and some of them might make it more probable than we may now imagine. However, it is such a circumstance as a person who did not write from his knowledge of the fact would hardly have introduced into his narrative; so that it is far from answering Mr. Evanson's purpose, of representing the Gospel of Matthew as a spurious work, of a late date.* 6. A man must have a very strong propensity to cavil who can object to several of the miracles recorded in Matthew's Gospel, as Mr. Evanson does in the following passage: "In reviewing the miracles of Jesus recorded by this writer, we find most of them, like those of St. Luke, works of mercy and benevolence; only he relates more of them, and with a view, no doubt, to aggrandize the miracle, it is observable, that he frequently doubles the object or the malady to be healed, making two where St. Luke mentions but one; or making the demoniac, that St. Luke tells us was dumb, both blind and dumb also. But there are a few of a very different kind related by this author, of which St. Luke makes not the least mention; those are, ch. xiv., our Saviour's walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee, in the night time, to overtake his disciples, whom he had 'constrained to get into a ship to go before him unto the other side,' though as the ship was detained by contrary winds in the midst of the sea, till he came to them, their embarking seems to have answered no end, except the display of his supernatural power in this singular miracle; and his curing all the maladies of the people of Gennesaret, by letting them only touch the hem of his garment; ch. xvii., his paying tribute at Capernaum, by directing Peter to take the required piece of money out of a fish's mouth, where the miracle is rendered the more wonderful by the fish's being able to hold the money fast in its mouth till Peter took it out, though it was caught and pulled up with a hook and line; and, ch. xxi., the cursing the fig-tree because he found no fruit on it, wherewith to mitigate his hunger. Whether such miracles as these are suitable to the character of Jesus Christ; and whether it be any disparagement to the Gospel according to St. Luke, that they are not to be found in it, I leave to the candid reader to determine."t I see nothing deserving of a particular answer in all this. Only I cannot help observing the different impression that Of this remark Mr. Evanson takes no notice, but contents himself with saying, "To article 5, the Doctor himself acknowledges he knows not what to answer." Letter, p. 58. + Dissonance, pp. 206, 207. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 249, 250. the same images make on different minds. What Mr. Evanson treats with contempt, as absolutely incredible, I look upon with reverence, and without the least disposition. to incredulity. Nor do I think it becomes a serious mind to treat things held sacred by so many persons with such indecent levity. 7. Among many extraordinary things in this work of Mr. Evanson's, is his objecting to the Gospel of Matthew [iii. 2], on account of the writer of it appearing to him to contradict the account of Luke with respect to the time of the commencement of" the kingdom of heaven," or the gospel dispensation, in consequence of his representing John the Baptist as preaching that "the kingdom of heaven was at hand." "If," says he, "this account were true, then Jesus and his apostles could not be the first preachers of the gospel; for these are the very words they use to announce the commencement of the gospel covenant to the Jews; but St. Luke informs us, not only in the parallel place of his first history, [iii. 3,] but also in the speech of St. Paul, related Acts xix. 4, that John only preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and since our Saviour tells the Jews, (Luke xvi. 16,) that the law and the prophets, that is, the Mosaic covenant, subsisted until John; but that since John's time, the new covenant of the kingdom of God was preached; we may be certain that John's mission was only preparatory to that of Jesus; and that Jesus was the first promulger of the gospel covenant, and of the supersession of the old covenant, by the commencement of the kingdom of God, or, as this author. calls it, the kingdom of heaven, in the world. This passage therefore is one, and as we proceed, there will be occasion to point out several other proofs that the writer of this history, whoever he was, did not understand the phrase kingdom of God, or of heaven, in the sense in which only it is used by our Lord himself in the prayer he taught his disciples, by St. Luke, and by every other primitive preacher of the gospel."* Admitting that "the kingdom of God" properly commenced with the preaching of Jesus, John did not precede him so far, but that he might with strict truth say, that this kingdom was at hand. Besides, our Saviour himself used the same language, as if the proper commencement of this kingdom was at some distance; and, according to his own account, this kingdom does not commence before he will come from heaven with power and great glory. Conse • Dissonance, pp. 129-131. Ed. 2, pp. 161, 162. quently, with respect to the preaching of Jesus, as well as that of John, the kingdom of God was a future event, and therefore they might both very properly use the same language respecting it. In another place Mr. Evanson cavils at Matthew, [xiii. 24,] for representing our Saviour as comparing the kingdom of heaven to "a man who sowed good seed in his field." "What idea," he says, "must this writer have formed to himself of the meaning of the kingdom of heaven, that he could think of likening it to an husbandman? The king. dom of heaven, or, as it is always called by other writers, of God, or of Christ, as that phrase is used by Jesus in the prayer he taught his disciples, by Luke, Paul, and John in the Apocalypse, uniformly signifies, as I have before observed, the dutiful state of submission and obedience of mankind to the terms of the new covenant of the gospel: and what similitude can there be between such a state of the world and the husbandman in this parable?"* the But is there nothing in this beautiful parable representing "the kingdom of heaven," if, in any sense, this kingdom means the gospel, when the corruptions introduced into it are so happily described by the sowing of tares among wheat? But it will not, I apprehend, be very easy for Mr. Evanson to prove that he has entertained a just idea of the kingdom of heaven, which, according to Daniel, by whom it was first announced, will not take place before the destruction of the present kingdoms of this world, though the preaching of the gospel, as preparing the way for it, may, in a sufficiently proper sense, be so called.† Mr. Evanson, indeed, says, " By the writer's giving that appellation to the future existence of the virtuous in a state of happiness and immortality in heaven, it is manifest that, whoever he was, he did not understand our Saviour's meaning in that expression so frequently used by him, and so peculiar to his gospel; for, besides that no other writer of the New Testament uses it in that sense, the obvious meaning of the second petition of the Lord's Prayer, and of all the prophecies of both Testaments relating to the Messiah, or Christ, makes it refer merely to the state of human affairs in the present world, and not to that future state which is to succeed the general resurrection: and instead of teaching us, like this parable, that sin and wickedness will continue amongst men to the end of this world, all the other scrip Dissonance, p. 158. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 196, 197. tures assure us, that the very purpose of the mission of Christ and the preaching his gospel is to eradicate and put an end to the growth of these tares of vice and iniquity; and that the reformed state of mankind in the present world, under the universal influence of the righteousness and moral virtue of the gospel, is what is peculiarly denominated the kingdom of God, or of his Christ. Who, then, can believe that an apostle of Jesus Christ could either be so ignorant of the great end and design of the gospel, or so culpably daring as to put into the mouth of our blessed Saviour a doctrine so absurdly false and impious as is taught us in this parable, and so directly contradictory to every idea given us of the new covenant of the Messiah by all the other sacred writers, whether Jews or Christians?" Matthew, he says, "since he considered all the professed Christians of his own time to be called, and was sensible that but few of them, in comparison of the whole number, were really virtuous, good men; and ignorantly supposed, that such would be the state of the Christian religion to the end of the world; it was natural for him to conclude, that those whom God would finally approve at the day of judgment, would be very few indeed. But had he been an apostle of Jesus Christ, or had he understood the gospel meaning of the kingdom of God, or the sense of the old prophecies respecting the state of the world under the new covenant of the Messiah, he would have known, that no immoral, bad man could be a member of the true church of Christ, whatever his profession might be, and that, therefore, the whole congregation of faithful Christians are denominated the chosen or elect of God; and instead of their being found to be few at the day of general judgment and retribution, he would have known also, that the very end and design of the religion of Jesus Christ is to bless all the families of the earth with the happy effects of its moral influence in the present life; and that, when the marriage of the king's son really takes place, righteousness will overspread the earth as completely as the waters cover the sea." On the same account, Mr. Evanson objects to the first parable of the ten virgins in the twentyfifth chapter of Matthew. "Here again," he says, "we have a just representation of the state of mankind in general, under every other system of religion; but not at all suited to the circumstances that are predicted of the world, under the gospel covenant, when it is become the kingdom Dissonance, pp. 160-162. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 199-201. Ibid. pp. 175, 176. Ed. 2, pp. 216, 217. of God. This parable, therefore, is another proof that the writer either did not comprehend, or, at least, did not believe the universal, moral reformation of that prophetic state of man in the present life; and, consequently, that he was not an apostle of Jesus Christ."* Now it happens unfortunately for Mr. Evanson, that Luke himself, in a discourse ascribed by him to our Saviour, gives countenance to the idea of the great prevalence of unbelief, and, consequently, as we must suppose, of vice and wickedness, before his second coming. For he makes him say, (xviii. 8,) "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith in the earth?"† It is easy to shew that, according to Luke, as well as the other evangelists, the proper "kingdom of God," or of Christ, is something different from that mere prevalence of virtue in which Mr. Evanson supposes it to consist, though this will accompany it, and be promoted by it; and also that the commencement of it was posterior to the preaching of Christ. When the disciples expected, (xix. 11,)" that the kingdom of God would immediately appear," Jesus recited the parable of "a certain nobleman," who "went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return," and he did not receive the kingdom till his return. In the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which was not to take place before forty years after his death, Jesus tells his disciples, (xxi. 31,) that when they should see certain things come to pass," they were to "know that the kingdom of God" was only "nigh at hand;" and the commencement of this kingdom is there denoted (ver. 27) by "the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory." In this kingdom the apostles are to reign with Christ. xxii. 29, 30: "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as the Father has appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This is certainly a very different kingdom from what Mr. Evanson imagines that of Christ to be; and because the writer of the Gospel of Matthew • Dissonance, p. 179. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 220. + See Vol. XIII. p. 258. Mr. Evanson, still contending that " in all the authentic Scriptures the phrase kingdom of God uniformly signifies the establishment of the new covenant of the gospel in the hearts of men," says, " that kingdom could not commence till Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, was constituted the Messiah, Christ, or King of it, which was not till after his resurrection; nor will it be perfected and correspond to the magnificent ideas given of it in all the prophecies, till what is emphatically called our Lord's coming shall take place. In the mean time, as soon as ever the |