happy." The same elegant philosopher closes some remarks on the death of his master in the following manner: "Since he really was what I have described him; so religious as to undertake nothing without consulting the gods; so just as to abstain from the least injury, and to confer the greatest benefits on those connected with him; so temperate as at no time to prefer pleasure before duty; so wise as not to mistake in distinguishing good from bad, and as not to require the assistance of others, but to be able of himself to mark the distinction; and moreover skilled in discoursing on and defining such subjects, in trying others, in convincing the mistaken, and in exhorting them to virtue and decorum; he seemed in my judgment to answer the idea of the best and happiest men. But if any one does not approve of this assertion, let him compare the character of some one else with these qualities, and then form his determination."

But no such language as this is spoken by the evangelists. The testimony which we find in their writings is extorted from them by the laws of history. Pilate, Herod and Judas declare their Master's innocence; and the centurion, who was eye witness to the conduct of Jesus on the cross and to the wonders which accompanied his sufferings, thus utters the result of his own conviction; "P Certainly this was a righteous man."

Our Lord's character is also delivered without any parallel between his unclouded perfection, and

• Memorab. 1. iv. at the end.

P Luke xxiii. 47.

the virtues of other holy men which were shaded by great defects or by aggravated crimes.

Nor is there any contrast in the gospels between our Lord's meekness, uprightness and other virtues, and the rage, injustice and notorious vices of his enemies. It is true that, in one place, his manner of instructing is opposed to that of the Jewish teachers. When he had ended his discourse on the mount," the people were astonished at his doctrine : for he taught them," says St. Matthew," as one having authority, and not as the Scribes." But when St. John indignantly observed that " Barabbas was a robber," he left his reader to suggest the opposition in the character of Jesus; and when the context and the rules of writing naturally led St. Luke to the mention of Christ's extraordinary virtues, how does this evangelist express himself? "Pilate released to the Jews' HIM THAT FOR SEDI

TION AND MURDER HAD BEEN CAST INTO PRIS

ON but he delivered JESUS to their will." Unless perhaps we may say, that in this writer's idea of Jesus every thing great and excellent was summed up.

The evangelists also remarkably abstain from censure on the conduct of our Lord's enemies. I recollect only one reflection which they have passed on the Jewish rulers; and that is of the most calm and dispassionate kind. Matthew and Mark mention Pilate's knowledge that the chief priests had delivered Jesus to him "through envy." Judas is described in the gospels as the " traitor; and usually as the

9 c. vii. 29. Mark xv. 10.

* c. xviii. 40.

Luke vi. 16.

Luke xxiii. 25.

t

Matt. xxvii. 18.

W

person who delivered up our Lord to the Jews, But, on one occasion, St. John's affection to his Master led him to express his indignation against this perfidious apostle by recording another part of his character: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and stole what was put therein."

Our Lord's historians very rarely assign the reasons of his actions. They teach us indeed why he2 concealed his miracles, why he spake in a parables, why he said, 'I thirst; but, conscious that he acted wisely, they in general leave the motives of his actions to be supplied by the attention of their readers. They therefore rarely speak in their own persons. Instances, besides those immediately referred to, occur in St. Luke's and St. John's prefaces; in St. John's conclusions; and in a * remarkable passage where this evangelist expresses his admiration at the incredulity of the Jews notwithstanding the greatness of our Lord's miracles, observes that their spiritual blindness had been foretold, and records that many of the rulers suppressed their conviction from secular motives.

I shall suggest one or two observations more, which serve to characterize the manner of the evangelists, or to illustrate their credibility, though they are not to my immediate purpose.

The evangelists honestly relate many circumstances which actually disparage their own characters,

w Matt. x. 4. and p. p. John xviii. 2, &c.

y See Bishop Pearce in loc.

* John xii. 6

a c. xiii. 35.

John xix. 28. There are other instances where they observe that he

fulfilled certain prophecies.

z Matt. xii. 17.

e

or which prejudice unthinking men against them or their cause. They mention that many of the apostles were Galilean fishermen, and that one of them was a Galilean publican. Matthew not only writes that he was called a from the receipt of custom; but in enumerating the apostles he inserts his invidious occu pation, and styles himself " Matthew the Publican." They furnish repeated instances of dulness and want of apprehension in our Lord's followers. When Jesus bade them "f beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," we learn from them that the disciples misapprehended so plain a figure. It is also transmitted to posterity that the disciples asked an explanation of some parables, when our Lord expressed his wonder that he was not understood by them; that they did not properly infer our Lord's divine power from the miracle of the loaves; that they perceived not his meaning in the least, when he prophesied that he should be delivered into the hands of men, and again when he expressed himself in the plainest terms, that he should be mocked by the Gentiles, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on, and that they should scourge him, and put him to death, and that the third day he should rise again. St. Luke expresses himself strongly on each of these latter occasions. "They understood not this saying; and it was hidden from them, that they perceived it not." "They understood none of these things; and this saying was hidden from them; neither knew

h

they the things which were spoken." Our Lord's historians also record that his disciples did not understand the nature of his kingdom' during his life, and after his resurrection; that they had repeated and very unseasonable" contentions among themselves who should be the greatest; that they were not able to cast out a demon; that they improperly Prebuked some who brought young children to Christ that he might bless them; that one of the apostles betrayed Jesus; that, when he was apprehended by the Jews, they all forsook him and fled; that they disbelieved the accounts of his resurrection, whether given them by several women on the authority of an angel, or by Mary Magdalene who had herself seen Jesus, or by the two disciples with whom he conversed as they went to Emmaus; and that Thomas "refused to credit the testimony of all the other apostles. On some of these occasions, or the like, they faithfully record their Master's animadversions. "Are ye also yet without understanding ?" "Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember ?" And St. Mark writes that Jesus upbraided the eleven with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those who had seen him after he was risen. When the very chief of the apostles are concerned, there is the same fidelity in the narration.

Mark x. 35. • Mark ix. 18. Luke xxiv. 11. w Matt. xv. 16.

t

m Luke xxiv. 21. » Mark ix. 34. Luke xxii. 24.