refinement. On further consideration, however, I am satisfied that the conjecture I hazard (for it is nothing more) is far from improbable, and I am the less disposed to withhold it from having observed, when I have chanced to discuss any of these paragraphs with my friends, how differently the importance of an argument is estimated by different minds; a point of evidence often inducing conviction in one, which another would find almost nugatory.

Whoever reads the four verses which I have given at the head of this Number in juxtaposition, will probably anticipate what I have to say. The coincidence here is not between several writers, but between several detached passages of the same writer. From the first of these verses it appears that, at the period when James and John received the call to follow Christ, Zebedee their father was alive. They obeyed the call, and left him. From the two last verses it appears, in my opinion, that, at a subsequent period of which they treat, Zebedee was dead. Zebedee does not make the application to Christ on behalf of his sons, but the mother of Zebedee's children makes it. Zebedee is not at the crucifixion, but the mother of Zebedee's children. It is

not from his absence on these occasions that I so much infer his death, as from the expression applied to Salome; she is not called the wife of Zebedee, she is not called the mother of James and John, but the mother of Zebedee's children. The term, I think, implies that she was a widow.

Now from the second verse, which relates to a period between these two, we learn that one of Jesus' disciples asked him permission "to go and bury his father." The interval was a short one; the number of persons, to whom the name of disciple was given, was very small (see Matt. ix. 37); a single boat seems to have contained them all (viii. 23). In that number we know that the sons of Zebedee were included. My inference therefore is, that the death of Zebedee is here alluded to, and that St. Matthew, without a wish, perhaps, or thought, either to conceal or express the individual, (for there seems no assignable motive for his studying to do either,) betrays an event familiar to his own mind, in that inadvertent and unobtrusive manner in which the truth so often comes out.

The data, it must be confessed, are not enough to determine the matter with certainty

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

ourselves diligently to comparing together the four witnesses which we have, instead of indulging a fruitless desire for more; and if consistency without design, be a proof that they are "true men," I cannot but consider that it is abundantly supplied.

III.

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

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

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

But that Peter actually was a married man, we learn from the independent testimony of St. Paul: "Have we not power," says he, "to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Cor. ix. 5. Here again, be it observed, as in the former instance, the indication of veracity in the apostle's narrative, is found where the subject of the narrative is a miracle; for Christ having "touched her hand, the fever left her, and she arose and ministered unto them." v. 15.

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