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 honour 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 or 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 four first 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 afterwards 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 more 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 highpriest, 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. Our 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 dishonour. 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 favourable 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 honour. But of Simon the Pharisee, who invited our Lord to his house, and who, though doubtful, seemed inclinable to learn; of Jairus, and Bartimeus, and Zaccheus, and Lazarus, and his sisters Mary and Martha, and some others, of whose faith, repentance, gratitude, love, and piety, the most honourable testimony is given, a very different account is made.

Some may object, that this conduct in the first disciples is imputable to a weak and timid policy. They were afraid to raise against themselves powerful enemies, whose vengeance_might prove fatal to their persons, and ruinous to their cause. It happens luckily for silencing this pretext, that in other things they gave the most unequivocal proofs of their fortitude; besides, that the exceptions above-mentioned include almost all the persons possessed of such authority, civil or sacred, united with such a disposition as could render their resentment an object of terror to those who were obnoxious to it. That the difference thus marked between the evil and the good is, on the contrary, in the true spirit of their Master, might be inferred, as from several other passages, so in particular from that similitude wherein the rewards and punishments of another state are so well exemplified.

A name is given to the poor man who was conveyed by angels to Abraham's bosom; the other, who was consigned to torments, is distinguished solely by the epithet rich: a particularity from which we may learn an instructive lesson of modesty and caution in regard to names, when what truth compels us to say is to the disadvantage of the persons: and that it suffices that we consider particular punishments as suited to particular actions, without referring them to known individuals, or leading the thoughts of others to infer them.

But as to the penmen themselves, and their fellow-disciples, in recording their own faults, no secret is made of the names. Of this the intemperate zeal of the sons of Zebedee, on one occasion, and their ambition and secular views on another, the incredulity of Thomas, the presumption of Peter, and his lamentable defection in the denial of his Master, not to mention the prejudices and dulness of them all, are eminent examples. These particulars are all related by the sacred historians, with the same undisguised plainness which they use in relating the crimes of adversaries, and with as little endeavour to extenuate the former as to aggravate the latter. Nor have they, on the other hand, the remotest appearance of making a merit of their confession. one uniform strain they record the most signal miracles and the most ordinary events. In regard to the one, like persons familiarized to such exertions of power, they no more express themselves either with hesitancy or with strong asseverations, than they do in regard to the other. Equally certain of the facts advanced, they recite both in the same unvaried tone, as faithful witnesses, whose business it was to testify and not to argue.

In

23. Hence it happens, that that quality of style which is called animation is in a manner excluded from the narrative. The historians speak of nothing, not even the most atrocious actions of our Lord's persecutors, with symptoms of emotion; no angry epithet or pathetic exclamation ever escapes them; not a word that betrays passion in the writer, or is calculated to excite the passions of the reader. In displaying the most gracious as well as marvellous dispensation of Providence towards man, all is directed to mend his heart, nothing to move his pity or kindle his resentment. If these effects be also produced, they are manifestly the consequences of the naked exposition of the facts, and not of any adventitious art in the writers, nay, not of any one term, not otherwise necessary, employed for the purpose.

I am sensible, that to those who are both able and willing to give these writings a critical examination, hardly in any translation does this peculiarity appear so much as it does in the original. Most readers consider animation as an excellency in writing; and in ordinary performances it no doubt is so. By interesting them strongly in the events related, it rouses and quickens their attention. Unanimated simplicity, on the contrary, they

called flatness, if not insipidity of manner. In consequence of this general sentiment, when two words occur to a translator, either of which expresses the fact, but one of them does it simply without any note of either praise or blame, the other with some warmth expressive of censure or approbation, he very naturally prefers the latter, as the more emphatical and affecting. Nor will he be apt to suspect that he is not sufficiently close to the original, if the action or thing alluded to be truly signified, though not entirely in the same manner. Such differences even good translators, though not insensible of them, are apt to overlook, excusing themselves with the consideration, that words in all respects corresponding in two tongues which differs widely from each other, are not always to be found.

But to explain myself by examples, without which a writer is often but indistinctly understood; in rendering & Taρadove avrov (Matt. x. 4.) into Latin; of the two verbs, tradere to deliver up, and prodere to betray, most translators would prefer the latter as the more animated; Yet, in reality, the former is more conformable to the simplicity of the sacred author, who satisfies himself with acquainting us with the external fact, without characterizing it or insinuating his own opinion; otherwise the term would have been woоdovç not napadove. Again, the demonstrative ouros (Matt. xii. 34.) may be rendered into English either this man or this fellow. But in the last expression a degree of contempt is suggested which is not in the first, nor in the original. See the Notes on both passages. 24. Let it be observed, that in excluding animation I in a great measure confine myself to the narrative, or what proceeds immediately from the historians. In the discourses and dialogues wherein their Master bears the only or the principal part, the expression, without losing aught of its proper simplicity, is often remarkable for spirit and energy. There is in these an animation, but so chastised by candour and strict propriety, as to be easily distinguished from what is often so termed in other compositions.

Yet here, too, the language has sometimes suffered in the very best translations, and that not so much through the fault of translators, as in consequence of the difference of the genius found in different tongues. Some of the epithets employed by our Lord against his antagonists have not that asperity which all modern versions appear to give them. The Greek word vπокρITηs, for example, as metaphorically used in Scripture, has more latitude of signification than the word hypocrite formed from it, as used in modern tongues. The former is alike applicable to all who dissemble on any subject or occasion; the latter is in strictness applied to those who, in what concerns religion, lead a life of dissimulation. It must be owned, that it is to persons of this character that it is oftenest applied in the Gospel but the judi