had not the same idea of it, he is unsparing of his abuse of him. In Luke, Mr. Evanson will, perhaps, consider the passages quoted above, which agree so well with Matthew, as interpolations.

8. Because in the parable of "a certain king who made a marriage feast for his son," Matthew [xxii. 2] represents the invitation as given to both good and bad, after the intended guests had declined accepting the invitation, Mr. Evanson says, "This author, who, I have no doubt, wrote long after the destruction of Jerusalem, makes the invitation of the Gentiles to accept the gospel covenant, posterior to that calamity. The parable, therefore, in the first seven verses, refers only to the preaching the new covenant to the Jews; describes their cruel persecution of the apostles and first preachers of the gospel, and the vengeance inflicted on them by heaven, in the utter ruin of their city and nation; after which the messengers of the gospel are ordered to go and preach it to the Gentiles. The manner, however, in which that is done in the parable, shews that the writer did not live in the age of St. Matthew, but at a time when Christianity was, with great numbers, a mere external profession, and the state of the church so corrupt, that the majority of its members were bad men: for he tells us, the king's servants furnished the wedding with guests by collecting together as many as they found, both bad and good.' This is a pretty accurate description of the state of professed Christianity, as it is at present, and as I am well convinced it was in the age of this writer, and has been ever since; but nothing can be more unlike the state of the true church of Christ, as it was founded by Matthew and the other apostles, and as, where it subsists at all, it must for ever continue to be: for the apostles and first preachers of the gospel were so far from admitting bad men into the Christian society, that St. Paul strictly enjoins the Gentile converts, (1 Cor. v. 11,) not to suffer any man who was guilty of any of the vices prohibited in the Gospel, to remain a member of their community, nor to associate, nor even so much as to eat with him."*

According to this reasoning of Mr. Evanson, our Saviour could not foretell the future state of his church, and no

new covenant of that kingdom was published to the world by his apostles and first disciples, he displayed many visible, superuatural instances of the regal power with which God had invested him, in communicating to them the miraculous gifts of the holy inspiration, and sundry revelations of the Divine will respecting the future state of human affairs." Letter, p. 59.

• Dissonance, pp. 174, 175. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 214–216.

writer can record any prediction who has not seen the accomplishment of it. As to the latter part of Mr. Evanson's remark, the epistles of Paul furnish abundant proof, that there were persons addicted to many immoral practices among the first converts to Christianity, and that the belief of it operated gradually to the reformation of them.

9. Equally unreasonable is Mr. Evanson's cavilling at the punishment of the man who did not appear in "a wedding garment," though he had been pressed to attend the feast." With respect to the guest who had not on a wedding garment, whatever the author meant by that figurative expression, though the man, it seems, had nothing to say for himself, one cannot help pitying him because, from the circumstances of the parable, he appears to have been in a manner pressed to attend at the marriage feast; and if any particular robe was necessary, since the king's servants must see that he had none, they ought either to have supplied him with one, or not to have invited him at all; and it seems rather hard, that, in consequence of their inattention or neglect, the unhappy wretch should be bound hand and foot, and thrown into outer darkness, there to remain weeping and gnashing his teeth.”*

Now it is well known to have been the custom in the East, for the master of the feast to provide such garments; and therefore that this man's not putting it on must have been a mark of contempt.† This, however, is not like a circumstance that any writer would invent.

10. Mr. Evanson finds many contradictions between Matthew's account of Jesus' eating the last passover and the institution of his supper, and that of Luke; and, as usual, greatly to the discredit of that of Matthew, as in the highest degree improbable. "The writer called Matthew," he says, on the contrary, who, instead of being a Jew himself, appears to have been very imperfectly acquainted with either the prophecies or customs of the Jews, takes not the least notice of the cup preceding the supper; and in telling us that the apology for his own not drinking of the wine was made by Jesus at the grace-cup, when he ordained the ceremony of the Lord's supper, he really betrays his own ignorance by teaching us that he did not begin the feast, as was customary, with the cup; for if he did, and the apology

* Dissonance, pp. 176, 177. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 217, 218.

+ See Vol. XIII. p. 287. Wakefield says, " In some countries, it was customary for the bride to furnish her companions with marriage-dresses, like her own." St.

Matthew, 1782, p. 301.

for his not drinking of it himself was given then, there could be no propriety in his repeating it so soon after, at the gracecup; especially when we consider that the latter was proposed to them as a commencement of that commemorative rite of which he was to be the object, not the partaker: whereas the participation of the cup before the supper was the common form of beginning the paschal feast, which, as a Jew, concerned him as much as his disciples."*

For this extraordinary remark the narrative of Matthew [xxvi. 17-29] furnishes no handle whatever; as he does not profess to relate any particulars of the paschal supper, but only the institution of the Lord's supper, with which it concluded. And when, in this rite, Jesus had tasted the wine for the last time, he very naturally observed, [ver. 29,] that he should not drink any more wine in this world, or state. It appears to me that this declaration of Jesus is put by Luke [xxii. 18] out of its proper place, because, according to this evangelist himself, [vers. 19, 20,] he partook both of the bread and the wine after it. † But I should not infer from this oversight, or mistake, whichever it was, that the Gospel of Luke was not authentic.

11. Mr. Evanson thinks some circumstances relating to the behaviour of Pilate to Jesus, as related by Matthew, [xxvii. 26-31,] to be improbable. "I cannot forbear remarking," he says, "that as Pilate was convinced of our Lord's innocence and inoffensive behaviour, and sacrificed him to the clamorous entreaties of the Jews, against his own judgment and inclination, it is not at all consistent with the polished humanity of the Romans, that he should have subjected him to any unnecessary, barbarous, and cruelly insulting treatment from the Roman soldiers; that, according to St. Luke, the gorgeous robe and contemptuous mockings were put upon him, not by them, but by Herod; and that his history of the crucifixion makes no mention of the crown of thorns, nor of the other wanton indignities attributed to the Roman soldiers by this writer.”‡

But I would ask Mr. Evanson, whether the punishment of crucifixion was consistent with polished humanity? It is, besides, very possible that Pilate, who evidently wished

* Dissonance, pp. 183, 184. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 224, 225.

+ Mr. Evanson replies, that " Matthew, ch. xxvi.—from ver. 17 to the end of ver. 25, contains a narrative of the preparation of the paschal supper," and that "in the three next verses is related the institution of the Lord's supper;" and that Luke does not represent our Lord to "partake of the wine himself.” Letter, pp. 60, 61.

Dissonance, pp. 195, 196. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 237, 238.

to spare Jesus, might hope that his enemies would be suffi ciently gratified by seeing him abused and insulted, without crucifixion. Nor is it necessary to suppose that any thing farther than mockery was intended. Mr. Evanson must

know that the crown was probably made of the herb acanthus, and not of thorns, none of the ancients appearing so to have understood it."

12. Mr. Evanson, besides thinking it improbable that Jesus should have appointed a meeting with his disciples in Galilee, (though, considering how many of his disciples were of that country, nothing could be more natural,) thinks it extraordinary that, "contrary," as he says, "to what they ever did at any other time, either before or after, they worshipped him; notwithstanding some of them were so incredulous, as not to believe even the testimony of their own senses."+

Now, that the disciples should feel themselves disposed to shew their Lord and Master more particular respect, by bowing down before him,‡ (for that Mr. Evanson knows to be the proper meaning of the word which we render worship,) after he was most unexpectedly risen from the dead, appears to me not at all extraordinary. Mr. Evanson himself could not behave with his former familiarity, even to an intimate friend in the same circumstances.

He also had

not, I suppose, observed that this worshipping of Jesus after his resurrection, is mentioned by Luke as well as Matthew, [xxviii. 17,] and in a manner more liable to exception: for it might be even after his ascension. Luke xxiv. 51, 52: "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they wor shipped him, § and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. As to the doubts mentioned by the evangelist, it is by no

* See Vol. XIII. pp. 352, 353.

+ Dissonance, p. 202. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 244, 245.

Which Mr. Evanson chooses to render "making him a bow." He then refers to "Apoc. xxii. 8," where" the very same word" employed by Matthew, is "used to denote that more particular respect which the apostle felt himself disposed to shew the angel of the vision, but which that celestial minister earnestly prohibited as criminal when offered to any being but God." Letter, p. 61.

Mr. Evanson complains, that Dr. Priestley has omitted" in this place to take notice that the words they worshipped him are not to be found in six different copies of Luke's Gospel." Letter, p. 62.

From the phrase, "après l'avoir adoré," (Luke xxiv. 52,) Le Clerc describes the apostles as having just now received the astonishing doctrine that their Master was God, and Lord of Heaven and of Earth. He says, they adored him "comme Dieu et Maitre du Ciel et de la Terre;" adding, "Ce ne fut qu'alors, que les apôtres connurent toute la grandeur de leur Maître." To whom would this learned critic have represented the apostles as rendering the incommunicable honours of Deity when they " were continually in the temple, praising and blessing

God"?

means probable, though the expression rigorously construed might imply as much, that Matthew meant to say that the doubts of these disciples remained after they had seen him; since he gives no intimation of any remaining doubts. Or if, like Thomas, they did not believe the evidence of their eyes, they might be convinced, as he was, by that of their other senses.

LETTER VII.

I am, &c.

Of the Things that Mr. Evanson objects to, as unworthy of our Saviour, in the Gospel of Matthew.

DEAR SIR,

I RESERVE for this Letter the consideration of another class of improbabilities that Mr. Evanson finds in the discourses of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, they being, in his opinion, such as neither Matthew, nor any other person who really heard our Lord's discourses, could have related of him.

1. According to Matthew, (xii. 39,) Jesus declared to the Pharisees, who demanded of him a sign from heaven, that no sign should be given to that generation, "but the sign of the prophet Jonas ;" for that," as Jonas was three days and three nights" in the belly of a fish, so he should be "three days and three nights in the earth.”

On this, Mr. Evanson remarks as follows: "The writer usually called St. Matthew, without the least reason or propriety, makes this similitude between Jonas and our Saviour to consist in the time that the former was in the whale's belly, and the latter in the grave; but if the fabulous interpolation of the two first chapters of the book of Jonah (to which Mendelsohn, the late learned Jew of Berlin,† assures us, no reasonable Jew ever pays the least regard) could be true, yet whosoever compares the geographical situation of Nineveh with respect to the Mediterranean Sea, will be convinced that nothing transacted upon that sea could fall under the notice of the inhabitants of Nineveh, nor, consequently, be any sign to them at all." Again, he says, "At verse 40, the author, not understanding our Lord's

See Vol. XIII. p. 381.

"See the letter prefixed to his dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul." Dissonance, p. 74, Note.

Ibid. pp. 74, 75. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 101, 102. VOL. XX.

2 E