ing, they would not, in this case, be disposed to think that he could mean a literal death, or a literal resurrection.

That Mr. Evanson interprets too rigorously the Jewish mode of fixing the termination of day and night is to me very evident; and that, in a familar way of speaking, the Jews would say that the day ended with day-light, and that it began with the day-break, Dr. Lardner has sufficiently proved.

Such are the glaring contradictions between Matthew and Luke, sufficient, in Mr. Evanson's opinion, to invalidate the testimony of the former, and authorize us to conclude that the Gospel ascribed to him could not be written by him, by any person of the apostolic age, or by any credible witness. whatever. You, Sir, however, I imagine, will now be of a very different opinion.

I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

Of the Ignorance and Inconsistencies that Mr. Evanson imagines he has discovered in the Gospel according to Matthew.

DEAR SIR,

LET us now see what Mr. Evanson has to object to the Gospel of Matthew with respect to his ignorance of what, as an apostle and an eye-witness, he ought to have known.

1. Had there been any considerable mistake with respect to geography in the Gospel of Matthew, it must have been discovered by Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and other learned Christians in early times, who actually lived in, or frequently visited, the country. But as neither they, nor any other of the ancients, have noticed any thing of the kind, either by way of illustration, or in answer to unbelievers, we may safely conclude that no such inaccuracies exist.

Mr. Evanson, however, finds "in the fourth chapter, vers. 13, 14, 15, another remarkable instance of this author's very imperfect knowledge of the geography of Palestine, which cannot be supposed of any native of the country; as well as another direct contradiction to the much more probable account given us by Luke. As if he imagined the city Nazareth was not as properly in Galilee, as Capernaum was, (which, indeed, seems implied also in the second chapter, where he tells us Joseph went aside,' not into Galilee, but into the

parts or coasts of Galilee,') he informs us, that after John's imprisonment our Saviour departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum,' in order to fulfil a saying of Isaiah's respecting the country beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the Gentiles. Now to Isaiah, or any inhabitant of Judea, the country beyond must be the country east of Jordan, as Gaulonitis or Galilee of the Gentiles is well known to have been, whereas Capernaum was a city on the western side of the lake of Gennesaret, through which the Jordan flows."*

I have nothing to do with the defence of the two first chapters of this Gospel, nor should Mr. Evanson have taken it for granted that they were written by the author of the rest of the Gospel of Matthew. But it is evident that the phrase "into the parts, or coasts of Galilee," means the extreme parts of the country so called; and in this situation Capernaum was. And by the phrase "beyond Jordan," Bishop Pearce has shewn that we are to understand the country contiguous to the river, ton whichever side it was. Palestine comprised the country on both sides of this river, and the same part that was on the West side, with respect to some of the inhabitants, would to others be on the East, and vice versâ. The prophecy of Isaiah certainly respects the whole of Galilee, both the parts contiguous to Jordan, and those that were not; for they were all exposed to the invasion of the Assyrians.

2. Mr. Evanson continues his charge of ignorance of the geography of Palestine on the author of the Gospel of Matthew, &c. by adding that he speaks of Decapolis, "not only as a particular country, or province, but as a country which did not lie eastward of the Jordan, because he expressly distinguishes it from the country beyond Jordan: and the writer called St. Mark, speaking of the same Decapolis, (ch. vii. 3,) more than insinuates that it was a country lying northwest of the Sea of Galilee."‡ And because "no such country as Decapolis is once mentioned by any other writer of either Testament," because Josephus does not "once mention the name before Vespasian was governor of Syria, and then only says that 'Scythopolis was the largest city of

* Dissonance, pp. 131, 132. (P.) · Ed. 2, p. 164.

"He only says," replies Mr. Evansou, "that in order to make the Gospels of Matthew and John consistent with probability and geographical truth, the prepo sition must be so understood in three or four passages of those writings, and not according to its usual acceptation." Letter, p. 55. See Vol. XIII. p. 65. Dissonance, p. 133. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 165, 166.

Decapolis:"" and because this district is not mentioned in any division of the country by the Romans, "it is natural," Mr. Evanson thinks, "to conclude that for some particular motives the Romans had been induced to annex ten Jewish cities to the government of Syria; and that before that period the very name Decapolis did not exist."*

From these circumstances, and others of no more weight than these, Mr. Evanson says, "that to talk of any person's going to or coming from the Decapolis, without specifying which of the ten cities is meant, is to use a language devoid of meaning and perfectly unintelligible and to speak of it as a province, like Galilee or Trachonitis, and as being situated north-west of the Sea of Galilee, is to betray an ignorance of the geography of Palestine too gross to be attributed to any native of that country; and shews that the authors were not primitive disciples of Jesus Christ, but writers of a much later date, who, being personally unacquainted with the country, adopted a term they had heard applied to it, whose signification they did not understand."†

Now it is a sufficient justification of Matthew's distinguishing Decapolis, from the country beyond, or contiguous to, Jordan, that the greatest part of this district was not near Jordan, but to the east of the Sea of Galilee. That the term Decapolis was not known at the time in which Matthew and Mark wrote, viz. A. D. 64, is a mere conjecture of Mr. Evanson's from a circumstance that affords no foundation for it. And if Josephus gives this district this appropriate name, in treating of the Jewish war, which immediately succeeded the writing of the Gospels, which he does in several passages, where can be the improbability of its having that name in their time? The term may not occur in any general division of the country by the Romans, because it was but a small territory, comprehended in one of the larger ones. Besides, if the Romans did remove these ten cities from one jurisdiction to another, (for which Mr. Evanson produces no authority at all,) it is rather probable that they had before this time, for some reason or other, been classed together, and had obtained this common appellation.

That this was the case seems evident from a passage in the life of Josephus, written by himself. Addressing himself to one Justus, who had accused him and the Galileans of being the authors of the war, he says, "For before I was appointed governor of Galilee,—both thou, and all the peo• Dissonance, pp. 133-136. Ed. 2, pp. 166-169. † Ibid. pp. 136, 137. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 169, 170.

ple of Tiberias, had not only taken up arms, but had made war with Decapolis of Syria. Nor is it I only who say this, but so it is written in the Commentaries of Vespasian the emperor, as also how the inhabitants of Decapolis came clamouring to Vespasian at Ptolemais.” * Is it not natural to infer from this, that Decapolis was no new term in geography, but rather one of long standing?

The term Decapolis being used by Josephus without any explanation, shews that, in his time, it was well known, and needed no explanation, which otherwise he would naturally have added, and have said the ten cities situated so and so.

3. Mr. Evanson taxes the author of the Gospel of Matthew with great ignorance, in not distinguishing between Judea and the country "beyond Jordan." "It should be observed, also, that in the introduction to this curious discourse, the writer again betrays the grossest ignorance of the geography of the country; for he says it passed when our Saviour 'leaving Galilee, came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; though the Jordan was the eastern boundary of both the Jewish and Roman province of Judea, and consequently no part of it was beyond the Jordan." + But if no other writer should be found who has called all the country belonging to the Jews south of Samaria by the name of Judea, to distinguish it from Galilee, which was to the north, this inattention to geographical accuracy is of no great magnitude.

But it cannot well be doubted that by Judea was meant all the southern part of the country possessed by the Jews, on both sides the Jordan, by Luke himself, as well as the other writers of the New Testament; as when our Saviour says, Luke xxi. 21, "Let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains;" Acts i. 8: "Ye shall be witnesses to me-in all Judea," and ix. 31: "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea," &c. &c. It cannot be supposed that, in these passages, the country "beyond Jordan" was considered by the writer as excluded, when it was in the very same circumstances with the country on this side of it.

* Section 65. (P.) Whiston's Translation, (p. 679,) who refers to Sect. 74, where he translates, "When Vespasian was come to Ptolemais, the chief men of Decapolis of Syria made a clamour against Justus of Tiberias, because he had set their villages on fire." (P. 683.) Whiston also translates, War, (iii. 9, 7,) that Vespasian "sent away his son Titus to Cesarea, that he might bring the army that lay there to Scythopolis, which is the largest city in Decapolis." Mr. Evanson contends, except in this "one case," that "the original has the ten cities, and that Josephus never uses the term Decapolis." Letter, p. 56.

↑ Dissonance, p. 169. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 209.

4..." As to the account of the transfiguration," Mr. Evanson says, "it is so absolutely contradictory to the repeated doctrine of the gospel, that Jesus was the first man whom God raised from the dead, that it cannot be a true authentic story. For whatever may be thought of Elias, Moses, we are expressly assured, died and was buried."*

The history of the transfiguration is attested by Peter and Luke, as well as by Matthew and Mark; so that Mr. Evanson might as well reject any other part of the gospel history; and I own I can have no opinion of any man's judgment who can decide on a subject of this consequence in so very arbitrary and unwarrantable a manner; his objection to the story is so trifling. Christ is, no doubt, called [1 Cor. xv. 20] "the first-fruits from the dead," and I believe he was so. But suppose that, strictly speaking, he had not been so, and that Paul, who said it, had not at the time attended to the circumstance of Moses, as well as Elias, appearing to Jesus, nothing would have followed but the supposition of a slight inadvertence in the writer, which would have been far more probable than that of such a story as that of the transfiguration, related by three evangelists, and attested by Peter, not being true. If Mr. Evanson object to all these authorities, he has at least the difficulty of accounting for the writings which bear their names being forged. But it does not follow that Moses ever died, merely because the author of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, who could not know the fact, thought so. Nobody was present when Moses died, nor could the place of his burial be found, and he went up to the mountain in full health and vigour. The Jews naturally supposed that Moses died, as Aaron did before him, though he might be translated, as Elijah was; and this I am inclined to believe was the case.

5. Matthew, giving an account of Jesus being followed by great multitudes, when the Pharisees had held a council to destroy him, says, (xii. 16,) that he "charged them that they should not make him known." This Mr. Evanson calls an "unreasonable absurdity."§ Indeed, the injunction appears not likely to have any effect. But we cannot, at this distance, pretend to judge of all the circumstances of the story,

• Dissonance, p. 56, Note. (P.) Omitted Ed. 2, p. 81.

+ Mr. Evanson considers "this objection-still farther strengthened by another difficulty suggested in the very same note. For in this story of the transfiguration, as well as in that of the baptism of Jesus, he is miraculously called the Son of God before his death; though till after that event he always disclaimed that title, calling himself only Son of Man, as he really was." Letter, p. 58.

See Vol. XI. p. 302.

§ Dissonance, p. 153. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 190, 191.