In his "Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences" (a work altogether too little known), the author, J. J. Blunt, remarks that those passages to which he calls attention will doubtless suggest others to the reader. One of these is found in John 2:1-11, compared with John 3:29. In the first of these passages an account of "a marriage in Cana of Galilee" is given, and no groomsmen are spoken of; whereas, in the other passage, John the Baptist speaks of himself as "the friend of the bridegroom," meaning what we call to-day "the best man," or groomsman.

Commenting on this fact, Edersheim, in his Sketches of Jewish Social Life, says;

"It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of 'the friends of the bridegroom,' or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where John 3:29 was spoken, in which 'the friend of the bridegroom' is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of 'children of the bride-chamber,' which occurs in Matt. 9:15, where the scene is once more in Galilee. The term 'children of the bride-chamber,' is simply a translation of the rabbinical 'bene Chuppah,' and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or 'friends of the bridegroom'-one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride."

Thus we have a remarkable, and altogether undesigned coincidence; for the writer of the two accounts, if a forger, would hardly have known of this difference of custom between the two districts of the land of Palestine. He would likely have pictured groomsmen present at the wedding in Cana, thus laying himself open to the charge of inaccuracy, if not of forgery.

Only a few days ago the newspapers told of the error of an English artist who in his design of a medal on the discovery of America represents Columbus standing on the deck of his vessel looking westward through a telescope -but the telescope was at that time unknown! Had this designer pretended to be contemporary with Columbus, or even of Bacon, who would to-day believe him? Would he not by his mistake be convicted of fraud? And if the writer of the Gospel accredited to John had been a forger of a later date than the apostolic age, he would hardly have escaped the error of representing groomsmen at the marriage in Cana of Galilee; and he would the more easily have fallen into this error since he knew of the custom of bridegrooms elsewhere, as John 3:29 shows.

This is a very reasonable test of veracity and has been aptly designated, "consistency without contrivance." And while the believer's faith does not "stand in the wisdom of men," it may be strengthened by these undesigned coincidences-always absent in a forgery, or in fiction pretending to be truth. If a modern designer of medals could make the mistake of antedating the telescope by some two hundred years, how readily would a forger, assuming to be a contemporary of the apostles, have betrayed his ignorance of the customs of the times by depicting "friends of the bridegroom" at the wedding in Galilee.

Reader, you may be sure beyond all doubt that the Scriptures are what they claim to be, "THE WORD OF GOD." Let nothing make you doubt them; and above all, let that Saviour of whom they everywhere speak, be all your confidence. Hope only in Him, and so believing, so confiding, you shall never be confounded. C. Knapp.