The behaviour of Gallio (Acts xviii. 12-17) and of Festus (xxv. 18, 19) have 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 of the appearance of truth.

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

Saint 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. Saint 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 Judea, to go into Galilee.1

Saint Matthew (xv. 1, &c.) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees against the disciples of Jesus for eating "with unclean hands." Saint Mark has also (vii. 1) recorded the same trans

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

action (taken probably from Saint Matthew), but with this addition: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands often, 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 Saint 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 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 Saint John. It is known to every reader of Scripture that the passages of Christ's history preserved by Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint 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 I should have laid little

the same person.

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 Saint 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 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? 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."