prospects. There may be different opinions, respecting the source of this transformation, its precise nature, or its continuance, but that it actually takes place, the history of persecutions, in all ages, may convince us, and where the above marks of sincerity permanently appear, we have surely reason to ascribe the outward change in the manners and behaviour, to that inward change in their principles, views, and feelings, which these individuals profess to have experienced. Now these characteristics of human nature might certainly not be unknown to a sagacious inquirer, but they are unlikely to be appreciated by a writer who is not himself more or less under the influence of religion; a hypocrite or worldly man could have little experience of their force, he would be unwilling, and even unable naturally to pourtray them, But even if inclined to dilate upon these subjects, he would hardly deem them very interesting or important to the mass of his readers. He would seek to edify them by a display, not of the inconsistencies-but rather of the faith, perseverance, and knowledge of those apostles to whom they owed their religion, and with whose cause his own was so closely allied. He would carefully exclude from his narrative every thing which could disappoint the expectations, shock the prepossessions, or mortify the vanity of those whose favour he chiefly sought to propitiate.

CHAPTER IV.

OBJECTIONS OR DIFFICULTIES INTRODUCED IN THE HISTORY ITSELF.

21. A concealed criminal, or partner in a conspiracy, would naturally be fearful of making any allusions to his crime, or of stating any suspicions which might have arisen against him; thus the author of a forgery, conscious that his undertaking has exposed him to objections, would be anxious to keep them as much as possible in the back ground of his picture. Rendered by guilt "tremblingly alive" to the danger of detection, he would be unwilling to admit that the least shadow of suspicion could be cast upon his character or cause. If he did ever mention accusations, we might expect that none would be adduced but those by the complete refutation of which, he might hope to claim a triumph. He would be afraid of suggesting that which might otherwise never occur to his readers: well aware that an objection, started in the caprice of a moment, ages have sometimes

D

་

been unable entirely to dispel. Hence he might deem it the safest course to exclude them altogether.

22. It may possibly however be alledged, that the writer we are supposing, in his anxiety to preserve an appearance of truth, might affect a bold neglect of suspicion, and that in this endeavour he might overact his part, and unwarily expose his cause. But here let me suggest, 1. The contriver of a successful imposture, on the plan of the Gospels, must be a master of his art, and would rarely indeed be guilty of an oversight; much less would he commit a succession of glaring mistakes of the same nature. 2. It is likely that upon this supposition he would indeed aim at a dramatic propriety in his characters, and at fidelity in pourtraying the workings of passion; but he would be fearful of overstepping these limits. Can we suppose that, in order to assume an air of confidence, he would wantonly risk his reputation for accuracy and consistency, and bring needless suspicion upon his cause? 3. In the the present times we justly regard the negligence of the Evangelists as a strong confirmation of those weighty external evidences which we possess; but we must at present place ourselves in the situation of a writer, who should first attempt to impose upon the world, a miraculous narrative of events supposed to have happened in his own age.

He has of course no safe witnesses to whom he can appeal-no supernatural tests-no circumstantial agreement he must rely almost entirely upon the inherent credibility of his relation. Thus situated, his first and principal object must be to recommend himself as an accurate, clear, and consistent historian. For no secondary object then would he be likely to sacrifice or endanger these necessary qualifications. 4. He would naturally seek to adapt himself to the taste of the majority of his readers. Not every ordinary man, even of education, has skill or curiosity to detect or to value the finer lights and shades of character, or the latent indications of truth; these would be nearly lost upon all but the learned: but the simplest reader could understand a direct attack upon the truth of the history, or upon the character of the agents; and these, if observed, might have a most disadvantageous effect upon his mind, still more would these charges impress him, if they were suggested to his notice by the narrative itself. Now it is evident that the majority of those, into whose hands the Gospels were likely to fall, were of the latter description. They were mostly plain persons who had no advantage in forming their estimate of these productions, except a general familiarity with the circumstances of the history. They were bad critics indeed of the composition, but formidable judges of the matters of fact. For these reasons

a dishonest biographer, would be the last to endanger his whole cause, for the sake of those minute excellencies and delicate shades of probability, which only a microscopic eye could discover.

23. Let the four Gospels be now examined by the above test. It will appear, upon inspection, that we can turn over few pages of any Evangelist, in which we find not allusions to some cavil of our Lord's enemies, aimed against His doctrine or character; to some doubt suggested, or some offence taken on the part of His false, or wavering friends. Occasionally, Christ answers these objections, as in some cases where His miracles were ascribed to Satan, and where He was accused of making Himself God.' But these instances are far from common. For the most part he either takes no notice of the attack, or glances at it in general terms, or makes it the foundation of some warning or remonstrance. Upon these occasions, the Evangelists scarcely ever undertake to reply for their master, but are contented to suffer the reproach to pass heeded.

un

24. The objections thus introduced, are of different degrees of importance. Some are glaringly improbable, as where Jesus was accused of threatening to destroy the temple; some may be said to be at once refuted by