verdict of the time, or perhaps as the decision of the Spirit. No attempt to shine by means of the expression, composition, or sentiments. Plainness of language is always preferred, because the most natural, the most obvious, and the best adapted to all capacities. Though in style by no means slovenly, yet in little points, as about those grammatical accuracies which do not affect the sense and perspicuity of the sentence, rather careless than curious.

19. Now, in the last of the three sorts of simplicity enumerated, our Lord's biographers particularly excel. This quality, or something akin to it, has been much and justly celebrated in some Pagan writers, in Xenophon for instance among the Greeks, and Caesar among the Latins. It were easy however to show, were it a proper subject of discussion here, that the difference between these and the sacred penmen, especially the evangelists, is very considerable. In respect of the first species of simplicity mentioned, simplicity of structure, the difference of the genius of the Greek language from that of the Hebrew, must no doubt occasion some difference in the manner of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, from that of Moses; but the identity of idiom explained in a former discourse,* occasions still a strong resemblance between them. If Genesis, therefore, may be justly said to possess the first rank of simplicity of composition in the sentences, the Gospels are certainly entitled to the second. But even these are not in this kind entirely equal among themselves. John and Matthew have it in a higher degree than Mark and Luke.

As to the second species, simplicity of sentiment, arising chiefly from the uncultivated state of society in the period and country about which the history is conversant; the change of times, which was doubtless very great, as well as the difference of subjects, would necessarily confer the first degree here also upon the former. But in what was denominated simplicity of object or design, the evangelists, of all writers, sacred and profane, appear the foremost. Their manner is indeed, in some respects, peculiar and unrivalled. It may not be amiss to consider a little the circumstances which gave occasion to this diversity and peculiarity.

20. For this purpose I beg leave to lay before the reader the few following observations ;-1st, I observe that the state and circumstances of things were, before the times of the apostles, totally changed in Palestine, from what they had been in the times of the patriarchs. The political alterations gradually brought upon the country, by a succession of revolutions in government, which made their condition so very unlike the pastoral life of their wandering forefathers, are too obvious to need illustration. 2dly, Their intercourse with strangers of different nations, to some of which they had * Diss. I. Part i.

been successively in subjection, had, notwithstanding their peculiarities in religion, introduced great changes in manners, sentiments, and customs. In our Saviour's days we find the nation divided into religious sects and political parties; the former of which had their respective systems, schools, and patrons among the learned. Each sect had its axioms or leading principles, and its particular mode of reasonings from those principles. Now there is not a single trace of any thing similar to this in all the Old Testament history. 3dly, As the great object of our Lord's ministry, which is the great subject of the Gospels, was to inculcate a doctrine and morality with which none of their systems perfectly coincided; and as, by consequence, he was opposed by all the principal men of the different factions then in the nation; the greater part of his history must be employed in relating the instructions which he delivered to the people and to his disciples, the disputes which he had with his antagonists, and the methods by which he recommended and supported his doctrine, exposed their sophistry, and eluded their malice.

This must give a color to the history of the Messiah, very different from that of any of the ancient worthies recorded in the Old Testament; in which, though very instructive, there is comparatively little delivered in the didactic style, and hardly any thing in the argumentative. A great deal of both we have in the Gospels. It ought not here to pass unnoticed, that it is more in compliance with popular language, than in strict propriety, that I denominate his manner of enforcing moral instruction, arguing. Our Lord, addressing himself much more to the heart than to the head, and by his admirable parables, without the form of argument, convincing his hearers that the moral truths he recommended are conformable to the genuine principles of our nature, in other words, to the dictates of conscience and the common sense of mankind, commands from the impartial and the considerate an unlimited assent. Accordingly, when a similitude, or an example, is made to supply the place of argument in support of a particular sentiment, he does not formally deduce the conclusion, but either leaves it to the reflections of his hearers, or draws it from their own mouths by a simple question. This, without the parade of reasoning, is, in practical subjects, the strongest of all reasoning. After candidly stating an apposite case, it is appealing for the decision, not to the prejudices or the passions, but to the natural sense of good and evil, even of his adversaries. 4thly, As our Lord's history is occupied partly with what he said and partly with what he did, this occasions in the Gospels a twofold distinction of style and manner-first, that of our Saviour, as it appears in what he said; secondly, that of his historians, as it appears in their relation of what he did. I shall consider briefly how the different sorts of simplicity above-mentioned may be applied to each of these.

21. As to the simplicity of structure, it may be said in a very eminent degree to belong to both. It is in itself regarded more as a quality of narration, but is by no means excluded from the other kinds of composition. Besides, in our Lord's discourses, particularly his parables, there is a great deal of narrative. Simplicity of sentiment appears more in the dialogue part, and in the teaching, than in the narration, which is almost confined to what is necessary for information and connexion. It may be objected, that our Lord's figurative manner of teaching is not perfectly compatible with simplicity. But let it be observed, that there is a simplicity of manner in the enunciation of the sentiments directly signified, which a piece of writing that admits a figurative or allegorical meaning is as susceptible of as one that admits only a literal interpretation. Greece has not produced a more genuine specimen of this than we have in the Apologues of Esop, which are all nevertheless to be understood figuratively. In Cebes's Table, which is an allegory, there is great simplicity of diction. It is only with the expression of the literal or immediate sentiment, that this quality is concerned. And nothing surely can, in this particular, exceed the parables of our Lord. As these are commonly in the style of narration, they are susceptible of the same simplicity of structure as well as of sentiment with the historian's narrative, and are in this respect hardly distinguishable from it.

But the third sort mentioned belongs peculiarly to the historian. In our Lord's discourses, though the general and ultimate object is the same throughout, namely, the honor of God by the recovery of men, the particular and immediate object varies with the subject and occasion. At one time it is to instruct his hearers in one important doctrine or duty, at another time in another; sometimes to refute one error, at other times another; now to rebuke what is wrong, then again to encourage in the practice of what is right. We have all the variety of threats and promises, prohibitions and precepts, rebukes and consolations, explanation and refutation, praise and blame. These undoubtedly require a considerable variety in the style and manner. Now there is occasion for nothing of this kind in the narrative. The historians with whom we are here concerned, do, in their own character, neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, commend nor blame, but preserve one even tenor in exhibiting the facts entirely unembellished, reporting, in singleness of heart, both what was said and what was done by their Master; likewise what was said and what was done to him, by either friends or enemies. Not a syllable of encomium on the former, or of invective against the latter. As to their Lord himself, they appear to regard his character as infinitely superior to any praise which they could bestow; and as to his persecutors, they mingle no gall in what they write concerning them; they do not desire to aggravate

their guilt in the judgment of any man, either by giving expressly, or by so much as insinuating through the severity of their language, their opinion concerning it.

22. Nay, which is more remarkable, the names of the highpriest and his coadjutor, of the Roman procurator, of the tetrarch of Galilee, and of the treacherous disciple, are all that are mentioned of the many who had a hand in his prosecution and death. In regard to the first four it is manifest, that the suppression of the names, had the facts been related, would have made no difference to contemporaries; for in offices of so great eminence, possessed by single persons, as all those offices were, the official is equivalent to the proper name, which it never fails to suggest; but such a suppression would have made to posterity a material defect in the history, and greatly impaired its evidence. In regard to the fifth, it is sufficient to observe, that, without naming the traitor, justice could not have been done to the eleven; Whereas, of those Scribes and Pharisees who bargained with Judas; of the men who apprehended Jesus; of the officer who struck him on the face at his trial; of the false witnesses who deposed against him; of those who afterward spat upon him, buffetted and mocked him; of those who were loudest in crying "Away with him, Crucify him; Not this man, but Barabbas;" of those who supplied the multitude with the implements of their mockery, the crown of thorns, the reed, and the scarlet robe; of those who upbraided him on the cross with his inability to save himself; or of the soldier who pierced his side with a spear no name is given by any of the historians.

It may be said, "The names have not been known to them." This may have been true of some of their names, but cannot be supposed to have been true of them all, and that, with regard not to one, two, or three, but to all the four evangelists. The witnesses must have been persons of the country, and at least occasional hearers of our Lord. It was, no doubt, chiefly the people of Jerusalem who tumultuously demanded his execution, who derided him with the title Messiah, and who insulted him even on the cross. Curiosity, on such occasions, leads men to inquire about persons who act a principal part in a scene so tragical; and that the disciples were not beyond the influence of this motive, is evident from the whole of the story. The names of the Roman soldiers concerned in this transaction might have been unknown to them, and probably little minded by them; but the actions of their countrymen must have excited another kind of emotion, as it more nearly affected all his followers.

Now, this reserve in regard to the names of those who were the chief instruments of his sufferings is the most observable, as the names of others, to whom no special part is attributed, are mentioned without hesitation. Thus Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off, and

who was immediately after miraculously cured by Jesus, is named by John; but nothing further is told of him, than that he was present when our Lord was seized, and that he was a servant of the high-priest. Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross, is named by no fewer than three of the evangelists; but we are also informed, that in this service he did not act voluntarily, but by compulsion. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the only members of the sanhedrim, except the high-priest, who are mentioned by name; but they were the only persons of that body who did not concur in condemning the Son of God, and who, though once fearful and secret disciples, assumed the resolution to display their affection, at a time when no one else ventured openly to acknowledge him. Lord's biographers, whilst they are thus far ready to do justice to merit, avoid naming any man without necessity of whom they have nothing to say that is not to his dishonor. To the virtuous and good they conciliate our esteem and love, an effectual method of raising our admiration of virtue and goodness, and exciting in us a noble emulation; but our contempt and hatred they direct against the crimes, not against the persons of men; against vices, not against the vicious; aware that this last direction is often of the most dangerous tendency to christian charity, and consequently to genuine virtue. They showed no disposition to hold up any man to the Christians of their own time, as an object of either their fear or their abhorrence, or to transmit his name with infamy to posterity.

Though this holds principally in what concerns the last great catastrophe, it appears in some degree in every part of the history. Except in the case of Herodias, which, from the rank of the personages concerned, must have been a matter of notoriety and public scandal, and therefore required a more public reprehension, the names are never mentioned, when what is related reflects disgrace on the persons. Of the Scribes and Pharisees who watched our Lord, and on different occasions, dissembling esteem, assailed him with captious and ensnaring questions; of those who openly ascribed his miracles to Beelzebub, called him a madman, a demoniac, and, what they accounted worse than either, a Samaritan; who accused him of associating with the profligate, of Sabbath-breaking, of intemperance, and blasphemy; of those Sadducees who, by their sophistry, vainly attempted to refute the doctrine of the resurrection; of those enraged Nazarenes, his fellow citizens, who would have carried him by force to a precipice that they might throw him down headlong, no names are ever mentioned; nor is the young but opulent magistrate named, who came to consult him as to what he must do to obtain eternal life; for though there were some favorable symptoms in his case, yet as, by going away sorrowful, he betrayed a heart wedded to the world, the application did not terminate to his honor. But of Simon the Pharisee, who invited our