight; and the word cock-crowing, unless something was especially stated to the contrary, always conveyed to the Jew the same idea that the words " dawn of day," convey to us. When, therefore, the disciples heard our Lord predict the defection of Peter, they caught at the leading thought, namely, that in the very night in which Peter so proudly boasted of his courage and love for his Master, he should deny him before cock-crowing — before the shades of darkness should have passed from the earth. It was this that so forcibly struck Matthew and John, on hearing the prediction, and they therefore recorded it just as they remembered it. It was this that struck so forcibly those from whom Luke derived his account, and he therefore recorded it just as he got it from them. The exceeding naturalness of the omission of Matthew, Luke, and John, is no mean proof of their integrity. If the Evangelists had framed together a fictitious story, they surely would have been careful in making their statements correspond in small, as well as important particulars. We can give a plausible, and, we think, satisfactory explanation of the difference in their evidence, upon the hypothesis of their being honest and reliable men. But we would be utterly unable to account for this seeming disagreement, upon the hypothesis that they were liars and forgers.

We remark, in the second place, that Luke is the only Evangelist who notices the tender look of rebuke which Jesus gave to his erring disciple. And this brings us back to a position previously assumed, that Luke is the Evangelist for the penitent sinner, for the poor, the weak, and the friendless. He is the Evangelist who specially instructs us concerning the amazing mercy and forbearance of God, and the wonderful pity and compassion of his Son. He is the Evangelist who specially tells us of God's tender regard for those whom the world thinks least deserving of its notice and his favour. Thus he is the only Evangelist who gives the parable of the two debtors, the burden of which is, that he who has been forgiven much, will also love much. Luke alone relates the parable of the good Samaritan, which so beautifully inculcates the duty of neighbourly kindness, and which rebuked the pride of the lawyer, by showing that the act of mercy was not bestowed by the sanctimonious priest, nor by the Levite formalist, but by the despised Samaritan. Luke alone gives the parable of the importunate widow, teaching that the earnest, persevering prayer of the most insignificant, will not be made in vain. Luke and Matthew alone give the parable of the lost sheep, the moral of which is the anxiety of the good shepherd for the wanderers from his fold. Luke alone gives the parable of the lost money, and the prodigal son; the former, teaching the solicitude of God for those of his children who have gone astray; the latter, the tenderness of his pity for the returning penitent. Luke alone gives the parable of the unjust steward, so often and so greatly misunderstood, the key to which is the expression found only in that gospel, " He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much."

The lowly, the obscure, the poor in this world's goods, the feeble in intellect, are here taught that the faithful use of their little gifts will not fail of receiving its reward. Luke alone gives the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, which teaches God's abhorrence of a proud, vainglorious, self-righteous spirit, and his acceptance of a true and hearty repentance. Luke alone gives the parable of the pounds, which teaches the strictest accountability for even the one pound committed to our care, and that the smallest, as well as greatest gift from God is but a loan, which must be improved for his glory. Luke and Matthew both record the parable of the supper, but it is patent on the face of their respective accounts, that they related it from different motives. Matthew narrated it to teach the rejection of the Jews — Luke, to show the calling of the Gentiles. For, Matthew mentions two incidents passed over by Luke, the murder of the king's servants, and the punishment of the murderers; " And the remnant took his servants and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city." The parable was evidently introduced by Matthew as prophetic of the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, their persecution of its ministers, and of the vengeance taken upon them by the King of heaven, in the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke has introduced the parable to show that from the streets and lanes of the city, and from the highways and hedges of the country, "the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind," shall come up to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Luke alone gives the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which so impressively teaches that "the poor of this world" may be "rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love him." And if we turn from the allegoric teaching of our Lord to his public ministry, we find that Luke still preserves his characteristic as the Evangelist for the sinner. He still shows God's distinguishing grace towards those whom the world most lightly esteems. Thus, Luke alone tells of the anger excited by our Saviour, in his sermon at Nazareth, by showing that Elijah was sent to a widow of Sarepta, rather than to the mothers in Israel; and that he healed Naaman, a Syrian, a stranger, and a natural enemy of the Jews, rather than the lepers among his own countrymen. Thus, Luke is the only Evangelist who tells of Christ's gracious reception of the penitent sinner, who anointed his head with ointment, and washed his feet with her tears. The other Evangelists speak of a different anointing, which was for his burial; but this was made, not by a sinner, but by the pure and lovely Mary, who had chosen that good part, which should not be taken away. The sinner's Evangelist speaks of the penitential offering of the abandoned woman, and is silent with respect to the affectionate tribute of the saint. In his extracts from the Sermon on the Mount, Luke, with his characteristic contempt of the world's wealth, and the world's favour, has given two sentences not quoted by Matthew: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation," &c. " Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you." So, Luke alone tells us the story (we consider it not a parable) of the rich fool, who pulled down his barns and built greater, and said to his soul, " Take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry," even when the sentence of death had gone forth from "the Judge of all the earth." Luke, in like manner, is the only Evangelist who tells of Christ's rebuke of Martha for being " cumbered about much serving." So, too, Luke alone records that remarkable saying of our Lord, " That which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God."

Luke gives us many instances, not noticed by the other Evangelists, of our Redeemer's amazing forbearance and long-suffering with his enemies. Thus, he alone tells us how, when James and John wished to call down fire from heaven, to destroy a village of the Samaritans, which had rejected their Master with contumely and contempt, they were rebuked by him for their revengeful spirit, and were told that " the Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Thus, Luke alone tells us of his weeping over Jerusalem, the city of murderers, the city that stoned his prophets, rejected his gospel, and thirsted for his blood. John tells us of our blessed Saviour weeping on another occasion; but then it was over the grave of his dead friend, Lazarus, and not over living, active, malignant foes. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his healing the wounded Malchus, when in the very act of laying violent hands upon his sacred person. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his tender, compassionate address, on his way to Calvary, to the daughters of Jerusalem — the city which had persecuted him to the death. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his prayer for his enemies, even while they were nailing him to the cross. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his pardon of the thief who had broken his laws, and most likely had reviled Himself, but a few moments before. Thus, Luke alone tells of his appearance, after his resurrection, to the faithless Peter, to console him in his sorrow, and strengthen him in his faith. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his command to his disciples, to begin their ministry at that very Jerusalem which had shed his innocent blood. The offer of pardon, peace, holiness, and eternal life was first to be made to his cruel and implacable foes.

And besides these instances of Christ's forgiveness of injuries, Luke tells us of his many kind receptions of sinners, and of those who were looked upon with contempt by the Jews. Thus, Luke alone mentions the complaint of the Pharisees, " This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." Thus, Luke alone tells us of his forgiving the sins of the degraded woman, who shed penitent tears so profusely in the house of Simon. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his kindness to Zaccheus, the publican and the extortioner. Thus, Luke alone tells us of his healing the ten lepers, and that the one whom he commended was a despised Samaritan. Luke, and Matthew, and Mark, tell us of that precious saying of our Lord, " The Son of man came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." And so these three Evangelists speak of the murmuring of the Scribes and Pharisees, when Christ ate with publicans and sinners in the house of Levi. Luke, however, in noticing the goodness and condescension of our Redeemer to the vilest of sinners, is careful to connect it with the grace of repentance on their part. Thus, the woman was in tears, when her sins were forgiven. Zaccheus had resolved to make restitution, fourfold, of all things "taken by false accusation," when Christ came to his house. Levi had left all to follow Jesus, when he dined with him. The publicans and sinners there assembled, were hungering and thirsting for the preached word. The Samaritan, commended by him, had turned back to glorify God. The poor publican was smiting upon his breast, and crying, "God be merciful to me a sinner," when the act of justification was passed.

And so we see that repentance is a cardinal doctrine in Luke's theology. And we find that he is the only Evangelist who records that fearful saying of our Lord, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." And while Matthew teaches the unqualified forgiveness of the offending brother, Luke says, "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Compare Luke xvii. 4, with Matt, xviii. 21, 22.) Luke is the only Evangelist who tells of the "joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth;" and this precious truth he repeats over again.

The prominence given by Luke to repentance, explains the fact of his being the only Evangelist to notice Christ's turning and looking upon Peter. It is the look of Jesus which strikes the key-note of the penitential psalm. It is the tender, pitying, loving, rebuking look of the insulted Son of God which fills the heart with sorrow for sin. " They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn." Nay, gracious Saviour, we will look upon thee, but we will not mourn, unless thou first look upon us with forgiveness in thy eyes, and infinite compassion in thy face. Wretches that we are, we will stand around thy cross, thou bleeding lamb, like thy murderers, but to mock and revile thee, unless thy look of love show us that thou art enduring all this agony for us.

"While I view thee, wounded, grieving,
Breathless on the cursed tree,
Fain I'd feel my heart believing
That thou suffered'st thus for me."

And when we can feel this, with what earnestness will we sue for pardon and peace — when we can feel that thy look is full of pity and tenderness, and not of revenge and bitterness! With this belief, we can come with confidence, knowing that,

"In the world of endless ruin,
     Shall it never, Lord, be said,
'Here's a soul that perished sueing
     For the boasted Saviour's aid.'
Saved! the deed shall spread new glory
     Through the shining realms above!
Angels sing the pleasing story,
     All enraptured with thy love!"

5) The word rendered fire, in the 56th verse of Luke, is different from that in the 55th, and literally means, not fire, but light. The verse, then, would read, "But a certain maid beheld him, as he sat by the light," &c. The change of word is very significant — it clearly proves that the damsel came to the light, for a better view of Peter.