Of the arbitrary proceeding of Mr. Evanfon in making the gospel of Luke his ftandard, by which to examine the other Gofpels.

DEAR SIR,

HAVING replied, as far as I have thought necessary, to all the objections that Mr. Evanfon has made to the authenticity of the Gofpels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and to that of feveral of the epiftles univerfally deemed canonical, I am tempted to give you one letter more, to fhew you how easy it is to make fuch objections; and with how little reafon Mr. Evanfon has fixed upon the Gospel of Luke as his ftandard, by which to try all the others.

Had Mr. Evanfon been previously disposed to object to the Gospel of Luke, as he was with refpect to thofe of Matthew, Mark, and John, he would, I doubt not, have found as little difficulty in the business; and his ingenuity would have exhibited the paffages he objected to in a light equally ridiculous. This I fhall not attempt to do for him. I should feel an invincible reluctance to it. But I fhall just mention a few circumstances of the kind, to fhew that there is no real difference in the feveral

evangelifts

evangelifts in this respect. They are equally entitled to our highest respect, though, from their peculiar circumstances, equally open to fuperficial and unreasonable cavils.

The quantity of interpolation that Mr. Evanfon fuppofes in the Gospel of Luke makes it a little better than a fpurious work. He intimates a fufpicion, that befides the two firft chapters of introduction, the story of the demon going into the swine *, the circumftance

* Mr. Evanfon thinks the ftory of the demon's going into the herd of fwine an interpolation in the Gospel of Luke, chiefly because, if it be admitted to be genuine, Jefus will be found on the eaft fide of the fea of Galilee, p. 27, "without the flight"eft infinuation of having croffed the lake. If," fays he, p. 28, this very exceptionable miracle be an interpolation, " and not part of the original writing of St. Luke, the narra"tive proceeds confiftently and regularly: but if it be taken as "authentic, there is fuch a geographical confufion and diforder

in this part of the hiftory, as occurs no where else in this au"thor's works; and fuch as can neither be allowed nor indeed "fuppofed in an hiftorian, who writing upon a subject of the "greatest importance, fets out with profeffing to write accu"rately and in order."

Now all this fuppofed confufion arifes from nothing more than the evangelift omitting to fay in what manner Jefus and his difciples came to that defert place. Had he faid by fea, there would have been no room for the objection, and surely a mere omiffion implies no contradiction. It is remarkable that all the other evangelifts particularly mention the paffage to this defert place by sea, so that if Mr. Evanfon, without confidering their writings as authentic, had only read them as ancient books which might occafionally supply a commentary on the Gospel

3

of

ftance of Jefus promifing the thief on the crofs to be with him in paradife that night, and the account of the transfiguration, that of the genealogy of Jefus, of the temptation, and of his baptism, are all interpolations. "It well deferves our notice," he fays, note, p. 55, "that if we pafs from the ac"count of John's imprisonment by Herod, c. iii. 20, "to c. iv. 14, and read, Then came Jefus, inftead of, "and Jefus returned, the histories both of John and "Jefus proceed regularly and in order; and the

сс

ministry of the Meffiah, as is most probable, com"menced upon the ceffation of the Baptift's minif"try by his being fhut up in prifon. But if the ac"count of our Lord's being baptized by John is "genuine, Herod's imprisoning the latter is re"lated very much out of its proper order, and St. "Luke has given us no date for the commencement "of our Lord's miniftry, though he has been fo

of Luke, he would have had his great difficulty removed. Matthew fays, xiv. 13, When Jefus heard of it, viz. the death of John the Baptift, he departed thence by fhip into a defert place privately. Mark fays, vi. 32, And they departed into a defert place by ship privately. John vi. 1, After these things Jefus went over the fea of Galilee, which is the fea of Tiberias. But Luke fays

the fame in effect. For he says, ix. 10, And he took them and went afide privately into a desert place belonging to the city of Beth'faida; which being on the east fide of the lake, clearly implies that they croffed the fea. How natural is it to remark that this variety in expreffing the fame thing proves that all these writers wrote from their own knowledge, without any communication with each other; and that John, though he might have feen the other Gofpels, did not copy them?

" particularly

પ

particularly exact in fixing the date of the com"mencement of John's preaching. Befides John "was fent only to prepare the people for the recep<tion of the Meffiah and his new covenant, by

preaching to them the baptifm of repentance for the remiffion of fins; and (to say nothing of the bodily fhape like a dove, which favours strongly of the fuperstition of the second century) with what propriety could he, who knew no fin, receive fuch a baptifm? or the deftined Meffiah attend the "preaching of his own precurfor to be prepared by "him for the coming of himself? And what probability is there, that our Lord would have ftudi"ously avoided calling himself the Son of God dur"ing his whole ministry, and forbidden his difci

ples before his death to announce him as fuch to "the Jews, if God himself had miraculously declar"ed him to be fo by a voice from heaven, in the "audience of fo great a multitude? Or how could

John, after fuch an atteftation, have ever enter"tained a doubt whether Jefus was the expected "Meffiah?" Rather than fuppofe fo many interpolations, which other perfons are at liberty to extend to other articles, as much as Mr. Evanfon was to extend it to thefe, it would have been more in his manner to have treated this Gospel as he has done the other three, and have confidered them all as equally fabrications of the fecond century. For fo much interpolation makes it a work as little to be depended upon, and as unfafe to quote.

Had

Had Mr. Evanfon taken it for granted that Luke wrote the two first chapters of his Gofpel, as, with much less reafon, he has done, that the writer of Matthew's Gospel did the two firft of his, he would have found many more improbabilities in them, efpecially thofe that I have noted in what I have written on the fubject of the miraculous conception. He would, with his farcaftic turn, have treated with unbounded contempt the whole ftory of the conception and birth of John the Baptift, the speech of the angel Gabriel, the exclamation of Elizabeth on the visit of Mary, the prophecy of Zacharias, as well as thofe of Simeon and Anna, the ftory of the fhepherds, and the account of the taxing by Cyrenius, which is clearly inconfiftent with the hiftory of Jofephus, &c. &c. &c.

If Mr. Evanfon had pitched upon the Gospel of Matthew as his standard, he would have condemned the genealogy of Jefus in Luke, as inconfiftent with that of the other evangeliit. He might have faid that the history of the call of Levi, Luke v. 27, muft have arifen from fome mistake, as the writer has not informed his reader, either there, or in his enumeration of the twelve apoftles afterwards, that he was the fame perfon with Matthew. The ftory of Jairus he would have faid is evidently misplaced, and the whole order of events difarranged. But what is of much more confequence, and betrays the want of information in a writer who pretends to the greatcft circumfpection, is his account of the refur

rection