injuries, and pursues with contempt and persecution the most sacred objects of religious reverence? Such calmness, rarely, if ever attained by philosophic wisdom, is surely utterly inconsistent with fanaticism.

On this subject it has been well observed by a judicious writer, *"that as you find in the works of the apostles and evangelists no inconsistent ravings, nothing of the madness or extravagance of enthusiasm, so neither do you find any bold high expressions, importing indecent familiarity with the Divinity, no bitter invectives against the religion of the country where they preached, no abusive language of persons or things deemed sacred, no proud exaltation of their own merits, no indignant reprobation of their countrymen, who had rejected and crucified their divine Lord, and still opposed his religion and persecuted his followers; no disregard and contempt of the rest of mankind for their blindness and idolatry." They declare, indeed, that all mankind labour under sin; they call men every where to repent; and proclaim Christ Jesus, as the only name under heaven by which men can be saved. But these sacred truths are delivered, not with pride and arrogance, but with the deepest humility and self-abasement; and we find them all disclaiming all power and holiness of their own, not once only, and merely for form sake, but repeatedly, and from the heart.

On this subject an † observation has been made, which though somewhat refined and minute, seems just and important, and peculiarly illustrates that calmness and candour, which, it is contended, repel from the evangelists all suspicion of their being actuated by the heat and violence of fanaticism. It is this, that our Lord's biographers seldom bring forward the names of those of whom they can mention nothing but to their disgrace, except when there seems to be some necessity for thus particularly marking them out, in order to authenticate some parts of the history in which these persons were materially concerned. Thus, in the Gospels, the names of the high priests, the tetrarch of Galilee, the Roman governor, and the treacherous disciple, are

* Dr. M'Knight, in his truth of the Gospel history, 4to. p. 427.

† Vide Dr. G. Campbell, as quoted above, dissertation iii. sect. 22. p. 87 to 90. This learned writer carries the obervation farther than I do; so r as it is necessary for my argument, its justice will not, I trust, seem doubtful.

all that are particularly mentioned of those who were active in the prosecution and death of our Lord. And in the Acts, none are particularly named who were engaged in the persecution of the Christians, except some of the Roman magistrates, the kings Agrippa and Herod, the high priest Ananias, and the orator Tertullus-all of whom, from their high rank or other circumstances, were the most distinguished actors in the events recorded, whose names could not have been wholly suppressed, without stripping the history of those particulars, which at this day form the strongest marks of its authenticity and truth.

Thus also we can account for the particular mention made of the crimes of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elymas, because these persons were themselves the subjects of signal miraculous interferences, which would have lost much of their credibility, had they been related merely in general terms, without specifying the occasions which gave rise to them, and the individuals on whom they had been wrought.

These instances excepted, the evangelists seem uniformly rather to suppress than particularize names, when what truth compels them to say is to the disadvantage of the persons. Thus, they omit the name of the officer who smote our Lord on the face at his trial, adding insult to cruelty and injustice; of the false witnesses against him; of the malefactor who upbraided him while hanging on the cross. Thus also in the Acts, those who first disputed with * Stephen, and afterwards suborned false witnesses to take away his life; the † forty Jews who conspired to assassinate Paul, are all passed by without specification. Now it is most evident, that this conduct in our Lord's historians did not arise from a fear of making enemies. The unvaried steadiness of their preaching, and the noble firmness of their martyrdom, supply proofs of fortitude too clear to be disputed; and the same spirit appears even in the circumstances now alluded to, for they have in fact named most of those who were possessed of such an authority, or actuated by such a disposition, as could render their resentment an object of terror. No: their reserve was evidently in the true spirit of their divine Master. They do not, without some evident necessity, bring forward the

names of those whom they must mention only to disgrace; they direct our contempt and hatred against the crimes, not the persons of men; against the vices, not against the vicious Aware that this last direction would be of the most dangerous tendency to genuine charity, they show no disposition to hold up any man to the Christians of their own time as an object either of their fear or abhorrence, or to transmit his name with infamy to posterity. While on the contrary they cheerfully particularize those, to whose faith and gratitude, love and piety, they can bear honourable testimony, thus to excite a noble emulation.

Still more strongly to evince the candour and impartiality of the sacred writers, qualities so inconsistent with the violence and presumption of enthusiasm, it is worthy of remark, that they not only never load their enemies with any opprobrious epithets, but that they sometimes speak of them in honourable and respectful terms. Thus at Antioch, in Pisidia, when the Jews raised such a persecution against Paul as to drive him from the city, the inhabitants, whom they prevailed on to join this persecution, are spoken of, not with abuse or bitterness, but *"as devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city." The title of philosopher is not denied to those Athenians who spoke of Paul as a babbler, and dragged him, as a violator of the laws, before the court of Areopagus. And the priests and rulers who were most active in the persecution of the apostles, are always denoted by the honourable titles which officially belonged to them, without any remark on the depravity of their personal character or its inconsistency with their official duty.

The strongest proof of the candour and humility of the sacred writers, is however found in the manner in which they speak of their own characters, and their own weaknesses and faults. Here all is open and undisguised; no secret is made of the errors or the transgressions of any of the apostles. The slowness of their understandings, their prejudices and bigotry, their temporal views and contentions for power, their desertion of their divine Master in the hour of distress, the accidental differences which occurred in the course of their ministry, are all fully and plainly related. The crime of Peter in denying his

Acts xiii. £0.

Lord, and that of Paul in his bitter persecution of the church are not suppressed, though their reputation must have seemed so essential to the Christian cause, and their transitory, though great offences, were followed by a whole life of penitence. Not to multiply instances, enough surely has been said, to show, that the historians of the New Testament were wholly free from the heat and bigotry and presumption, which so generally characterise fanaticism. Let me not, however, be understood to assert, that the evangelists never speak of offenders with severity; far otherwise. I am well aware, there are instances which may seem exceptions to the general principles I have endeavoured to establish. But I am confident, a little attention will prove they only seem to be exceptions, but that in reality they confirm the truth of these principles; because in every instance where this severity occurs, it is evidently, not only justified, but almost extorted by the nature of the crime which they rebuke. And it is remarkable, that almost every offender thus rebuked, displays that peculiar species of character, on which mildness and mercy would be as ineffectual, as it would certainly be unmerited, even an hypocritical and mercenary mind, which resists the conviction of truth from sordid worldly views, or abuses the sacred name of religion, to conceal and sanctify malignity or avarice. Such was the general character of the Pharisees, against whom alone their mild and benevolent Lord had poured forth keen and indignant reproach; and such were the individuals whom the apostles loaded with well-merited condemnation.* Ananias and Sapphira, whom avarice, united with hypocrisy, and a secret contempt for that divine authority which they professed to obey, tempted to lie, "not unto men, but unto God," experienced a severe but just punishment. †Simon, who had employed the base frauds of sorcery to delude the Samaritans to bestow divine honours on himself, and who preserved the same audacious impiety, even after he had pretended to embrace the pure religion of the Gospel, offering the apostles money to purchase the power of the Holy Ghost, well deserved the severe rebuke of St. Peter; "thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought the gift of God could be purchased

with money; thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right with God; repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven, for I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity."

Elymas, a man of a similar character, for he also was a sorcerer, withstood the preaching of St. Paul, seeking (doubtless from selfish motives) to turn away the Roman governor from the faith, his malignant and interested opposition wrung from the apostle the severest rebuke which he ever pronounced; but its justice was attested by the miraculous blindness which Divine power enabled him to inflict. Thus the occasional severity of the apostles was wholly free from the violence of enthusiasm; it was dictated by truth and approved by heaven.

But, except in these instances, we perceive, that on the most trying occasions the apostles imitate the unexampled benignity of their divine Lord, who, in the agonies of death, prayed for his murderers, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." The apostles also allege this as the only extenuation of their enemies' guilt, which the eye of mercy could trace" Ye denied the Holy One," says St. Peter, †“and desired a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of Life. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers; but those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled; repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." be blotted out." Such is the whole tenor of their style; and surely this is very opposite to the fury of inflamed enthusiasm.

SECTION II.

The Facts of the Evangelic History considered.

FROM the style and thought let us turn to the facts recorded by the evangelists. We know the sort of facts on which