The following, I think, are paffages, which were very unlikely to have presented themselves to the mind of a forger or a fabulist.

Mat. xxi. 21. 66 Jefus anfwered and faid unto them, Verily I fay unto you, if ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do this, which is done unto the fig-tree, but also, if ye fhall fay unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou caft into the fea, it fhall be done; all things whatsoever ye fhall afk in prayer, believing, it shall be done." It appears to me very improbable, that these words fhould have been put into Chrift's mouth, if he had not actually spoken them. The term "faith," as here ufed, is perhaps rightly interpreted of confidence in that internal notice, by which the apostles were admonished of their power to perform any particular miracle. And this expofition renders the sense of the text more easy. But the words, undoubtedly, in their obvious conftruction, carry with them a difficulty, which no writer would have brought upon himfelf officioufly.

Luke ix. 59. "And he faid unto another, follow me; but he faid, Lord, fuffer me first to go and bury my father. Jefus faid unto him, let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." This answer, though very expreffive of the tranfcendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harsh and repulfive; and fuch as would not have been made for Christ, if he had not really used it. At least, some other instance would have been chofen.

and

The following paffage, I, for the fame reason, think impoffi ble to have been the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery: -"But I fay unto you, that whofoever is angry with his brother, without a caufe, fhall be in danger of the judgment; whofoever fhall fay to his brother, Raca, fhall be in danger of the council; but whofoever fhall fay, Thou fool, fhall be in danger of hell-fire (Gehennæ)." Mat. v. 22. It is emphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the purpofe of impreffion, but inconfiftent with the fuppofition of art or warinefs on the part of the relator.

The fhort reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen after his refurrection, (John xx. 16, 17.) "Touch me not, for I am not yet afcended unto my Father," in my opinion, must have been founded in a reference or allufion to fome prior conversation,

a Sec alfo xvii. 20. Luke xvii. 6.

b See alfo Mat. viii. 21.

for the want of knowing which, his meaning is hidden from us. This very obfcurity, however, is a proof of genuineness. No one would have forged fuch an answer.

John vi. The whole of the converfation, recorded in this chapter, is, in the highest degree, unlikely to be fabricated, efpecially the part of our Saviour's reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth verfe. I need only put down the first sentence: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he fhall live forever; and the bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Without calling in queftion the expofitions that have been given of this paffage, we may be permitted to fay, that it labours under an obfcurity, in which it is impoffible to believe that any one, who made fpeeches for the perfons of his narrative, would have voluntarily involved them. That this difcourfe was obfcure even at the time, is confeffed by the writer who has preferved it, when he tells us at the conclufion, that many of our Lord's difciples, when they had heard this, faid, "This is a hard faying, who can hear it ?"

Christ's taking of a young child, and placing it in the midst of his contentious difciples, (Mat. xviii. 2.) though as decifive a proof as any could be of the benignity of his temper, and very expreffive of the character of the religion which he wished to inculcate, was not by any means an obvious thought. am I acquainted with any thing in any ancient writing which resembles it.

Nor

The account of the institution of the Eucharist bears strong internal marks of genuineness. If it had been feigned, it would have been more full. It would have come nearer to the actual mode of celebrating the rite, as that mode obtained very early in Christian churches; and it would have been more formal than it is. In the forged piece called the apoftolic constitutions, the apostles are made to enjoin many parts of the ritual, which was in ufe in the fecond and third centuries, with as much particularity as a modern rubric could have done. Whereas, in the history of the Lord's fupper, as we read it in St. Matthew's gofpel, there is not fo much as the command to repeat it. This, furely, looks like undesignednefs. I think also that the difficulty, arifing from the concifenefs of Chrift's expreffion, "This is my body," would have been avoided in a made-up ftory. I allow that the explication of these words, given by Proteftants, is fatisfactory; but it is deduced from a diligent

comparifon of the words in queftion with forms of expreffion ufed in fcripture, and efpecially by Christ, upon other occafions. No writer would, arbitrarily and unneceffarily, have thus caft in his reader's way a difficulty, which, to say the least, it required research and erudition to clear up.

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 infert fuch paffages into it; and it is improbable also, that the perfons whofe names the books bear, fhould fabricate fuch paffages; or even allow them a place in their work, if they had not believed them to exprefs the truth.

The following obfervation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the moft candid of all advocates, and the moft cautious of all inquirers, feems to be well founded :—“ Christians are induced to believe the writers of the gofpel, by obferving the evidences of piety and probity that appear in their writings, in which there is no deceit or artifice, or cunning, or defign." "No remarks," as Dr. Beattie hath properly faid, "are thrown in to anticipate objections; nothing of that caution, which never fails to diftinguish the teftimony of thofe, who are conscious of impofture; no endeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordinary in the narrative."

a

I beg leave to cite also another author, who has well expreffed the reflection, which the examples now brought forward were intended to fuggeft. "It doth not appear that ever it came into the mind of these writers, to confider 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 teftimony, there is no help for it; they tell the truth, and attend to nothing elfe. Surely this looks like fincerity, and that they published nothing to the world but what they believed themselves."

As no improper fupplement to this chapter, I crave a place for obferving the extreme naturalness of fome of the things related in the New Testament.

a Duchal, p. 97, 98.

Mark ix. 23, 24. Jefus faid unto him, "If thou canst believe, all things are poffible to him that believeth. And ftraightway the father of the child cried out, and faid with tears, Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief." The ftruggle in the father's heart, between folicitude for the preservation of his child, and a kind of involuntary distrust of Christ's power to heal him, is here expreffed with an air of reality, which could hardly be counterfeited.

Again, (Mat. xxi. 9.) the eagernefs of the people to introduce Chrift into Jerufalem, and their demand, a fhort time afterwards, of his crucifixion, when he did not turn out what. they expected him to be, fo far from affording matter of objection, reprefents popular favour, in exact agreement with nature and with experience, as the flux and reflux of a wave.

The rulers and pharifees rejecting Chrift, whilft many of the common people received him, was the effect which, in the then ftate of Jewish prejudices, I fhould have expected. And the reafon with which they who rejected Chrift's miffion kept themfelves in countenance, and with which alfo they answered the arguments of thofe who favoured it, is precifely the reafon which fuch men ufually give :-"Have any of the fcribes or pharifees believed on him?" John vii. 8.

In our Lord's converfation at the well, (John iy. 29.) Christ had furprised the Samaritan woman, with an allufion to a fingle particular in her domestic fituation, "Thou haft had five bufbands, and he whom thou now haft is not thy husband." The woman, foon after this, ran back to the city, and called out to her neighbours, "Come, fee 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 fuppofed to have been thrown.

The lawyer's fubtlety in running a diftinction upon the word neighbour, in the precept "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyfelf," was no lefs natural than our Saviour's anfwer was decifive and fatisfactory. (Luke x. 29.) The lawyer of the NewTeftament, it must be obferved, was a Jewish divine.

The behaviour of Gallio, Acts xviii. 12-17, and of Feftus, xxv. 18, 19, have been obferved upon already.

The confiftency of St. Paul's character throughout the whole, of his hiftory; the warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, and then for Chriftianity, carries with it very much of the appearance of truth.

There are alfo fome proprieties, as they may be called, obfervable in the gofpels; that is, circumftances feparately fuiting with the fituation, character, and intention of their respective authors.

St. Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not join Chrift's fociety until fome 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 fupply omiffions in the other gospels, relates some remarkable particulars, which had taken place before Chrift left Judea to go into Galilee.a

St. Matthew (xv. 1.) has recorded the cavil of the pharifees against the difciples of Jefus for eating" with unclean hands." St. Mark has alfo (vii. 1.) recorded the fame tranfaction, (taken probably from St. Matthew) but with this addition, "for the pharifees, and all the Jews, except they wafh 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 veffels, and of tables." Now St. Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole structure of his gofpel, especially from his numerous references to the Old Teftament, 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 addreffed. But in Mark, who, whatever use he might make of Matthew's gofpel, intended his own narrative for the general circulation, and who himself travelled to diftant countries in the fervice of the religion, it was properly added.

CHAP. IV.

Identity of Chrifl's Charader.

THE argument expreffed by this title I apply principally to

the comparison of the three first gofpels with that of St. John. It is known to every reader of fcripture, that the paffages of Chrift's history preferved by St. John, are, except his paffion and refurrection, for the most part different from thofe which

a Hartley's Obf. vol. II. p. 103.