from sinners." I recollect no remark of this kind in the evangelists, except in the introduction to St. John's gospel. The venerable apostle, looking back with wonder on the scene of which he had been witness, not only mentions our Lord's transcendent dignity before his incarnation, but also that on earth he displayed a glory suitable to the only begotten Son who came down from the Father, and that he dwelt among men "full of n "full of grace and truth;" abounding in benignity to mankind, and teaching the solid and substantial truths of religion. In the course of all the narrations, our Lord's conduct is left to speak for itself.

When a violent death has been inflicted on a righteous man, after the recital of such an event the natural language of an impartial historian, and especially of a disciple, is panegyric; the colouring of which is apt to be heightened in proportion to the degree of the sufferings and the worthiness of the sufferer. Plato thus concludes his Phædon: "Such, Echecrates, was the end of our companion; a man, as we may well affirm, the best of any whom we knew at that period, and by far the most eminent for wisdom and justice." Xenophon subjoins this remark to the apology which he represents Socrates as making before his judges: "When I contemplate the wisdom and magnanimity of the man, I cannot but speak of him; and when I speak of him, I can. not but praise him. And if any one, desirous of a proficiency in virtue, has met with a more useful guide than Socrates, I pronounce that man supremely

"c. i. 14.

happy." The same elegant philosopher closes some remarks on the death of his master in the following manner: "Since he really was what I have described him; so religious as to undertake nothing without consulting the gods; so just as to abstain from the least injury, and to confer the greatest benefits on those connected with him; so temperate as at no time to prefer pleasure before duty; so wise as not to mistake in distinguishing good from bad, and as not to require the assistance of others, but to be able of himself to mark the distinction; and moreover skilled in discoursing on and defining such subjects, in trying others, in convincing the mistaken, and in exhorting them to virtue and decorum; he seemed in my judgment to answer the idea of the best and happiest men. But if any one does not approve of this assertion, let him compare the character of some one else with these qualities, and then form his determination."

But no such language as this is spoken by the evangelists. The testimony which we find in their writings is extorted from them by the laws of history. Pilate, Herod and Judas declare their Master's innocence; and the centurion, who was eye witness to the conduct of Jesus on the cross and to the wonders which accompanied his sufferings, thus utters the result of his own conviction; "P Certainly this was a righteous man."

Our Lord's character is also delivered without any parallel between his unclouded perfection, and

• Memorab. 1. iv, at the end.

P Luke xxiii. 47.

OUR LORD'S MORAL CHARACTER.

the virtues of other holy men which were shaded by great defects or by aggravated crimes.

Nor is there any contrast in the gospels between our Lord's meekness, uprightness and other virtues, and the rage, injustice and notorious vices of his enemies. It is true that, in one place, his manner of instructing is opposed to that of the Jewish teachers. When he had ended his discourse on the mount, "the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them," says St. Matthew, "as one But having authority, and not as the Scribes." when St. John indignantly observed that "r Barabbas was a robber," he left his reader to suggest the opposition in the character of Jesus; and when the context and the rules of writing naturally led St. Luke to the mention of Christ's extraordinary virtues, how does this evangelist express himself? "Pilate released to the JewS HIM THAT FOR SEDITION AND MURDER HAD BEEN CAST INTO PRIS

ON but he delivered JESUS to their will." Unless perhaps we may say, that in this writer's idea of Jesus every thing great and excellent was summed up.

The evangelists also remarkably abstain from censure on the conduct of our Lord's enemies. I recollect only one reflection which they have passed on the Jewish rulers; and that is of the most calm and dispassionate kind. Matthew and Mark mention Pilate's knowledge that the chief priests had delivered Jesus to him "through envy." Judas is described in the gospels as the " traitor; and usually as the

9 c. vii. 29. Mark xv. 10.

I c. xviii. 40.

" Luke vi. 16.

Luke xxiii. 25.

Matt. xxvii. 18.

person who delivered up our Lord to the Jews. But, on one occasion, St. John's affection to his Master led him to express his indignation against this perfidious apostle by recording another part of his character: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and stole what was put therein."

Our Lord's historians very rarely assign the reasons of his actions. They teach us indeed why he concealed his miracles, why he spake in parables, why he said, I thirst; but, conscious that he acted wisely, they in general leave the motives of his actions to be supplied by the attention of their readers. They therefore rarely speak in their own persons. Instances, besides those immediately referred to, occur in St. Luke's and St. John's prefaces; in St. John's conclusions; and in a remarkable passage where this evangelist expresses his admiration at the incredulity of the Jews notwithstanding the greatness of our Lord's miracles, observes that their spiritual blindness had been foretold, and records that many of the rulers suppressed their conviction from secular motives.

I shall suggest one or two observations more, which serve to characterize the manner of the evangelists, or to illustrate their credibility, though they are not to my immediate purpose.

The evangelists honestly relate many circumstances which actually disparage their own characters,

w Matt. x. 4 and p. p. John xviii. 2, &c.

y See Bishop Pearce in loc.

z Matt. xii. 17.

John xii. 37-43.

John xix. 28. There are other instances where they fulfilled certain prophecies.

* John xii. 6.

a c. xiii. 35.

observe that he

or which prejudice unthinking men against them or their cause. They mention that many of the apostles were Galilean fishermen, and that one of them was a Galilean publican. Matthew not only writes that he was called from the receipt of custom; but in enumerating the apostles he inserts his invidious occu. pation, and styles himself " Matthew the Publican." They furnish repeated instances of dulness and want of apprehension in our Lord's followers. When Jesus bade them "fbeware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," we learn from them that the disciples misapprehended so plain a figure. It is also transmitted to posterity that the disciples asked an explanation of some parables, when our Lord expressed his wonder that he was not understood by them; that they did not properly infer our Lord's divine power from the miracle of the loaves; that they perceived not his meaning in the least, when he prophesied that he should be delivered into the hands of men, and again when he expressed himself in the plainest terms, that he should be mocked by the Gentiles, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on, and that they should scourge him, and put him to death, and that the third day he should rise again. St. Luke expresses himself strongly on each of these latter occasions. "They understood not this saying; and it was hidden from them, that they perceived it not." "They understood none of these things; and this saying was hidden from them; neither knew

& c. ix. 9. Matt. xv. 16, 17. kib. xviii. 32, 3, 4.

c. x. 3.

f Matt. xvi. 6, &c. Mark vi. 51, 2.

& Mark iv. 13 Luke ix. 44, 5.