The next passage is of a similar character. We read in the seventeenth chapter, that Paul and Silas having preached at Thessalonica with some success, "the Jews, which believed not, drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also, whom Jason hath received; and all these do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying, That there is another King, one Jesus." This is a speech so natural for the Jews to make, that it carries its own evidence with it. But surely so infamous a calumny met with some reply-some refutation-at least some protest against the false and dangerous impressions it was calculated to convey-or perhaps we are immediately presented with some well adapted tale, which we cannot help ourselves applying to the aspersion, whilst the passage is allowed to wear its appearance of simplicity. How then does the narrative proceed, commencing with the words directly following? "And they troubled the Rulers of the city, when they heard these things: and when they had taken security of Jason, and of the others, they let them go. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Barnabas by night unto Berea.” Does this look like artifice, or is it the very manner of guileless truth?

We are compelled to pass by, as irrelevant to our purpose, the marks of reality discernible in the relation of St. Paul's sojourn at Athens—— and the wonderful eloquence of a speech, that had scarcely been surpassed, in that birthplace of oratory-and the exquisite propriety, with which the Athenian character is sketched by the historian, confirmed as his picture is by the remains of Grecian literature-and the concise but lively record of their disputatious curiosity, their proud attention, and contemptuous infidelity. The whole passage is perhaps unrivalled for a palpable verisimilitude, "Then certain of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange Gods (because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.) And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? for thou bringest strange tidings to our ears; we would therefore know what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there, spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.)" It is worth while to observe, that the historian, who inserts no parenthetical remarks in order to vindicate from abuse the Christian Institution or

its doctrines, has in this short passage introduced two for the purpose of elucidating his narrative. This certainly looks like simplicity of design. The second instance is besides observable on another account. The historian using the past instead of the present tense, refers to what himself witnessed whilst at Athens. Such a mode of expression would not have naturally occurred in a fictitious tale compiled from general accounts; and yet it is of too minute a nature to warrant suspicion. As it stands it seems curiously indicative of truth. But the main object for which the passage was quoted is to introduce the account that is added of the effect produced by St. Paul on his intelligent audience. "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed; among the which was Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth." Any comment on the candour of such a passage would be worse than superfluous. It bears a stamp, which it is next to impossible to counterfeit; which not to recognize were a proof of stupidity, and, not to accept of prejudice.

We have already seen a specimen of the historian's silence relative to a false accusation of Christian principles. We have now to look at another specimen, in which the conduct of the writer is the same, whilst the circumstances of the occasion are exactly inverted. The one was calculated to leave an erroneous impression on the mind of an uninformed or prejudiced heathen, the other to excite a strange surprise in that of a more intelligent Christian, and suggest to the scrutiny of an unbeliever an opportunity of surmise and objection. It may be observed by the way, that the whole compass of literature can scarcely furnish a passage at the same time more apparently unstudied, and more powerfully graphic, than the one from which we are about to quote. That passage occurs in the nineteenth chapter of the work. St. Paul had been preaching for two whole years in the midst of Ephesus, "dis"puting daily in the school of one Tyrannus." His doctrine had occasioned the destruction of SO many volumes of Ephesian magic, as amounted in value to 50,000 pieces of silver, and had induced the uproar, which is here described. Yet of this very person and his companions, the avowed and zealous enemies of every species of superstition, the town clerk tells the multitude, who had been vociferating

the praises of their national idol, “Ye have brought hither these men, who are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your Goddess Diana," and after recommending Demetrius to prosecute his claims against them in a regular and legal manner, "he dismissed the assembly," and the historian simply adds, that “when the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed, for to go into Macedonia." Now putting together these two opposite instances, and adding to them the obvious liability to objection under which this reported speech of the town clerk lies from the publicity of St. Paul's proceedings in Ephesus, for so long a time, and with reference to so singular a cause; and the total absence of all explanation on the part of the historian as to the whole; and what deduction can result, but that the writer has been intent throughout his work with the simple design of giving a faithful account of real

transactions?

The conduct of St. Paul to the high priest at Jerusalem admits of an explanation, that might have been easily offered. Yet as it is " reported by his annalist in chapter xxiii. its propriety seems something worse than doubtful. "And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by to smite him on the mouth.