most unwavering perseverance. This however formed no part of the plan upon which the Gospels were constructed. Unfavourable admissions are made, in a manner the most abrupt and unqualified. Thus we are informed, * that_the_people of Gadara generally, besought Christ to depart from them;' that after His discourse respecting the bread of life,' "many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with him:”† and that, when, after His resurrection, He appeared to His disciples upon a mountain in ́ Galilee, "some" among their number "doubted." + No comment is made upon these doubts, nor is the least intimation given, whether they were ever removed. Let us consider also, the representation given of the conduct of the chosen Apostles and constant companions of Jesus. That we should hear of one atrociously wicked man and traitor among them, is not unreasonable. The character *Luke viii. 37. + John vi. 66. Matt. xxviii. 17. These instances are noticed by Paley. See his Evidences, ii. 89. He supposes with Townsend, that the "doubts" here mentioned, referred to the identity of Christ's person, seen at a distance; but the expression must be thought peculiarly unhappy, if employed by a writer anxious to make his story good. I cannot here avoid refering the reader to Paley's remarks (Evidences, ii. 85, &c.), upon the artless manner in which the Evangelists have signified, or rather suffered it to appear, that Christ, after his resurrection, was seen by His disciples alone. of Judas might have been conceived as a striking contrast and foil to those of his associates; but what are we to say of the continued disinclination, ascribed to the whole college of Apostles, to understand the spirituality of their Master's kingdom, or to conceive that He could suffer and die? of their forsaking Him, with one consent, in the moment of danger? of their slowness of heart,' not only in expecting His resurrection, but in listening to the most circumstantial testimony of the fact? lastly, of the repeated denial of Peter, after all his expressions of constancy and zeal? The ignorance of our Lord's person and circumstances manifested by the cripple at the pool of Bethesda, and by the man who was born blind, describing Him as "a man that is called Jesus," * is, to say the least, needlessly introduced. 38. But how remarkable is the message sent by John the Baptist to the Redeemer,+ "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" I am ready to admit, that most commentators suppose this enquiry to have been made, only to satisfy the doubts of the Baptist's disciples; but they are not unanimous upon that point. A considerable degree of dubiety hangs about the incident; but for what purpose could it be mentioned if untrue? nay, even if true, how would * John ix. 11. + Matt. xi. 3—11. a designing writer find it worth his while to record it? He would be rendered over timorous by conscious dishonesty. Would he wish then to have it needlessly suspected that the faith of Christ's great forerunner began to waver-that John had doubts respecting the Messiah-ship of Him whom it was the sole purpose of his life and ministry to announce. Might not this, in the judgment of those ignorant readers who would naturally be numerous, throw an air of uncertainty around his whole testimony? Or if it really appeared expedient to incur such a risk, was no explanation to be given? If the doubts of John's disciples only, were expressed in this message, a single word would have made every thing clear. Would this word then be omitted by a writer whose cause was at stake? The courageous simplicity of truth could alone disregard the danger. Truth may venture unarmed in the midst of enemies, but falsehood would wear all her panoply in the bosom of peace. But let us suppose the circumstance introduced, in order to throw an air of truth and nature around the narrative, how would it in that case have been managed? Either John would have been pourtrayed as an actual apostate, as another Judas, who at last threw off the mask of allegiance to his Master, and deserted the cause of the Gospel; or, on the other hand, we should hear of his repentance-that he re canted his error-expressed his conviction and his penitence, and confirmed, with more than his wonted energy, "the testimony of Christ." Either of these methods (though not without some risk of weakening the cause), might have added to the force and interest of the narrative. But no such expedient is attempted. We read no more, either before or after this passage, of the Baptist's scruples; on the contrary, our Lord seizes this very occasion to utter a high eulogium upon his character. We hear nothing of any change or recantation on the part of John; but are left to suppose, if we please, that he might have continued in his delusion till the day of his death. A peculiar dubiety, indeed, is thrown over the whole transaction, which the writer seems to consider it unimportant to remove; but what writer of falsehood would regard any thing as immaterial, which could possibly bring discredit upon his history? CHAPTER V. VARIATIONS AND RESEMBLANCES BETWEEN THE WORKS OF THE SEVERAL EVANGELISTS. 39. THE remarks which have hitherto been made, have referred indiscriminately to the four biographies of Jesus Christ, which at present exist, considered as one mass of historical materials. I now proceed to compare them as four separate narratives, immediately devoted to a common subject, and written by persons embarked in a common cause. The question will then arise, whether, when fairly compared, their mutual connection and relation is such as we should expect, on the supposition that they were the fabrications of imposture. Our present undertaking is to shew that this assumption is inconsistent with the facts which appear, upon a careful comparison of the four documents. It should, however, be here premised, that the observations which follow, are more specially applicable to the first three Gospels, as that of St. John, which was written at a later |