"Of the multitude that thronged to hear that sermon there are now comparatively few survivors. Some have lately departed, and among them the venerable Christopher Anderson. In reference to this sermon, he wrote, not long before his own death: 'It was understood that Mr. James Haldane meant to examine and expose this melancholy affair. Familiar as he had been for years with sea life, and once himself under the tyranny of these miserable "laws of honor," there was no man better qualified. The fear of God was now his governing principle, yet it required no common fortitude to meet such a case before such an audience.'

"The spacious building in which he preached, then capable of seating more than three thousand persons, was crowded to the doors. It was at the time of the threatened invasion,

When

when the whole nation resounded with the clang of arms, and the most peaceful civilians were often arrayed in military costume. he entered, there rose before him, not only the usual congregation, but officers in full uniform from Piershill barracks and the Castle-cavalry, infantry, artillery, and volunteers, officers on Lord Moira's staff, magistrates, men of letters and philosophers, men of business and retired gentlemen-all assembled to hear what was to be said in reprobation of dueling, and of the account circulating in print, from the pen of the Rev. Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge, who

attended the death-bed of Lord Camelford."

Then follows a description of the sermon, for which we must refer the reader to the biography itself. Throughout its delivery, we are told, the immense audience was still, awed by his earnest manner and thrilling language.

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES IN THE GOSPELS.

66

BY REV. T. R. BIRKS, ENGLAND.

I.

Whim many that were possessed
HEN the even was come, they brought

with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick." -Matt. viii, 16.

There is here no reason assigned why the sick were not, on this occasion, brought to Jesus until the evening. On turning, however, to the narrative in the other Gospels, (Mark i, 32; Luke iv, 40, 41,) this reason is apparent. We are told that on the Sabbath-day Jesus entered into the synagogue at Capernaum, and taught; that immediately on leaving it he entered into the house of Simon, and it was the very same evening on which this crowd of applicants for mercy were gathered at the door. Now, from Matt. xii, 10, it also appears that the opinion was common among the Jews, that it was not lawful to

heal on the Sabbath-day. We have thus a clear reason why the people waited until the evening, but one of which no trace exists in Matthew's narrative taken alone.

II.

"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”—Matt. x, 2-4.

In the other two Gospels, the seventh and eighth names occur in a different order,-Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas,-where the distinctive title, the publican, is also wanting. The whole list is composed of six pairs of names, the order of which seems to have been determined by the order of their call, whether to be disciples or apostles. Matthew places his own name second in the pair to which it belongs, and adds the offensive epithet, the publican. Mark and Luke, on the contrary, place Matthew's name before that of his comrade, and withhold the title which he himself has added, in a feeling of humility. This minute difference is naturally explained by the modesty of the evangelist, and thus becomes a pledge for the genuineness of the whole Gospel where it appears.

III.

The four Gospels, without any direct assertion, lead us to the same conclusion, that Joseph was dead before our Lord's This will appear by collating the passages. ministry began.

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his

disciples, to the marriage. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and they continued there not many days."-John ii, 1, 2, 12. "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without,

desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

But he answered and said unto him that told

him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?"—Matt. xii, 46–48.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?"-Matt. xiii, 55, 56.

"There came then his brethren and his

mother, and standing without, sent unto him, calling him."-Mark iii, 31.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda,

and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"-Mark vi, 3.

"Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press."-Luke viii, 19.

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his

mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."-John xix, 25–27.

There is thus no mention of the presence of Joseph at the feast in Cana, or the return to Capernaum, during the message of our Lord's relatives, the visit to Nazareth, or the crucifixion. All the four narratives agree, indirectly, in leading to the same conclusion, that the death of Joseph was earlier than our Lord's ministry. This agreement is unlikely to have occurred in fictitious narratives, and is therefore one mark in the Gospels of their historical reality.

IV.

"And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into the ship, (Tò πλolov,) and sat."-Matt. xiii, 2.

The meaning of the definite article in this passage is so far from being evident, that our translators have omitted it entirely. No ship has been mentioned in this context to which it can be referred. How, then, can the peculiar expression be accounted for?

On turning to the Gospel of St. Mark, not in the parallel passage, but somewhat earlier, we meet with a simple explanation in these words: "And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him, because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.”(iii, 9.) It is plain that this ship or boat, provided expressly for such a purpose, would be familiar to the thoughts of the apostle, and hence we may explain the force of the phrase," He entered into the ship and sat."

ness, depending merely on the insertion of the article, is so much the more unsuspicious and complete.

V.

In each Gospel an account is given of the miracle of the five thousand. We are

told, also, in every case, that the disciples took up twelve baskets of fragments. Matt. xiv, 20; Mark vi, 43; Luke ix, 17; John vi, 13. In every Gospel, also, these baskets are termed cophini, (dúdeka kopívovç πλήρεις.)

The similar miracle of the four thousand is recorded only by St. Matthew and St. Mark, who state that the disciples took up seven baskets of fragments. Here, however, a different term is employed, and in each Gospel the baskets are called spyrides. Matt. xv, 37; Mark viii, 8, (é¤rà ovpíðaç.)

Now, it is remarkable that, when our Saviour rebukes his disciples after crossing from Dalmanutha, the same distinction is accurately observed. Matt. xvi, 9, 10; Mark viii, 19–21.

"Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? (πόσους κοφίνους

húẞETE;) Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets (onvpidaç) ye took up?"

"When I brake the five loaves among five fragments took ye up? They say unto him, thousand, how many baskets (xopivovç) full of Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets (σævpídaç) full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand ?"

From the word orʊpís being used, (Acts ix, 25,) where Paul was let down in a basket by the wall of Damascus, it is natural to infer that it denotes baskets of a large size. The cophini, being twelve, might perhaps be the provision-baskets of the apostles. But whatever was the exact nature of the distinction, the constant mention of cophini in reference to one miracle, and of spyrides in connection with the other, is a minute and striking evidence of historical reality, and proves how the details of each event were fixed in the memory of the apostles.

VI.

of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little."-John vi, 5-7.

This apostle is never once named, in the first three Gospels, as having any special question put to him, or taking part in the conversation of our Lord, and only once beside in the Gospel of St. John. Why should the question now be addressed to him rather than the others? The passage itself offers no key to the incident, and we might readily suppose that it was an accidental circumstance.

Let us turn to St. Luke ix, 10, where the same miracle is recorded, and we find this further circumstance mentioned, which fixes the scene of the miracle: "And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place, belonging to the city called Bethsaida." The miracle is then said to have been wrought at the close of that very day.

If now we turn once more to St. John's

Gospel, we find in the first chapter this passing intimation: "Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter." Two different prepositions are here used, one of which seems to denote the birthplace, and the other the usual abode. Hence the meaning seems to be, that Philip, though a native of Capernaum, was an inhabitant of Bethsaida. It is thus explained why our Lord should address the inquiry to him rather than the others. They were in a desert place belonging to Bethsaida; and hence Philip was more likely than any of the rest to know where a supply of provisions might possibly be found.

One doubt, however, still remains. There were two Bethsaidas near the Sea of Tiberias; some have even supposed a third. For this last opinion, however, there is no evidence, and it has arisen only from a misconstruction of this very passage. Many have thought that the scene of the miracle was Bethsaida-Julias, to the northeast of the lake. If so, the coincidence would be deceptive, since Philip belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee. John xii, 21.

There are conclusive reasons which forbid us to place the scene in the neighborhood of Julias. The suburbs of one of the largest cities near the lake would be ill suited for the purpose of retirement. The course of the disciples on their return is also inconsistent with such a view of the locality. They crossed over toward Bethsaida, while the route from Julias to

Capernaum would not bring them near to Bethsaida of Galilee.

One easy supposition removes all difficulty, and maintains the reality of the coincidence. Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin, were fishing towns on the west of the lake, and would very likely have separate districts belonging to them on the opposite side, for the convenience of the crews in their frequent short voyages across the lake. If the miracle occurred in such a district belonging to Bethsaida of Galilee, and lying opposite to it on the further side of the lake, the whole becomes consistent and natural; and the appeal to Philip, as an inhabitant of Bethsaida, and acquainted with its localities, retains its strict propriety.

VII.

"When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking

for Jesus."—John vi, 24.

The surprise of the people at not finding Jesus is easily explained, since they saw that he had not entered the ship, and no other vessel was near, until the arrival of the other boats from Tiberias, early the next morning. But why should they expect the disciples to be there, whom they had seen embark the evening before? An answer is found in St. Mark's Gospel. When Jesus came to them in the fourth watch, "he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary.” With a stormy and adverse wind, that lasted until three or four in the morning, it was very natural to suppose that the disciples would have put back again, and be found along with Jesus on the eastern shore.

THE GENDER OF MYSTERIES.-There is not a mystery in creation, the symbol or practical invention for meanings abstruse, recondite, and incomprehensible, which is not represented by the female gender. There is the Sphinx, and the Enigma, and the Chimera, and Isis, whose vail no man had ever lifted-they were all ladies, every one of them. And so was Proserpine and Hecate, who was one thing by night and another by day. The Sibyls were females, and so were the Gorgons, the Harpies, the Furies, the Fates, and the Teutonic Valkyrs, Norniss; and, in short, all representations of ideas, obscure, inscrutable, and portentous, are nouns feminine.

THE WONDERS OF THE EGYPTIAN MAGICIANS.

BY REV. DR. WARDLAW.

Jambres, and their associates, there was no reality of miracle-nothing that required the interposition of either divine or Satanic agency-nothing but what came within the scope of human power and dexterity of deception. This is the position which, with Farmer and some other writers, I unhesitatingly take up; and I hope, without much difficulty, to satisfy the reader of its correctness,

1. I begin, then, by calling to his remembrance one general fact, namely, that the performances of the magicians went only a certain length; that, having succeeded thus far, they stopped and gave in, acknowledging their inability to go farther, and we then hear no more of their attempts. Now, this single fact, independently, for the present, of the cause of their stopping, which may by-and-by appear, renders it, in no small degree, previously probable that there was in the case nothing superhuman or preternatural; but simply a power of deception which succeeded to a certain extent, and then felt itself baffled. Had the power been supernatural, and its doings realities, there seems nothing, at the particular point where they did stop, to account for their so stopping. We shall see, on the other hand, how naturally their stopping is accounted for on what we believe to be the true hypothesis.

2. The supposition of real miracle on the side of the magicians, as well as on that of Moses and Aaron, involves in itself ideas too monstrous to admit of my being able to regard them, I do not say merely as probable, but as morally possible. Of those who hold the wonders to have been real, they are by some ascribed to the agency of God himself, and by others to that of Satan. Now just look at each hypothesis. According to the former, the great God is represented as for a time alternately contradicting himself; affirming and denying, attesting and disproving the same thing; putting forth his power, now on the side of truth, and now on that of error; and thus, by his own authority, accredited by his own divine seal, keeping the minds of his intelligent creatures in a

trial in which, for a while, it remains dubious which of the two has the mastery; nay, in which, in the first step at least, Satan has clearly the advantage. Now to me, I confess, it appears that we ought to be prepared to accept almost any hypothesis which promised to free us from suppositions so unworthy and revolting! If the magicians really converted their rods into living serpents, the first miracle, let it be remembered, is a miracle of creation

of instantaneous creation; and, were there any room for comparison in the case of creative power, (to which, as formerly remarked, the production of a world is as easy as the production of an atom,) the amount of the miracle was on the side of the magicians in the ratio of their number, whatever we may fancy it to have been to one. And the way in which this objection to their hypothesis has been disposed of by the abettors of the reality of the transformation in the one case as well as in the other, has ever, I confess, appeared to me to have more of the ludicrous in it than, in what relates to sacred things, I am fond of allowing my mind to dwell upon. It is very true, it has been said, that the rods of the magicians were as really as that of Moses turned into serpents; but then the serpent that had come of the rod of Moses settled the controversy on the right side, by swallowing up all the rest! As if the actual change of lifeless bits of wood into real living serpents were not a miracle incomparably greater than, after they had been produced, one of them devouring the others! How many there were of the rods of the magicians, we have no means of ascertaining. We are sure of two, those of "Jannes and Jambres," who are mentioned by Paul as having "withstood Moses;" but there might be, and probably were more, (perhaps not a few more, for it is said "they cast down every man his rod,") of whom these were the chief. I do not deny, be it observed, that the swallowing up of the other serpents by that of Moses was a settling of the point in dispute, but not in the way of determining the question of superiority between the miracles on the