ment could hardly arise from anything but the truth of the case. From any care or design in Saint John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of the 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; 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;" and whenever he happens to notice any one as of that number, 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.

1

All this bespeaks reality.

8 Matt. x. 1. Mark iii. 14.

Luke vi. 12. ⚫ Chap. vi. 70.

1 Chap. xx. 24; vi. 71.

CHAPTER V.

ORIGINALITY OF OUR SAVIOUR'S CHARACTER.

THE Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to foretell 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

Ee

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 countrymen looked for; that is to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in that sense in which the restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.

Why therefore Jesus, if He was, like them, either an enthusiast or impostor, did not pursue the same conduct as they did, in framing His character and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. A mission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in another life, was a thing unthought of, as the subject of these prophecies. That Jesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come under a character totally different from that in which they expected Him; should deviate from the general persuasion, and deviate into pretensions absolutely singular and original; appears to be inconsistent with the imputation of enthusiasm or imposture,

both which, by their nature, I should expect, would, and both which, throughout the experience which this very subject furnishes, in fact have, followed the opinions that obtained at the time.

If it be said that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at length to this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; against evidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yet that nothing of this sort was thought of by any.

CHAPTER VI.

ONE argument, which has been much relied upon (but not more than its just weight deserves), is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in Scripture, with the state of things in those times, as represented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformity proves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of local knowledge, which could belong only to an inhabitant of that country, and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by examples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness of the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to an age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christian public forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is no evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that the books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons living in the time and country in which these things were transacted; and consequently capable by their