in Matthew's gofpel, twelve times in Mark's, twenty-one times in Luke's, and eleven times in John's, and always with this reftriction.

IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as reprefented by his different hiftorians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the way, whenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a difpofition to tumult.

Mat. xiv. 22. "And straightway Jefus conftrained his dif ciples to get into a fhip, and to go before him unto the other fide, while he fent the multitude away. And when he had fent the multitude away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray."

Luke v. 15, 16. "But fo much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities: and he withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed."

With these quotations compare the following from St. John. Chap. v. 13. "And he that was healed wift not who it was, for Jefus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place."

Chap. vi. 15. "When Jefus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain by himself alone."

In this laft inftance St. John gives the motive of Chrift's conduct, which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related the conduct itself.

V. Another, and a more fingular circumstance in Chrift's ministry, was the referve, which, for fome time, and upon fome occafions at least, he used in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected from his works rather than his profeffions. Juft reasons for this referve have been affigned.* But it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in Matthew's gofpel (xvi. 20.) "Then charged he his dif ciples that they fhould tell no man that he was Jefus the Chrift." Again, and upon a different occafion, in Mark's, (iii. 4.) "And unclean fpirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, faying, Thou art the Son of God; and he ftraightly charged them that they fhould not make him known." Another inftance fimilar to this laft is recorded by St. Luke, (iv. 41.) What we thus find in the three evangelifts, appears

a See Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.

alfo in a paffage of St. John (x. 24, 25.) " Then came the Jews round about him, and faid unto him, How long doft thou nake us to doubt ? If thou be the Chrift, tell us plainly." The occafion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect. We only discover Chrift's conduct through the upbraidings of his adverfaries. But all this ftrengthens the argument. I had rather at any time furprise a coincidence in fome oblique allufion, than read it in broad affertions.

VI. In our Lord's commerce with his difciples, one very obfervable 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 paffion or refurrec. tion. This difficulty produced, as was natural, a wish in them to afk for further explanation; from which, however, they appear to have been fometimes kept back, by the fear of giving offence. All these circumstances are diftinctly noticed by Mark and Luke, upon the occafion of his informing them (probably for the first time) that the Son of Man fhould be delivered into the hands of men. "They understood not," the evangelists tell us, "this faying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not; and they feared to afk him of that faying." (Luke ix. 45. Mark ix. 32.) In St. John's gospel we have, upon a different occafion and in a different inftance, the fame difficulty of apprehenfion, the fame curiofity, and the fame restraint :- "A little while, and ye fhall not fee me : and again a little while, and ye fhall fee me; because I go to the Father. Then faid fome of his difciples among themselves, What is this that he faith unto us? A little while, and ye fhail not fee me and again a little while, and ye fhall fee me; and, Because I go to the Father? They faid, therefore, What is this that he faith, A little while? We cannot tell what he faith. Now Jefus knew that they were defirous to ask him, and faid unto them," &c. John xvi. 16, et feq.

VII. The meeknefs of Chrift during his laft fufferings, which is confpicuous in the narratives of the three fift evangelifts, is preferved in that of St. John under feparate examples. The answer given him, in St. John, when the high-priet afked him of his difciples and his doctrine, "I fpake openly to the world, I ever taught in the fynagogne, and in the temple, whither the Jews always refort, and in fecret have I faid noth

a xviii. 20.

ing, why afkeft thou me? Afk them which heard me what I have faid unto them;" is very much of a piece with his reply to the armed party which feized him, as we read it in St. Mark's gofpel, and in St. Luke's: "Are ye come out as againft a thief, with fwords and with staves, to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not." In both anfwers we difcern the fame tranquillity, the fame reference to his public teaching. His mild expoftulation with Pilate upon two feveral occafions, as related by St. John,b is delivered with the fame unruffled temper, as that which conducted him through the laft fcene of his life, as described by his other evangelifts. His anfwer, in St. John's gofpel, to the officer who struck him with the palm of his hand, "If I have fpoken evil, bear witnefs of the evil, but if well, why fmiteft thou me?" was fuch an answer, as might have been looked for from the perfon, who, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (as we are told by St. Luke d) weep not for him, but for themfelves, their pofterity, and their country; and who prayed for his murderers, whilst he was fufpended upon the cross, "For they know not (faid he) what they do." The urgency alfo of his judges and his profecutors to extort from him a defence to the accufation, and his unwillingnefs to make any (which was a peculiar circumftance) appears in St. John's account, as well as that of the other evangelists.

There are moreover two other correfpondencies between St. John's hiftory of the tranfaction and their's, of a kind somewhat different from thofe which we have been now mentioning.

The three first evangelifts record what is called our Saviour's agony, i. e. his devotion in the garden, immediately before he was apprehended; in which narrative they all make him pray, that the cup might pafs from him." This is the particular metaphor which they all afcribe to him. St. Matthew adds, "O my Father, if this cup may not pafs away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."f Now St.

John does not give the fcene in the garden; but when Jefus was feized, and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jefus, according to his account, checked the attempt with this reply: "Put up thy fword into the fheath; the cup,

a Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii. 52.
c xxviii. 23.

b xviii. 34. xix. II. d xxiii. 28.

e See John xix 9. Matt. xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9.

f xxvi. 42.

my

which Father hath given me, fhall I not drink it? This is fomething more than bare confiftency; it is coincidence: because it is extremely natural, that Jefus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father, that "that cup might pafs from him," yet with fuch a pious retraction of his request, as to have added, "If this cup may not pafs from me, thy will be done;" it was natural, I fay, for the fame perfon, when he actually was apprehended, to exprcfs the refignation to which he had already made up his thoughts, and to exprefs it in the form of speech which he had before ufed, "The cup which my Father hath given me, fhall I not drink it ?" This is a coincidence between writers, in whofe narratives there is no imitation, but great diverfity.

A fecond fimilar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make the charge, upon which our Lord was condemned, to be a threat of deftroying the temple; "We heard him fay, I will deftroy this temple, made with hands, and, within three days, I will build another made without hands ;" b but they neither of them inform us, upon what circumstance this calumny was founded. St. John, in the early part of his hiftory, fupplies us with this information; for he relates, that, upon our Lord's first journey to Jerufalem, when the Jews asked him, "What fign fheweft thou unto us, feeing that thou docft these things? He answered, Deftroy this temple, and in three days I will raife it up." This agreement could hardly arife from any thing but the truth of the cafe. From any care or defign in St. John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of the other evangelifts, it certainly did not arife, for no fuch defign appears, but the abfence of it.

A ftrong, and more general inftance of agreement, is the following: The three first evangelifts have related the appointment of the twelve apoftles ;d and have given a catalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the appointment, or giving the catalogue, fuppofes, throughout his whole narrative, Chrift to be accompanied by a felect party of difciples; 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 evangelifts; and the names

a xviii. II.

d Matt. x. I.

b Mark xiv. 5.
Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12.

f xx. 24. vi. 71.

c ii. 19.

vi. 7.

principally occurring in the courfe of his hiftory of Chrift, are the names extant in their lift. This laft agreement, which is of confiderable moment, runs through every gofpel, and through every chapter of each.

All this befpeaks reality.

CHAP. V.

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 fome fupernatural affittance, fhould advance their nation to independence,. and to a fupreme degree of fplendour and profperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation of the times.

Now, had Jefas been an enthufiaft, it is probable that his enthufiafm would have fallen in with the popular delufion, and that, whilst he gave himfelf out to be the perfon intended by thefe predictions, he would have affumed the character, to which they were univerfally fuppofed to relate.

Had he been an impoftor, it was his bufinefs to have flattered the prevailing hopes, becaufe thefe hopes were to be the inftruments of his attraction and fuccefs.

But what is better than conjectures, is the fact, that all the pretended Meffiahs actually did fo. We learn from Jofephus: that there were many of thefe. Some of them, it is probable, might be impoftors, who thought that an advantage was to be taken of the ftate of public opinion. Others, perhaps, were enthufiafts, whofe imagination had been drawn to this particularobject, by the language and fentiments which prevailed around them. But, whether impoftors or enthufiafts, they concurred in producing themselves in the character which their country. men looked for, that is to fay, as the reftorers and deliverers of the nation, in that fenfe in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.

Why therefore Jefus, if he was like them, either an enthusi aft or impoftor, did not pursue the fame conduct as they did, in framing his character and pretenfions, it will be found difficult to explain. A miffion, the operation and benefit of which was. to take place in another life, was a thing unthought of as the