Now it ought to be observed, that the argument which is built upon these examples, extends both to the authenticity of the books and to the truth of the narrative: for it is improbable that the forger of a history in the name of another should have inserted such passages into it; and it is improbable also, that the persons whose names the books bear should have fabricated such passages, or even have allowed them a place in their work, if they had not believed them to express the truth.

The following observation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the most candid of all advocates, and the most cautious of all inquirers, seems to be well founded:-" Christians are induced to believe the writers of the gospel, by observing the evidences of piety and probity that appear in their writings, in which there is no deceit, or artifice, or cunning, or design." "No remarks, as Dr. Beattie hath properly said, are thrown in, to anticipate objections; nothing of that caution, which never fails to distinguish the testimony of those who are conscious of imposture; no endeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordinary in the narrative."

I beg leave to cite also another author,* who has well expressed the reflection which the examples now brought forward were intended to suggest. "It doth not appear

The admission, in itself, cannot then be very remarkable; but that, after the descent of the Spirit, their unlettered character should be so legible in one short interview, and observed by their enemies, and yet that the writer should record the fact, without ever pausing to explain it, or to shield the apostles from contempt, is one proof, amongst many, of simplicity and candour.

Acts ix. 7. "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts xxii. 9. "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

These two statements, at first sight, appear contradictory; but St. Luke neither fits his narrative to the words of the speech, nor alters the speech, that it may seem to agree with his own previous narrative. This is a mark of simple honesty and truth. The fact seems to have been, that Saul's companions saw the light and heard a voice, but they beheld no human appearance, and could distinguish no articulate sounds.

Acts xv. 36-40. The account of this contention between Paul and Barnabas is another proof of the same candour. The history would have seemed just as complete if their separation had been assigned to any other cause. It is the more striking, because the history does not mention their reconciliation, and we only gather it from some allusions in the Epistles of St. Paul, written after this time.

Acts xv. 10; xvi. 3. The conduct of Paul here, and the reason assigned for it, seems at first to be an open contradiction to the principle for which he contended so recently in the council. A writer, who was not conscious of his own accuracy, and who meant to use any artifice, would certainly have paused to explain the seeming contradiction.-EDITOR.

*Duchal, p. 97, 98.

that ever it came into the mind of these writers, to consider how this or the other action would appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. But without at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, at no pains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If the reader will not believe their testimony, there is no help for it: they tell the truth, and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks like sincerity, and that they published nothing to the world but what they believed themselves."

As no improper supplement to this chapter, I crave a place here for observing the extreme naturalness of some of the things related in the New Testament.

Mark ix. 23, 24. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." This struggle in the father's heart, between solicitude for the preservation of his child, and a kind of involuntary distrust of Christ's power to heal him, is here expressed with an air of reality which could hardly be counterfeited.

Again, (Matt. xxi. 9,) the eagerness of the people to introduce Christ into Jerusalem, and their demand, a short time afterwards, of his crucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him to be, so far from affording matter of objection, represents popular favour in exact agreement with nature and with experience, as the flux and reflux of a wave.

The rulers and Pharisees rejecting Christ, whilst many of the common people received him, was the effect which, in the then state of Jewish prejudices, I should have expected. And the reason with which they who rejected Christ's mission kept themselves in countenance, and with which also they answered the arguments of those who favoured it, is precisely the reason which such men usually give:- "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John vii. 48.)

In our Lord's conversation at the well, (John iv. 18,) Christ had surprised the Samaritan woman with an allusion to a single particular in her domestic situation: "Thou

hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." The woman, soon after this, ran back to the city, and called out to her neighbours, "Come, see

M

a man, which told me all things that ever I did.” This exaggeration appears to me very natural; especially in the hurried state of spirits into which the woman may be supposed to have been thrown.

The lawyer's subtlety in running a distinction upon the word neighbour, in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," was no less natural than our Saviour's answer was decisive and satisfactory, (Luke x. 29.) The lawyer of the New Testament, it must be observed, was a Jewish divine.

The behaviour of Gallio, (Acts xviii. 12-17,) and of Festus, (xxv. 18, 19,) has been observed upon already.

The consistency of St. Paul's character throughout the whole of his history, (namely, the warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, and then for, Christianity,) carries with it very much the appearance of truth.

There are also some properties, as they may be called, observable in the Gospels; that is, circumstances separately suiting with the situation, character, and intention of their respective authors.

St. Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not join Christ's society until some time after Christ had come into Galilee to preach, has given us very little of his history prior to that period. St. John, who had been converted before, and who wrote to supply omissions in the other Gospels, relates some remarkable particulars, which had taken place before Christ left Judæa, to go to Galilee.*

St. Matthew (xv. 1.) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus, for eating "with unclean hands.' St. Mark has also (vii. 1) recorded the same transaction (taken probably from St. Matthew), but with this addition: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Now St. Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers. The above explanation, therefore, in him, would

Hartley's Observations, vol. ii. p 103.

have been unnatural, as not being wanted by the readers whom he addressed. But in Mark, who, whatever use he might make of Matthew's Gospel, intended his own narrative for a general circulation, and who himself travelled to distant countries in the service of the religion, it was properly added.

CHAPTER IV.

Identity of Christ's Character.

THE argument expressed by this title, I apply principally to the comparison of the first three Gospels with that of St. John. It is known to every reader of Scripture, that the passages of Christ's history, preserved by St. John, are, except his passion and resurrection, for the most part different from those which are delivered by the other evangelists. And I think the ancient account of this difference to be the true one, namely, that St. John wrote after the rest, and to supply what he thought omissions in their narratives; of which the principal were, our Saviour's conferences with the Jews of Jerusalem, and his discourses to his apostles at his last supper. But what I observe in the comparison of these several accounts is, that, although actions and discourses are ascribed to Christ by St. John, in general different from what are given to him by the other evangelists, yet, under this diversity, there is a similitude of manner, which indicates that the actions and discourses proceeded from the same person. I should have laid little stress upon the repetition of actions substantially alike, or of discourses containing many of the same expressions, because that is a species of resemblance which would either belong to a true history, or might easily be imitated in a false one. Nor do I deny, that a dramatic writer is able to sustain propriety and distinction of character, through a great variety of separate incidents and situations. But the evangelists were not dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents of dramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be suspected, that they studied uniformity of character, or ever thought of any such thing, in the person who was the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exist, is on their part

casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a perceptible resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses, which are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered by historians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, one another, it affords a just presumption that these are what they profess to be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person; that the evangelists wrote from fact, and not from imagination.

The article in which I find this agreement most strong, is in our Saviour's mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it which consists in his drawing of his doctrine from the occasion; or, which is nearly the same thing, raising reflections from the objects and incidents before him, or turning a particular discourse, then passing, into an opportunity of general instruction.

It will be my business to point out this manner in the first three evangelists; and then to inquire whether it do not appear also in several examples of Christ's discourses, preserved by St. John.

The reader will observe in the following quotations, that the Italic letter contains the reflection; the common letter, the incident or occasion from which it springs:

Matt. xii. 47-50. "Then they 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? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Matt. xvi. 5. "And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.-How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Matt. xv. 1, 2, 10, 11, 15—20. "Then came to Jesus