meaning about the sign which Jonas was to the Ninevites, as recorded by St. Luke, not only shews that his credulity easily swallowed the fabulous legend of the prophet in the whale's belly; but in order to make out some kind of similitude between his situation there and our Saviour's, tells us, that as Jonas was confined in that extraordinary prison three nights and three days, so the Son of Man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Even this pretended similitude, however, has not one corresponding feature in the two parts; for, in the first place, our Lord was in the grave only one day and two nights; and, in the next, Jonas, according to this incredible story, was alive the whole time, praying to and praising God, whereas Jesus was amongst the dead and buried, of whom the Psalmist says, The dead praise not thee, O Lord, neither they that go down into silence.'"* Mr. Evanson, therefore, greatly prefers the account of Luke, who contents himself with saying, that Jonas was a sign to that generation the real signification of which, he says, was, that as Nineveh was to be destroyed forty days, or years, after the preaching of Jonah, so would the Jews after the same period, if they did not repent.† This, however, is not the interpretation of Luke, who, for any thing Mr. Evanson knows, would have suggested the same idea that Matthew does, if, like him, he had given any explanation of the sign at all, but that of Mr. Evanson's. And though Jonah was alive, and Jesus dead, there was something very remarkable in their continuing in a state so nearly alike, the same space of time. Besides, the proper evidence of the divine mission of Jesus was his resurrection, and not the fulfilment of his prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem; and what the Pharisees demanded of him was a proof of his mission. That the phrase "three days and three nights," only means "the third day," I need not prove to any person acquainted with the Jewish phraseology.+ 2. To the advice of Jesus, not to give "that which is holy unto the dogs," and not to "cast pearls before swine," (Matt. vii. 6,) Mr. Evanson objects in the following extraordinary manner: "In chap. vii. 6, we find a vulgar proverb, antecedent to the mission of Jesus Christ, converted * Dissonance, pp. 153, 154. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 191, 192. † See ibid. pp. 75, 76. Ed. 2, pp. 102, 103. Mr. Evanson, however, contends, that the phrase a night and a day must "signify the whole nucthemeron of twenty-four hours," and refers to 2 Cor. xi. 25. Letter, p. 63. into a precept of the gospel: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.' If these words have any meaning in this place, it must be to prohibit the teaching his holy religion, and propounding the valuable doctrines of the gospel to such profligate, profane, and brutal characters as, it was probable, would only treat their instructions with scorn and contempt, and reward their zeal with persecution and personal violence. Yet such a precept is directly contrary to the wellknown constant practice of our Lord himself and all his apostles, and utterly repugnant to the most explicit, repeated lessons of duty urged upon his disciples on other occasions, the uniform tenor of which is, that in preaching the gospel they must expect and be prepared to endure odium, contempt, and ignominy, and the most cruel persecutions of every kind, even unto death."* On the contrary, our Saviour's direction is such a dictate of prudence as he gave on other occasions, and such as is perfectly right and reasonable in itself. For why should a man expose himself to danger with no prospect of doing any good, but only of receiving harm? Did not Jesus advise his disciples not to expose themselves to persecution unnecessarily, but when they were persecuted in one city, to flee to another; and in general to be "wise as serpents, as well as harmless as doves"? And if Mr. Evanson question the authenticity of the books which contain these precepts, did not both himself and the apostles conduct themselves, on several occasions, according to these maxims? 3. In the beautiful parable of the sower, (Matt. xiii.) which Mr. Evanson says was in part copied from Luke, but with several variations for the worse, † (for which, however, it would be difficult to imagine a motive in a real copier,) Mr. Evanson is particularly offended at our Saviour's saying, (ver. 23,)" He that received seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty;" as if he intended to intimate, that moral improvement depended upon "the intellectual abilities of men ;" and therefore he prefers the account of Luke, who ascribes the improvement to "an honest and good heart. The intellectual abilities of men," he says, "indeed • Dissonance, pp. 148, 149. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 183, 184. ↑ Ibid. p. 155. Ed. 2, p. 194. vary as greatly as the degrees of their bodily strength, but in capacity for moral virtue they are all equal; the weakest and most illiterate may possess as honest and as good a heart as the wisest and most exalted genius that ever lived: the moral virtue of the latter may have a more extensive influence than that of the former, but that difference is merely accidental; his heart cannot be justly represented as a better and more fruitful soil in its proportion, though it might, with propriety, be compared to a more extensive field of equally productive soil, whose produce must, of consequence, be more extensively beneficial."* This appears to me to be mere cavilling, and, indeed, an unfair interpretation of Matthew's language, who evidently distinguishes between understanding the word, (which, however, Mr. Evanson will not deny to be necessary to any improvement of it,) and bearing fruit, by the particle also, as depending upon something else than the mere understanding it, and what that was, required no explanation. Besides, it is usual with the sacred writers to refer all mental excellence to the same seat, viz. the heart. Prov. xxiii. 15: "If thine heart be wise." We are not to expect from them metaphysical exactness. To the parable of the talents, Mr. Evanson objects as follows: "The pretended Matthew, on the contrary, makes him distribute his talents in the most partial, unequal manner; one only to one of his followers, twice as many to another, and five times as many to a third, as he himself expresses it, to every man according to his abilities;' as if the religious instruction of that gospel so peculiarly preached to the poorest and most illiterate, was not equally intelligible to men of all capacities and degrees."+ But is it not a fact that, though the precepts of the gospel be equally intelligible to all persons, some are placed in situations in which they have a better opportunity of improving by it, and of diffusing the knowledge of it to others, besides many other advantages of a different kind, with which the rest of mankind are not favoured? All men have not the abilities, the knowledge, or the leisure, that Mr. Evanson has. But will he say that, in this various distribution of advantages, the Supreme Being is blameably partial? 4. A still more unworthy cavil is what Mr. Evanson objects to what Jesus said about the source of moral defile. ment: "In chapter xv. 11, we have the following curious * Dissonance, p. 157. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 195, 196. Ibid. p. 180. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 221, 222. Not that piece of instruction addressed to the multitude: which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man:' and at ver. 15, this is called a parable. Surely this writer did not consider what constitutes a parable, when he called it by that name; for here is no similitude nor allegorical allusion whatsoever, but a plain didactic aphorism, so very perspicuous, that even the explanation of it, said to be given to the disciples at the request of St. Peter in the 17th and following verses, is not in any degree more intelligible, though much more absurd: for, with what propriety can evil thoughts, murders, and thefts, be said to proceed out of the mouth? Indeed, to say that any thing which proceeds out of the mouth, or even out of the heart, of man, defileth him, is as absurd as it were to say, that the turbid stream which flows from a polluted fountain, defileth the fountain."* If evil By parable, the Jews meant any enigmatical saying. Thus Balaam, who only blessed Israel, and prophesied, is said, (Numb. xxiii. 7,) to have taken up "his parable." Solomon (Prov. xxvi. 7, 9) speaks of "a parable in the mouth of fools." Job also is said (xxvii. 1) to have used parables, when he introduced no comparison. thoughts be expressed in words, they may, surely, be said to come "out of the mouth" of him that delivers them, and to imply impurity in the heart in which they are conceived, which is sufficient to justify the propriety of the language. 5. Mr. Evanson strongly objects to the parable of the king who took an account of his servants (Matt. xviii. 23 -35); but chiefly because, " after an absolute, unconditional forgiveness once granted, to recant that pardon, and enforce the payment of his debt, by the severest penalties, because the man did not shew similar mercy to his own debtor, is downright tyranny and injustice." It is agreeable, however, to the maxims of the Divine government, as expressed in numerous passages of scripture, all the promises, as well as the threatenings of God, being, in fact, conditional, and revocable in case of misbehaviour; so that the lesson is highly important and useful.‡ 6. That our Saviour frequently chose to speak in a figurative and enigmatical manner, perhaps to exercise the *Dissonance, p. 164. ↑ Ibid. p. 166. (P.) (P.) Ed. 2, p. 203. See Vol. XIII. pp. 199–201. Such was his understandings of his hearers, is evident. saying, that some men "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," (Matt. xix. 12,) evidently meaning, their choosing to lead a single life. Mr. Evanson, however, will have this to be understood literally, and on this, grounds the following curious conclusions: "In chap. xix. 12, the author, very inadvertently, puts into the mouth of our Saviour an expression which plainly betrays the age in which this spurious Gospel was written, and the particular sect of apostate Christians which he himself favoured; for in reply to a remark of the disciples upon a pretended condemnation of the divorces allowed by the Mosaic law, our Lord is made to say, that there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.' Now, the prophetic marks of the predicted antichristian apostacy given us by St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3, are, first, that its authors would speak lies in hypocrisy, having a seared conscience; (a character, as far as I am able to judge, strongly and strikingly exemplified in this writer;) and, secondly, that they would forbid marriage, and abstain from meats: in conformity to the last distinguishing character of this early apostacy, this author, as I have before observed, in contradiction, not only to what St. Luke, but to what he himself elsewhere relates as our Saviour's doctrine, makes him give directions for fasting: and, on another occasion, to say that even the miraculous power of God, in curing some kind of demoniacs, could not be efficaciously exerted without prayer and fasting' on the part of the Almighty's agent: and here he clearly discovers to us the second of these prophetic marks, pre-noticed by St. Paul, by making our Saviour approve of a determined, unnatural abstinence from marriage, for the kingdom of heaven's sake. These were the peculiar doctrines of the Encratites or Continentes, a sect which appeared very early in the second century, and amongst whom it is not improbable, that the same madness of superstitious enthusiasm, which soon after led men into hermitages, monasteries, and even to stand for a great length of time in an erect posture on the top of a pillar, might have produced an instance or two of the unnatural self-violence the author speaks of, the very allusion to which convicts him of being a writer later than those instances: but it is absolutely impossible that, in our Saviour's time, almost as soon as the new covenant |