simple frame-work upon which they might hang their characters and descriptions. Hence they would seldom agree, except in those points which were notorious. Anxious to gain the credit of originality, they would rarely borrow from each other, or at least would take pains to disguise the resemblance. A writer of this stamp would hardly condescend to be the tame copyist of another. Now these remarks could not properly apply to the case of faithful historians. We should expect them to display a close as well as general correspondence in matters of fact. The same truths, forming the common staple of their fabric, must everywhere present the same general aspect, though interlaced here and there with variegated materials. If these historians were personally engaged in the scenes they paint, we might also expect a strong analogy in manner and phraseology. This will always more or less apply to persons who have been long embarked in the same pursuit or undertaking, especially when describing the same or similar incidents and conversations. Now, I believe, an appeal may safely be made to the observation of every student of Scripture, to decide which of these two characters will best befit the Evangelists. It is evident that the same leading facts are repeated in each history-that they are often repeated, without addition or diminution, in the same order, and not unfre quently in the same language-that the writers seem to have no scruple to tread in each others steps-that the Gospel of St. Mark in particular resembles in parts a mere abridgement of Matthew and Luke-that the same phrases are with little variation used in the most familiar manner by all the Evangelists-that although there is a marked difference in style, (especially between St. John and the rest,) yet through this we may discern the same characteristic peculiarities which distinguish these Histories from all others of ancient and modern times. * I may refer to Chap. i. 1-20, in which are shortly related the important circumstances of John's preaching, our Lord's Baptism, His Temptation, and the call of some of the Apostles-matters upon which St. Matthew employs about 34 verses. CHAPTER IX. CONCLUSION. 84. IT has been remarked that while many of the works of art exhibit on their surface the finest polish, the most faultless symmetry, yet the more minutely we examine them, the more defects we discover; the works of nature, on the other hand, often display outwardly a coarse and even contemptible aspect, but the more we bring to bear upon them those powers by which science is constantly spreading her light into the dark recesses of Creation, the more subtile and delicate beauties we are enabled to discern. Not dissimilar to this, appears the difference between moral truth and fiction. Mark the oration of some practised and wily politician. How smoothly does it sink into the ear; how faultless, probable, and consistent does it appear to the judgment of the general hearer; but look beneath the glossy surface, and all is hollow. Study it at your leisure, and you will find it less and less qualified to stand the test of enquiry. Contrast with this the evidence of an honest but unlearned witness in a court of justice, which may indeed be clumsily and carelessly delivered, but the more closely it is scrutinized, the more satisfactory-the more natural it will appear. Such features, if I mistake not, must have forced themselves on our notice in a careful examination of the works of the Evangelists. We have had reason to observe how little care is taken, in their pages, to avoid even those irregularities which are most glaring and obtrusive; namely, obscurities which a word might have cleared up, but which are unscrupulously left to their fate; a particularity as to persons and places, which might be expected to draw needless attention to the accuracy of the writers; the introduction of circumstances the most unusual and even improbable; of objections the most specious which their enemies could devise, without the least attempt to dispel them. We remark also an entire disregard of superficial disagreements, or of verbal resemblances between the different narratives; and lastly, the apparently unnecessary omission, in one or more of these histories, of some important link in the chain of events. These characteristics are not detected upon careful scrutiny, and as it were cross-examination of the witnesses, but are prominent upon the very face of the Gospels. Yet as we proceed to dive beneath the surface, to compare the different productions and their different parts carefully and faithfully together, we shall see continually more reason to admire their latent, but close conformity to truth and to each other; the voice of nature will become more audible, and the irresistible influence of the highest motives more conspicuous in every page of the narrative. 85. What estimate then must we form of these works when compared with the productions of other historians? These have greatly varied according to their subject-matter, their object, and the qualifications of the writer. There are some who have attempted to work up a few real circumstances into an elaborate system of imposture. Such probably was the compiler of the Koran. Others might, from similar materials, weave a curious, interesting, and perhaps instructive romance, in which truth was not so much perverted, as made subservient to the favourite maxims or phantasies of the author. Among these productions perhaps may be classed the Cyropedia of Xenophon. Others who produced a narration substantially true, might stil have little scruple in introducing extraneous, and doubtful circumstances, tending to recommend themselves, their party, or their nation, or in appending to their work elegant harangues of their own composition. This may, in a degree, apply K |