"observed how his body was placed in the fepulchre, "and returned and prepared fpices and ointments to "embalm it with, before the fabbath commenced; " and then refted the fabbath day according to the "commandment. The pretended Matthew, how"ever, tells us, that "when even was come," that is, "when the fabbath was actually begun, Jofeph went "to beg the body, took it down, wrapped it in "linen and buried it; and that Mary Magdalene "and the other Mary were fitting over against the "fepulchre. From the time this writer has thought "fit to allot for the burial of our Saviour, it is evi"dent that he was not only no Jew himself, but fo "ignorant of the customs of the Jews, that he did "not know their day always began with the evening; "or he could never have employed Jofeph in doing "what no Jew would, nor dared, to have done after "the commencement of the fabbath. He takes no "notice at all of the preparation made by the women "c to embalm the body; for that would not have "agreed with the fequel of his truly wonderful story; "but, to make up for that omiffion, he informs us of "a circumftance, with which St. Luke's hiftory "fhews us he was perfectly unacquainted: for he tells "us that "the next day that followed the prepa"ration,”—such is the periphrafis that he uses for "the fabbath day! It is well known that amongst "the Jews it was cuftomary to prepare and set out " in the afternoon of the Friday all the food and ne"ceffaries for every family during the fabbath day, " because

"because they were forbid to light a fire or do any "the most trifling fervile work on that day; and "therefore Friday was very properly called the day "of preparation; but it appears to me next to impoffible, that any Jew, or any other person who had "been accustomed to keep the fabbath as a religious "ordinance, should call the fabbath the day that fol"lowed the preparation: yet this fingular hiftorian fo "denominates it, and goes on to inform us, that the "chief Priefts and Pharifees went to Pilate to afk "for a guard to be placed round the fepulchre till the "third day, to prevent his difciples from stealing away his body and then faying he was rifen from "the dead; and that after obtaining the Governor's permiffion, they went and fecured the fepulchre by fealing the ftone that was rolled against it, and fetting a watch. Here it is wonderful, that the Jewish rulers should, in fo public a manner, thus "violate the precept for obferving the fabbath day;

¢

more wonderful, that they fhould have fo much "better attended to and comprehended the meaning " of our Lord's prediction of his rifing to life again "than any of his own difciples did; and most won"derful, that a Roman Proconful fhould confent to "let his troops keep watch round a tomb, for fear it "fhould be thought that a dead man was come to « life again. But though our author's hiftory of "these extraordinary facts is neither confiftent with " reafon and probability, nor with any other hiftory of the fame event, it proceeds in pretty ftrict con

CL

formity to the manner in which it fets out; for to "convince us still more fully that the author was to

tally ignorant of the mode of computing time in "ufe amongst the Jews and habituated to that ufed

by the Greeks and Romans, he reckons the fab"bath to laft till day-light on the Sunday morning, "and fays c. 28. that "in the end of the fabbath, as "it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” "the two Marys before mentioned came not, as ac

cording to St. Luke, to embalm the body, for, with "a guard round the fepulchre, that must have been impracticable, but to fee the fepulchre."

If by the evening being come Mr. Evanfon could fuppofe fo antient a writer as Matthew to mean at the approach of the evening, but while it was yet day, which is no great latitude of interpretation, his first objection would vanish. But the Jewish evening began at our three in the afternoon, for that was the time of the evening facrifice, and there was time enough between that and fun setting for all that Jofeph is fupposed to have done. Befides, I apprehend the Jews did not keep their fabbath with so much strictnefs as Mr. Evanfon imagines. I have proved him to be mistaken in his opinion that they never feafted on that day; and as they profeffedly performed many works of neceffity on that day, I think it very possible that they would bury a corpfe on it. Neither do I fee that the ftri&teft Pharifees would think it a violation of the reft of the fabbath to apply to Pilate for a guard of the fepulchre. They did not confider

7

either

either walking to a finall distance, or speaking, as a violation of that rest.

That the Pharifees fhould underftand Jefus to mean a literal death, and a literal refurrection, when his disciples did not, appears to me not at all extraordinary; because the disciples of Jesus were in daily expectation of his being advanced to a state of kingly power and dignity; and being accustomed to his figurative and enigmatical way of speaking, they would not, in this case, be disposed to think that he could mean a literal death, or a literal refurrection.

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

Such are the glaring contradictions between Matthew and Luke, fufficient, in Mr. Evanson's opinion, to invalidate the teftimony of the former, and authorife us to conclude that the Gofpel afcribed to him could not be written by him, by any person of the apoftolic age, or by any credible witness whatever. You, Sir, however, I imagine, will now be of a very different opinion.

LETTER VI.

Of the ignorance, and inconfiftencies, that Mr. Evanfon imagines he has difcovered in the Gospel according to Matthew.

DEAR SIR,

LET us now fee what Mr. Evanfon 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 confiderable mistake with respect to Geography in the Gofpel of Matthew, it must have been difcovered by Origen, Eufebius, Jerom, and other learned Chriftians in early times, who actually lived in, or frequently vifited, the country. But as neither they, nor any other of the antients, have noticed any thing of the kind, either by way of illustration, or in answer to unbelievers, we may fafely conclude that no fuch inaccuracies exist.

Mr. Evanson, however, finds " a remarkable in"stance of this author's very imperfect knowledge "of the geography of Palestine, which cannot be

fuppofed of any native of the country." "In the "fourth chapter," p. 131, "verfes 13, 14, 15, we have "another remarkable inftance of the author's very imperfect knowledge of the geography of Palef