as the fanatic enemies of religion-still, in the characters of the chief actors, we obferve a confiftency and identity, which attefts the reality of the reprefentation; while thofe, with whom they converfe, and who are introduced but incidentally, bear the traces of that national and individual refemblance, which the records of hiftory have invariably affigned them.

THE grand exemplification of the preceding remarks, is to be noticed in the character of our Lord himfelf, which is at once fo peculiar, that it could fcarcely be copied, yet fo natural, that it could not be feigned. In the very minute delineation of his actions and fentiments, we cannot fail to trace one and the fame dignified, and virtuous, and benevolent Being. In the various, and seemingly oppofite, excellencies which are pourtrayed, of dignity and of humility, of just refentment and of fubmiffive patience, of fortitude and meeknefs, not once do we difcover any marks of inconfiftency, not one action or one word do we remark, that does not feem appropriate to the new and fublime pretenfions of the Son of God. In those of the difciples, who come more particularly forward to obfervation, each individual is diftinguished

diftinguished by fome peculiarity of manner, yet that manner is invariably and exactly preferved. The characters of St. Paul and St. Peter are both marked by a warmth and eagerness of difpofition, yet they are fo reprefented, as to appear each poffeffed of his own difcriminating qualities. In both we observe indelible traces of a peculiar conformation of temper and of habits, yet the actions of the one are not liable to be mistaken for those of the other. In St. Paul we see an ardent inflexible zeal; knowing no fear, and defying every danger, when pursuing what his conviction pronounced to be truth. In him too we discover intellectual powers of a more than ordinary fize, —fervid, full, and comprehenfive. In St. Peter's conduct plain traces of a ready impetuous zeal are difcernible; but it is a zeal mixed with a degree of timorous selfishness, and more easily bent from it's purpose, than that of his fellow-apostle. A difference also is very obfervable in the caft of his understanding, which is neither fo quick nor so vigorous, as that of St. Paul. As in the former, we distinguish the fame individual impelled by fimilar motives, though placed very different fituations; equally bold and

in

im

impatient, whether perfecuting Christianity, or preaching in it's fupport; fo in the Apostle, who temporized at Antioch*, we recognize at once an identity with him, who had denied his Mafter.

THESE marks of famenefs and of diverfity, are often as difcernible in the recital of actions, or of difcourfes, feemingly trivial, as in fuller details. Thus the incident recorded by St. Luke, at the end of his tenth chapter, is ftrikingly characteristic of the different tempers of two fifters; one of whom was more attentive to the cares and concerns of the world, while the other fhewed a more laudable anxiety to profit by the leffons of Jefus. When we again discover Mary+pouring out the precious ointment, as a mark of veneration, and of gratitude to Jefus, we instantly acknowledge the probability of the fact, from a previous acquaint

ance

Galat. ii. 11, &c.

The character of the other fifter is incidentally, but ac curately, preferved; for we are told "they made him a fupper, and Martha ferved."

See John xii. ad init. compared with Matth. xxvi. and Mark xiv. This circumftance may feem to throw additional light upon the fact of Lazarus' refurrection. However pious, and however grateful the temper of Mary might be, yet in her humble fituation, it is not very likely fhe would ufe fo expenfive a method of fhewing her veneration for Jefus, unless fhe had received fome figral mark of favour and kindness from him.

ance with her difpofition. The objection which was made by Judas, to the coftly manner in which her piety was fhewn, and the reafons afligned for the objection, mark a want of feeling, and a spirit of selfishness and hypocrify, perfectly fuitable to the nature of a man, who could betray his Mafter in the very act of offering a token of respect and attachment.

CONCERNING the obfcure and illiterate preachers of the Gospel, it is not likely we fhould meet with any information in writers, totally different in habits and opinions, as well as remote in fituation: but as to the Roman officers, connected with the tranfactions described by the Evangelis, it was probable fome clue would be found for judging of their general character; and this, upon examination, is obferved to coincide with the account of the facred writers. So that these characters are not only drawn without any violation of that refemblance, which the fame perfon in fome degree invariably preferves; but they alfo correfpond, fo far as they can be compared, with the authentic documents of other antient hiftorians.

WHEN We caft our eyes upon the conduct of thefe Romans, we inftantly perceive

the

the infolence and injuftice, which were to o frequently practifed by the governours of provinces ; we see also evident marks of the alarms, which the confciences of fuch men would probably excite, however they might be difregarded; we remark, moreover, that ignorance and contempt* of Jewish manners and customs, which it was confiftent with the feelings and fentiments of idolaters, invested with authority, to manifest. If we examine more minutely and diftinctly the manner in which these men acted, a variety of ftyle and deportment comes to view, which marks them to be different men. Pilate is unjust, but timorous, and fcrupulous of committing an act in itself palpably wrong, from which he fees no probability of advantage to himself; nor is his reluctance entirely fubdued, till he is threatened with the displeasure of Cæfar. minating feature of Gallio's

The difcrimind is philofophic

Thus Pilate, "Am I a Jew?" John xviii. 35. See alfa A&s xxv. 19, 20.

† Acts xviii. 12, &c. From Seneca's account of his brother, after making due allowance for the warmth of his affection, we may learn, I think, that Gallio was an indolent man, of good temper, but of a literary and philofophic turn, with which St. Luke's account agrees extremely well. See the paffages quoted by Lardner, Vol. I. p. 167. See also the character of Felix as reprefented by Tacitus, ib. p. 27.

D