service he did not act voluntarily, but by compulsion. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the only members of the Sanhedrim, except the High Priest, who are mentioned by name; but they were the only persons of that body who did not concur in condemning the Son of God, and who, though once fearful and secret disciples, assumed the resolution to display their affection, at times when no one else ventured openly to acknowledge him.

"Of the Scribes and Pharisees who watched our Lord, and on different occasions, dissembling esteem, assailed him with captious and ensnaring questions— of those who openly ascribed his miracles to evil Spirits, called him a madman, a demoniac, and what they esteemed worse than either, a Samaritan, who accused him of associating with the profligate-of Sabbath-breaking-of intemperance and blasphemy, and of many others who put themselves in attitudes of opposition to Jesus, no names are ever mentioned, nor is the young, but opulent, magistrate named, who came to him with the question, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life,' for, though there were some favourable symptoms in his case, yet as, by going away sorrowful, he betrayed a heart wedded to the world, the application did not terminate to his honour. But of Simon the Pharisee, who invited our Lord to his house, of Jairus, and Bartimeus, and Zaccheus, and Lazarus, and his sisters Mary and Martha, and some others, of whose faith, repentance, gratitude, love and piety, the most honourable testimony is given, a very different account is made.

"As to the disciples of Jesus, in recording their

OF FRIENDS, BUT NOT OF FOES.

73

faults, no secret is made of their names. Of this, the intemperate zeal of the sons of Zebedee on one occasion, and their ambition and secular views on another, the incredulity of Thomas, the presumption of Peter, and his lamentable defection in the denial of his Master, not to mention the prejudices and dulness of them all, are eminent examples. These particulars are all related with the same undisguised plainness which they use in relating the crimes of adversaries, and with as little endeavour to extenuate the former, as to exaggerate the latter."

And yet, after all, there is nothing studied in the style of these narrations, no appearance of care or pains taken to suppress one name, or introduce another. There is throughout an impressive forgetfulness of effect. It is common to speak of the authors of the four Gospels, as witnesses. But the idea of a witness. conveys the impression of one speaking guardedly, as upon his oath, and as in the presence of individuals ready to cross-examine, and to doubt. But there is no appearance of this kind about these historians. When the mind is fully impressed and completely filled with any truth, whether of opinion, sentiment or fact, we find it impossible to think that others cannot see things just as we see them. What is so obvious and present to us, we imagine must be equally so to all. This appears to have been the predominant feeling in the minds of the writers of the Christian narratives. To them, the reality of the facts they record, was as indisputable as that of the sun in heaven; and abidingly filled with this conviction, they could not sympathise with the

E

doubting and the incredulous. They lived, and moved, and spoke, and wrote, with the truth of the things they relate filling and surrounding their minds like an atmosphere.

CHAPTER VI.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CHARACTERS ALLUDED TO IN

THE FOUR GOSPELS.

"I should have laid little 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 exists, is on their part casual." -PALEY.

In these histories there is one personage who holds the first place, and of whose words and acts and sufferings they are obviously sketches. There are other individuals introduced more or less conspicuously. And they are as easily distinguishable as so many personal acquaintances. Now it is the remarkable peculiarity of these writings that the vivid and consistent ideas which they give us of the persons whom they mention, are communicated without the least appearance of design, or even of consciousness on the part of the narrators. They do not seem to

CONSISTENCY OF THE CHARACTERS DESCRIBED.

75

be in the slightest degree aware that they are enabling the reader to form clear conceptions of the personal characters of those of whom they speak. This is a characteristic of these writings, which admits of copious and striking illustrations, and which to my mind establishes their authority as true histories beyond all controversy. Their authors have related a number of incidents in the briefest and most sketchy manner, unaccompanied by comments, and with no special regard to any sort of order, even to the order of time. So true is this, that there is hardly anything more difficult to determine than the precise period occupied by the events which they relate. And yet by means of these incidents, thus carelessly strung together, we come at distinct, harmonious ideas of the persons presented in the scene. In this respect, these narratives resemble those curious pictures that we sometimes see, which at first view appear to be nothing more than representations of landscapes, composed of trees, rocks and ruins. But on closer inspection, we discover that the objects depicted are so grouped as to form complete and symmetrical figures, in attitudes of life, grace, and motion. And this effect is so successful, that although not obvious, yet when once perceived, it can hardly by any effort be lost sight of. Only in the case of these histories, the several forms of moral life resulting from the incidents related, are, let me repeat, produced wholly without design. The writers betray no sort of suspicion of what they were doing.

That this harmony of character should have been

the work of accident or cunning is entirely out of the question. Material objects, or the representations of material objects, may be so put together as to form momentary and chance resemblances of living forms and features. The fantastic combinations of the clouds of a summer sunset may present the rude appearance of a castle, a warrior, or some huge animal; and this only for a little while. But those occurrences must have an existence in truth, whose keeping is so natural as to create in the most natural manner in our minds, individual and complete and permanent ideas of intellectual and moral life. From a mere disjointed collection of falsehoods and fables such a result never could flow. They might be circumstantially, but they never could be morally and intellectually consistent.

Does it not constitute the chief miraculousness of the genius of Shakspeare, that adopting a form of composition, the dramatic, which allows little or no room for the direct and elaborate delineation of character, he has been able, somewhat in the way now referred to, to construct spiritual forms consistent with themselves and standing out individually before us, through the words they are made to speak, and the scenes, acts, and sufferings in which they are represented as concerned. But even in the case of Shakspeare's creations, the moral consistency which renders them so wonderful is wrought out, not indeed with any apparent labour on the part of the artist, but only by means of numerous and diversified illustrations. The characters, which his genius creates and inspires, are made to do and to bear and to say