« PreviousContinue »
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.
VI. In our Lord's commerce with his disciples, one very observable particular is the difficulty which they found in understanding him, when he spoke to them of the future part of his history, especially of what related to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty produced, as was natural, a wish in them to ask for further explanation ; from which, however, they appear to have been sometimes kept back, by the fear of giving offence. All these circumstances are distinctly noticed by Mark and Luke, upon the occasion of his informing them, (probably for the first time,) that the Son of man should be delivered into the hands of men. “They understood not,” the evangelists tell us, “this saying, and it was
” hid from them, that they perceived it not; and they feared to ask him of that saying.” (Luke ix. 45 ; Mark ix. 32.) In St. John's Gospel, we have, on a different occasion, and in a different instance, the same difficulty of apprehension, the same curiosity, and the same restraint: “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and a
again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us? A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while ? we cannot tell what he saith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them,” etc. (John xvi. 16, et seq.)
VII. The meekness of Christ during his last suf
ferings, which is conspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, is preserved in that of St. John under separate examples. The answer given by him, in St. John,* when the high priest asked him of his disciples and his doctrine“ I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them”—is
much of a piece with his reply to the armed party which seized him, as we read it in St. Mark's Gospel, and in St. Luke's :f “ Are ye come out, as against a
t thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not.” In both answers, we discern the same tranquillity, the same reference to his public teaching. His mild expostulation with Pilate, on two several occasions, as related by St. John,f is delivered with the same unruffled temper, as that which conducted him through the last scene of his life, as described by his other evangelists. His answer in St. John's Gospel, to the officer who struck him with the palm of his hand, " If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me ?"Ş was such an answer as might have been looked for from the person, who, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (as we are told by St. Luke II) weep not for him, but for themselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he was suspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, “ for they know not,” said he, “what
, they do.” The urgency also of his judges and his .
prosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation,
* Chap. xviii. 20, 21.
+ Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii. 52. Chap. xviii. 23. || Chap. xxiii. 28. * See John xix. 2. Matt. xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9. + Chap. xxvi. 42.
and his unwillingness to make any, (which was a peculiar circumstance,) appears in St. John's account, as well as in that of the other evangelists.
There are moreover two other correspondencies between St. John's history of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different from those which we have been now mentioning.
The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's
i. e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended; in which narrative, they all make him pray, “that the cup might pass from him.” This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him. St. Matthew adds, “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.”+ Now St. John does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized, and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, according to his account, checked the attempt with this reply:
“Put up thy sword into the sheath : the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”! This is something more than consistency; it is coincidence; because it is extremely natural, that Jesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father, that “that cup might pass from him," yet with such a pious retraction of his request, as to have added, “ If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be done;" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually was apprehended, to express the resignation to which he had already made up his thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had before used, “ The
Father hath given ine, shall I not drink it?" This is a coincidence between
I Chap. xviii. 11. Nn
writers, in whose narratives there is no imitation, but great diversity.
A second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make the charge, upon which our Lord was condemned, to be a threat of destroying the temple; “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands :'* but they neither of
" them inform us, upon what circumstance this calumny was founded. St. John, in the early part of the history,t supplies us with this information ; for he relates, that, on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, when the Jews asked him, “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things ? he answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This agreement could hardly arise from any thing but the truth of the case. From any care or design in St. John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did not arise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it.
A strong and more general instance of agreement, is the following. The first three evangelists have related the appointment of the twelve apostles ;f and have given a catalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the appointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes, throughout his whole narrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of disciples; the number of these to be twelve ;ş and whenever he happens to notice any one as of that number,ll it is one included in the catalogue of the other evangelists : and the names principally occurring in the course of his history of Christ are the names extant in their list. This last agreement, which is of considerable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through every chapter of each.
* Mark xiv. 58. + Chap. ii. 18. I Matt. x. i. Mark. iii. 14. Luke vi. 12. ♡ Chap. vi. 70.
|| Chap. xx. 24 ; vi. 71.
All this bespeaks reality.
Originality of our Saviour's Character.
The Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to foretel the advent of a person, who by some supernatural assistance should advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree of splendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation of the times.
Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his enthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that, while he gave himself out to be the person intended by these predictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were universally supposed to relate.
Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his attraction and success.
But, what is better than conjectures, is the fact, that all the pretended Messiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus, that there were many of these. Some of them, it is probable, might be impostors, who thought that an advantage was to be taken of the state of public opinion. Others, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had been drawn to this particular object, by the language and sentiments which prevailed around them. But, whether impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred in producing themselves in the character which their