lent creatures men would be, when under the influence and power of that gospel he preached unto thems." "I confess," says Rousseau, "that the majesty of the scriptures astonishes me, that the sanctity of the gospel speaks to my heart. View the books of the philosophers with all their pomp: what a littleness have they when compared with this! Is it possible that a book, at once so sublime and simple, should be the work of men? Is it possible that he, whose history it records, should be himself a mere man? Is this the style of an enthusiast, or of an ambitious sectary? What sweetness, what purity, in his manners! what affecting grace in his instructions! what elevation in his maxims! what profound wisdom in his discourses! what presence of mind, what delicacy, and what justness, in his replies! what empire over his passions! Where is the man, where is the philosopher, who knows how to act, to suffer, and to die without weakness and without ostentation? When Plato paints his imaginary just man, covered with all the ignominy of guilt, and deserving all the honours of virtue, he paints Jesus Christ in every stroke of his pencil: the resemblance is so strong that all the fathers have perceived it, and that it is not possible to mistake it. What prejudices, what blindness must they have, who dare to draw a comparison between the son of Sophroniscus and the son of Mary! What distance is there between the one and the other! As Socrates died without pain and without disgrace, he found no difficulty in supporting his character to the end; and, if this easy death had not shed a lustre on his life, we might have doubted s Chubb's True Gospel of Jesus Christ, sect. 8. p. 55, 56. whether Socrates, with all his genius, was any thing but a sophist. They say that he invented morality. Others before him had practised it: he only said what they had done, he only read lessons on their examples. Aristides had been just, before Socrates explained the nature of justice: Leonidas had died for his country, before Socrates made it the duty of men to love their country; Sparta had been temperate, before Socrates praised temperance; Greece had abounded in virtuous men, before he defined virtue. But where could Jesus have taken among his countrymen that elevated and pure morality, of which he alone furnished both the precepts and the example? The most lofty wisdom was heard from the bosom of the most furious fanaticism; and the simplicity of the most heroic virtues honoured the vilest of all people. The death of Socrates, serenely philosophising with his friends, is the most gentle that one can desire; that of Jesus expiring in torments, injured, derided, reviled by a whole people, is the most horrible that one can fear. When Socrates takes the poisoned cup, he blesses him who presents it and who at the same time weeps: Jesus in the midst of a horrid punishment prays for his enraged executioners. Yes: if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God. Shall we say that the history of the gospel is invented at pleasure? My friend, it is not thus that men invent; and the actions of Socrates, concerning which no one doubts, are less attested than those of Jesus Christ. After all, this is shifting the difficulty instead of solving it: for it would be more inconceivable that a number of men should forge this book in concert, than that one should furnish the subject of it. Jewish authors would never have devised such a manner, and such morality; and the gospel has characters of truth so great, so striking, so perfectly inimitable that its inventor would be still more astonishing than its hero." CHAPTER III. Of the manner in which the evangelists delineate our Lord's character. I HAVE drawn an argument for the reality of our Lord's character from its perfection. I shall now endeavour to assist my reader in judging how widely our Lord's historians differ from writers who frame a fictitious relation. Nothing can be more simple and artless than the manner in which this consummate character is drawn. It arises from facts, and often from slight incidents: and, in many places, it is so finely interwoven with the plainest narrative, that it can only be traced by a curious and attentive eye. Mat. xiii. 55. Jo. vii. 15. The evangelists most impartially relate whatever seems to diminish our Lord's character in the estimation of prejudiced and worldly-minded men; such as the poverty and low station of his parents, his unlearned Luk. ii. 24. education in the despised town of Nazareth; and the humble occupation of his youth in working with his Mar. vi. 2; own hands. When he entered on his ministry, they Mar. vi. 3. record with the same strict impartiality his rejection by his countrymen of Nazareth, and their rage against Luk. iv. 29. him even to an attempt on his life; the general infi- Jo. vii. 5. delity of his near kinsfolk, and their most disgraceful Mar. iii. 2 1. reflections on his conduct; his assertion that he had Mat. viii. not where to lay his head; his payment of the tribute- Mat. xvii. money by miracle; his subsisting on the liberality of 27 others; the defection of many disciples; the fierce op- Jo. vi. 66. position of the Jewish rulers; his being called a glut- Mat. xi. 19. 20. Luk. viii. 3. ton and wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners, Jo. viii. 48. a Samaritan, a demoniac, a confederate with Beelze Mat. xii. 24. Mat. viii. xiv. 14; bub and they as circumstantially relate the private scene of his humiliation in the garden of Gethsemane, as his public crucifixion on Mount Calvary. Our Lord's mighty works are no where magnified. They are often told with a variety of circumstances; which is natural where an historian writes from personal knowledge, or from faithful information: but Jo. ii. 23; many of them are also mentioned in general terms, 16; xi. 21; which is equally natural when the power of performing xxi. 14, &c. them is manifestly great, and the writer is conscious that it does not require to be extolled. Nay, sometimes a special exertion of our Lord's miraculous power is left to be inferred from the relation: as when he is Mat. xxvi. said to sit at meat in the house of Simon the leper, it is probable that Simon was showing an act of gratitude to Jesus for healing him of his leprosy. &c. 6. Mat. viii. 28. and p.p. Mat. xx. 30. and p. P. Mat. xiv. 21. Important circumstances in parallel histories are often suggested by a single evangelist. Mark and Luke record that one demoniac was healed at Gadara: from Matthew alone we learn that there were two. Matthew alone informs us that two blind men were restored to sight near Jericho: in the Gospels of Mark and Luke there is the sole mention of blind Bartimæus. Again: the feeding of a great multitude with five loaves and two fishes is related by all the evangelists; but Matthew alone adds that they were about five thousand, BESIDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, We may extend the remark to incidents which affect the superior excellence of our Lord's character. Mark Mar. i. 35. alone mentions that, after he had healed a great number in Capernaum, he retired to a desert place, AND Lak. v. 16. THERE PRAYED: and Luke alone records a like exercise of devotion after he had restored a leper. Nay, 29; xxiii. from this evangelist alone we learn that he prayed at Luk. iii. 21. his baptism, at his solemn appointment of the twelve, Luk. vi. 12. at his transfiguration, and for the pardon of his mur- Luk. ix. 28. derers at his crucifixion; and that he expired in the 34. act of commending his spirit into the hands of his Ver. 46. Father. The repentance of Judas, and his testimony to our Lord's innocence, are also very remarkable; and yet they occur only in St. Matthew's Gospel, though Mat. xxvii. the three other evangelists have recorded his treachery, with which these consequences, so honourable to Christ, are naturally connected. 3, 4. &c.; XV. II, &c.; xviii. 10, &c. It is plain from these instances, and from many others which will present themselves to an accurate observer, that not one of the evangelists aimed at exhausting the subject with respect to our Lord's power or goodness; and we may add, with respect likewise to his eloquence and wisdom. St. Luke alone records Luk. x. 30, many of his most beautiful discourses; from St. John &c.; xvi. 19, alone we learn our Lord's wisdom, fortitude, and mighty & works during his attendance at four Jewish festivals, his raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four days, and how full of affection, humility, and devotion his Jo. xiv, xv, behaviour was on the night preceding his crucifixion. -20; xvii. And there are many things which Jesus did, many signs which he wrought, and, no doubt, many lessons which he delivered, not transmitted down to us by any Jo. xx. 30; of the evangelists. I have before observed that there is no rhetorical gradation in the account of our Lord's miracles". The evangelists are also remarkably free from encomium on the subject of their history. They do not extol in words our Lord's virtues or wisdom; but compel their readers to feel that he was virtuous and wise, by a detail of his actions and instructions. St. Peter, u Page 252. xvi; xiii. I xxi. 25. Luk. v. 3. Mar. i. 21; X. I. |