III.  A singularity in Christ’s language which runs through all the evangelists, and which is found in those discourses of Saint John that have nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the appellation of “the Son of man;” and it is in all the evangelists found under the peculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ to himself, but of never being used of him, or towards him, by any other person.  It occurs seventeen times in Matthew’s Gospel, twenty times in Mark’s, twenty-one times in Luke’s and eleven times in John’s, and always with this restriction.

IV.  A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by his different historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the way whenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition to tumult.

Matt. xiv. 22.  “And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitude away.  And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray.”

Luke v. 15, 16.  “But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities; and he withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed.”  With these quotations compare the following from Saint John:  Chap. v. 13.  “And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.”

Chap. vi. 15.  “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.”

In this last instance, Saint John gives the motive of Christ’s conduct, which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related the conduct itself.

V. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ’s ministry, was the reserve which, for some time, and upon some occasions at least, he used in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected from his works rather than his professions.  Just reasons for this reserve have been assigned. (See Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity.) But it is not what one would have expected.  We meet with it in Saint Matthew’s Gospel (chap. xvi. 20):  “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”  Again, and upon a different occasion, in Saint Mark’s (chap. iii. 11):  “And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God:  and he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.”  Another instance similar to this last is recorded by Saint Luke (chap. iv. 41).  What we thus find in the three evangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John (chap. x. 24, 25):  “Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt:  If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.”  The occasion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect.  We only discover Christ’s conduct through the upbraidings of his adversaries.  But all this strengthens the argument.  I had rather at any time surprise a coincidence in some oblique allusion than read it in broad assertions.