were consciously writing the history, so far as it went, of a personage so great and important that all other human beings when compared with Him sink into insignificance; and that the evangelists were honest and truthful men, and desirous of giving a faithful and, to the best of their power, an exact account of the transactions they described.

Now, we ask, which is, à priori, most probable, that these men, honest, zealous, and painstaking, arranged their facts upon a plan or plans which might be easily understood, or that they set them down, in a great part at least, on no plan at all, or on none which their readers can comprehend? The answer cannot be doubtful. The latter supposition is so extremely improbable, that no one would à priori entertain it for a moment.

Still we must abide by the evidence of the books themselves. They are open to every one, and for a satisfactory judgement nothing more is required than candour, common sense, and the serious and reverent attention to which the subject from its vast importance is clearly entitled. The à priori probability cannot of itself determine anything; yet it may justly influence us so far as to demand clear and undeniable evidence that it is untenable before we decide against it.

We refer then to S. Luke. Does his account appear to be regular and in order? iii. 22. The Holy Spirit descends upon our Lord at His baptism. iv. 1. Full of the Holy Spirit He retires from Jordan, and is in the wilderness tempted forty days. 14. In the power of the Spirit He returns into Galilee. 16. He comes to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. On the Sabbath He enters into the synagogue and discourses upon the scripture which begins, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me. Having incurred the anger of those present, He is hurried out of the synagogue, and only by an exertion of miraculous power escapes a violent death. 31. He goes down to Capernaum, and on the Sabbath casts out the devils from a poor demoniac.—The evangelist appears to proceed in the most regular manner possible. I cannot discern any sign whatever of the slightest irregularity, disorder, or faulty arrangement, in any part of this narrative. All is simply and naturally told, if the events succeeded each other in point of time. Dean Alford, however, asserts that the order in Luke

iv. 14 is confused, and betrays evident marks of indefiniteness. But these are unsupported assertions, and the only reply of which they admit is that this confusion and ill-defined arrangement are not evident to others. To suppose, as Dean Alford does, that S. Luke set down here, in this manner and language, an account of the visit to Nazareth, knowing that chronologically it should have been placed at the end of the eighth chapter, is an insult to his understanding. S. Luke was manifestly a man of sense, and scholarship, and refinement, and he has been generally reputed in the church a master both of choice expression and logical skill.

Perhaps Dean Alford would contend that S. Luke did not know to what part of our Lord's ministry the visit to Nazareth properly belonged, and has placed it at the commencement by mistake. If this be the argument, the supposition is as grave a reflection upon the moral integrity of S. Luke, as the former was upon his natural sense. That S. Luke, professing to have perfect knowledge of all things concerning the Christian faith from the first, should not have known to what period of our Lord's ministerial course an attempt such as is here described upon His life belonged, and that he should have represented it as occurring at the commencement of that course, when it really occurred more than a twelvemonth later, would prove the evangelist to be wholly unfit for the office he had undertaken. The supposition would make him pretend to know what he did not, and to be ignorant where without effort he might have been well informed; for he has furnished very circumstantial accounts of our Lord's birth, and the opening of his ministry, and writes as one thoroughly acquainted with the minutiae of his subject. His books are incontestable evidence of the eminent qualifications of the writer; S. Paul is a sufficient voucher for the integrity and piety of the man. Respect for the holy evangelist would forbid another word, if it were not desirable to show the young student to what extravagances of credulity and folly sceptical objectors to the truth and inspiration of Scripture are willing to commit themselves.

First, then, we ask, why should the narratives of Luke on the one hand, and of Matthew and Mark on the other, be supposed to describe the same visit? They seem to have very

few circumstances in which they are at all alike, and many in which they are totally different, and some in which they are irreconcileably opposed.

The attempt upon our Lord's life was a most remarkable Occurrence. Never again, until that scene at the garden of Gethsemane, did any, so far as we know, dare to lay a hand upon His sacred person. Here, at the very commencement of the gospel message, the Nazarenes, in the outbreak of angry passion, seize and hurry Him away to be hurled down to destruction. There, at the conclusion of His message, the whole nation, by their chief priests and rulers, in the consummation of their malice, apprehend and bind Him, and lead Him away, a willing victim, to be exalted on the cross. Surely this attempt to precipitate our Lord from the brow of their hill was a notable circumstance. Yet, if we are to credit Dean Alford, S. Matthew and S. Mark describe the visit, and yet omit all mention of this its principal incident. What can be more strange or incredible than this? Nor, again, can we be brought to believe that S. Matthew, so particular in noting the accomplishment of prophecy, would, when giving an account of our Lord's preaching in the Nazareth synagogue, have omitted to mention that passage of Isaiah which our Lord Himself expressly declares to have been fulfilled upon this occasion. Again, the anger of the Nazarenes, and that which excited it, the reference to God's method of dealing by the prophets, by Elijah, in the case of the widow of Zarephath, and by Elisha in that of Naaman, forms the largest portion of the narrative in S. Luke. Yet there is no trace whatever of this in the accounts of Matthew and Mark.

We enquire, what have the respective accounts so much in common that they must be considered to be substantially identical? All we learn in reply is this, that it is 'in the highest degree improbable,'' that the same question should have been asked' on two different occasions, and should have been an'swered by our Lord with the same proverbial expression.' There is no such great improbability in the case supposed. If a question had on any occasion been repeated, which, under similar circumstances, had been previously put to our Lord, and had received an answer from Him, it is by no means im

probable that He might have made the very same answer a second time. It would have been in accordance with the manner He frequently adopted. It was not His habit to encourage objectors, but rather to admonish them to look to sufficient evidence already within their reach.

But the case is not exactly as Dean Alford represents it, There was no question put to our Lord, and nothing which can, in strictness, be called an answer given by Him. In S. Luke we read, All bare witness to Him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth, and they said, Is not this Joseph's son? They were surprised that one who had lived amongst themselves in obscurity, and had given no proofs of any extraordinary ability, should express Himself in such gracious, persuasive, and impressive language. Their question was only an exclamation of wonder. We can hardly believe, they said, with something like admiration, that this is our Joseph's son. In Matthew and Mark the questions which, as in S. Luke, are put by those present among themselves, and not addressed to our Lord, are of another kind, and relate to a different subject. We do not hear that the people wondered, but that they were astonished; half alarmed probably, half amazed. And at what? Not at the gracious words which fell from His lips, but at His wisdom and His power; at the extraordinary works which His knowledge and wisdom enabled Him to perform. The questioning is not, as Dean Alford asserts, the same as in S. Luke. When we examine the words, we find a very striking difference. Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Whence hath this man all these things? Or, as S. Mark, with his usual fulness and nicety of expression, writes, Whence hath this man these things? and what is that wisdom given to Him, that even such mighty works are done by His hands? Such, they well said, for within the last few days He had stilled the storm, cast out the legion of devils, stayed the issue of blood, raised the dead, given sight to the blind, and speech to the dumb. The works were, evidently, uppermost in their thoughts. They made no doubt of the truth and reality of the miracles. They acknowledged to the full the power both of His words and of His works. But they asked themselves, Whence came these miracles? What was the nature of His

subtle and marvellous insight into things? From whom was this power and this knowledge derived? Did it come of good or of evil? They yielded to the opinion that it was of evil. It was the opinion which the Pharisees had suggested again and again, which they had insinuated into the minds of our Blessed Lord's relatives, and which they had industriously circulated among the multitude. The full exposure of its folly, and the solemn and severe denunciation of its wickedness, made by our Lord during the preceding week at Capernaum, had failed to convince the Pharisees. Their opinion still promulgated was now ripe at Nazareth. The people were prepared, and ready with the objection,' Whence this power?' Whence is the prominent and emphatic word in both evangelists. It cannot but be of evil. This man is one of the meanest of our own village, the carpenter, the son of the carpenter, or if not the son of the carpenter, certainly the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas; and though one or two of His brothers have left, his sisters are all here to this day.' This particularity with regard to our Lord's family, of which not a vestige appears in S. Luke, is exactly in harmony with the occasion. His relatives had assembled the week before, and gone over to Capernaum to induce the prophet, if they could, to desist from His undertaking and return to His home. And thus the people were ready with their notions of His parentage, and with the names of His relatives. Surely, it cannot be affirmed with truth, that the self-questionings of the people in Matthew and Mark are the same with the simple exclamation in S. Luke.

Nor does the proverbial expression which our Lord uses in S. Luke take exactly the same form in S. Matthew and S. Mark. Even here there is a sufficient difference to indicate that the occasions also were different. In S. Luke, it seems a premonition of what was too likely to happen. No prophet is accepted in his own country. You will expect, perhaps, signs and wonders. You will demand a display of the same power which has been shown in Capernaum. But I may not be authorised to satisfy you. Remember that it was a widow of Zarephath whose meal and oil God was pleased to multiply, and it was a Syrian of Damascus whose leprosy He was pleased to heal. And His providence may take a like course now. Be