both; and that, therefore, common sense and reason require them, at least, to reject as false and spurious, either this Gospel attributed to St. John, or both the Gospels attributed to the other two." But all that can fairly be inferred from this difference is, as has been observed by the earliest writers, either that John was better acquainted with the circumstances of the early history of Jesus than the other evangelists, or, that they having omitted the mention of them, he thought proper to relate them. 4. Mr. Evanson lays great stress on the difference between Matthew and John with respect to John the Baptist knowing Jesus, or not knowing him, previous to his baptizing him. "Let us bring the whole," he says, "to the proposed test; observing, by the way, a gross contradiction between this writer and the pretended Matthew, at the very outset; for, chap. i. 32, he tells us, that John the Baptist declared he did not know Jesus to be the destined Messiah till he saw the Holy Spirit descending on him; whereas the Gospel of St. Matthew, iii. 14, informs us, that he knew him as soon as he came to him; and, at first, refused to baptize him, Saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?' Yet still the orthodox receive both these Gospels for the genuine works of apostles, and believe both these contradictory assertions to be truth, and even the inspired word of God !!!"+ What the orthodox believe about inspiration is no concern of mine, or of Mr. Evanson's. He might just as well have taken this opportunity of exclaiming against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. All that I have to observe is, that two original writers might differ as much as these without giving any just grounds for arraigning the authenticity of the works of either of them. I prefer the account of John, who I believe had seen that of Matthew, and, as having been a disciple of the Baptist, he had a better opportunity of being acquainted with the real circumstances of the transaction. 5. There is another difference between the Gospel of John and that of Luke, on which Mr. Evanson likewise lays great stress. It relates to the call of Peter and some other disciples, to follow Jesus. In my opinion the two different accounts may, without much difficulty, be reconciled. Nothing, however, would follow from the difference being irreconcileable, but that one of them (and the probability * Dissonance, p. 227. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 274, 275. VOL. XX. § Luke v. 3-11; John i. 35. 2 F will be in favour of John) was better informed concerning the early part of the history of Jesus than the other; and the narrative of John is remarkably circumstantial in this case. But it is by no means certain that all the twelve apostles always accompanied Jesus before their appointment to that office. As it is then only said, that they might be with him, it is probable that before this time they had not always been with him. Peter therefore might have become a disciple of Jesus in Judea, as John says he did, but, returning to his occupation, might have a second and more particular call at the Sea of Galilee afterwards. 6. Mr. Evanson, making the greatest account of prophecy, is much offended at the Gospel of John, as not containing any, though he did not think the better of those of Matthew or Mark for having as much of this internal evidence as that of Luke. "As to what," he says, "is the grand internal testimony of authenticity, indispensably necessary in every scripture which contains the history of a supernatural revelation, predictions of future events verified by their actual completion, after all that we have already seen of this writer, to find such evidence in his work, peculiar to himself, would be as unaccountable and wonderful as any of the extraordinary miracles with which he has endeavoured to astonish the ignorant credulity of the second century; but though, with a degree of circumstantial minuteness which no writer of credit would have pretended to, he has reported with verbal exactness the discourses not of Jesus only, but of John the Baptist also, to his particular disciples, at the distance of, at least, thirty-six years after they were uttered, and some of them of very considerable length; he has not thought fit to introduce any thing which can with propriety be deemed a prophecy."* But is it necessary that every true history, or every canonical book of scripture, should contain a prophecy? What prophecy of consequence is there in the Acts of the Apostles? John, having seen the other Gospels, had no occasion to repeat the prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Mr. Evanson, instead of being impressed with the circumstantial minuteness of the narrative of John respecting the Baptist, (which, if it had occurred in Luke, would have been decisive with him in favour of his having been present at the transactions,) notices it here as a certain mark of imposture; » Dissonance, pp. 249, 250. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 299, 300. no person in his opinion being able to retain so many particulars in memory. But surely the circumstances of a thing of such great importance as the preaching of the Baptist, whose disciple this apostle had been, and which it is proba ble he had, in the course of his preaching, related a thousand times, would never be lost from his recollection. 7. Mr. Evanson, however, acknowledges one prophecy in the Gospel of John, but he cavils at it on account of the enigmatical manner in which it is expressed, though all the prophecies in his favourite book of Revelation are delivered in as figurative and enigmatical a manner. Because Jesus said, "Destroy this temple," meaning his body, "and in three days I will raise it up," Mr. Evanson says, "It makes our Lord assure them, that though dead, he would raise himself up, whereas all the other apostles, and even John himself, (for he was in company with, and therefore agreed with Peter, Acts iii. 5,) unanimously asserted, that it was not himself, but God who raised him from the dead."† But though, the better to conceal his meaning, Jesus said, that if the temple was destroyed he would raise it again, he evidently only meant that it would be raised again, and by that power by which all his miraculous works (which to appearance proceeded from himself) were really performed. He was in no danger of being understood to say that a dead man could do any thing, and much less raise himself to life. Whoever the author of this Gospel was, it is plain that he. fully understood this to be the meaning of the expression. 6 8. Mr. Evanson equally cavils at what Jesus is represented by John as saying concerning the privileges of those who should believe and obey his Gospel, in not being subject to death. "In chap. viii. 51, our Lord is represented as saying, Verily, verily, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death; or, as it is repeated in the next verse, shall never taste of death;' and again, xi. 25, 26, he not only says, He who believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,' but also, Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.' What meaning could the writer have in such absurd and groundless predictions as these? St. Paul, as well as daily experience, assures us, that in Adam, in our human nature, all men die, and we know that our Lord himself, his apostles, and all his most faithful disciples, died, or, in the words of the author, have seen or tasted of death; * John ii. 19. See Vol. XIII. p. 279. ↑ Dissonance, pp. 250, 251. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 300, 301. and if we should suppose, that he only intended to insinuate that, on account of the certainty of the resurrection of his disciples, their natural death was not to be accounted dying; yet still, according to this author himself, the quibble would hold as truly of the most profligate unbeliever as of those who believed on him; for, chap. v. 28, 29, he says, The hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.'"* When what a person says cannot be literally true, it is candid (as no man writes without some meaning) to suppose that he speaks figuratively. And Mr. Evanson certainly knew that by never dying some interpreters suppose our Lord meant not dying for ever, and others, that in this expression he referred to the case of those who will be found alive at his second coming, of whom Paul says, that they shall not die, but be changed. Had the expression occurred in Luke, Mr. Evanson would have found no difficulty at all in it; or if he had, he would have supposed it to be an interpolation, and not to affect the authenticity of the work in general. 9. In another passage also, Mr. Evanson cavils at the manner in which, according to this evangelist, our Saviour chose to express himself, when his real meaning, interpreted by the analogy of scripture language, was sufficiently clear. When, after our Lord's resurrection, he is represented as breathing on his apostles, as an emblem of their receiving the Holy Spirit, or breath, he, " at the same time, (0, impious falsehood!) gave them power to remit or retain any person's sins." On this subject he expatiates more at large: "The very nature of the gospel covenant, as well as the whole history of Peter and the other apostles, shew us, that neither he nor any of them had the power of forgiving or retaining sins; and that neither the whole college of apostles, nor even Jesus Christ himself, ever have been or will be able (if it were possible to suppose them willing) to admit one vicious, unreformed person into, nor to exclude one virtuous, benevolent man out of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed the whole conversation, of which this prophecy [Matt. xvi. 18, 19] makes a part, is so exceedingly different from that which St. Luke tells us our Saviour held on the * Dissonance, pp. 252, 253. Ed. 2, pp. 302, 305. + Ibid. p. 239. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 288. same occasion, that it cannot be entitled to any degree of credit, except with those who think fit rather to reject the Gospel of St. Luke."* Now what is there to shock Mr. Evanson so much in this? Did not Jesus pronounce the sins of the paralytic person, whom he healed at Capernaum, to be forgiven, even according to his favourite evangelist Luke? (v. 20.) And whatever be meant by the expression, Mr. Evanson will not deny but that it was as impious in Jesus as in the apostles, since he considers him as equally a human being, having no powers but what he received from God. Also, whatever power Jesus had, he transferred it to the apostles. With Mr. Evanson, therefore, I have no occasion to enter any farther into the explanation of our Lord's meaning in this language, whether it signified the cure of diseases, or distinguishing the characters of men. "In 10. With as little reason Mr. Evanson is.offended at the language of our Saviour to the woman of Samaria. chap. iv. 21, the author makes our Saviour say to the Samaritan woman, Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.' Had the words been, that, under the new covenant, God should no longer be worshipped there with sacrifices and oblations, they would have been true, and of the same import with many other passages both of the Old and New Testament; but in the indefinite sense in which they are here used, nothing can be falser; for Christianity teaches men to worship God both at Jerusalem and Samaria, and in every place upon the globe."† Could Mr. Evanson really think that the writer of this book, whoever he was, meant to represent our Saviour as saying the time would come when God would not be worshipped at all, neither at Jerusalem, nor yet on Mount Gerizim? No writer could entertain so absurd an idea. Mr. Evanson, therefore, must have known that the words had some other meaning. And what is more natural than to suppose, that, since the question between Jesus and the woman was about the one place in which God would be worshipped, in preference to all others, under the old dispensation, such as Jerusalem had been, that in the gospel dispensation there would be no such place for all true worshippers, neither at Jerusalem nor in Samaria. That God Dissonance, p. 209. (P.) Ed. 2. 252. ↑ Ibid. p. 251. (P.) Ed. 2. p. 301. |