stitious practice of anointing with oil, when, being conscious that no effect would be produced by it in this life, they thought it might secure eternal salvation in the next, it will be much later than he seems to imagine, long after the certain existence of both these books. But if he had attended to the accounts of other miracles recorded in the Scriptures, the authenticity of which, I presume, he will not deny, he would have found nothing particular to object to in those of Mark. Did not Moses strike the rock before the water gushed out, though this action might have suggested the idea of the water having previously filled some channel or reservoir, naturally contained in the mountain, and that nothing was wanting but to remove a slight obstruction to its running out?t Did he not throw a branch of a tree into the fountain of bitter waters at Mara, in order to make them fit for drinking? Did not Elisha order Naaman to wash seven times in the river Jordan in order to be cured of his leprosy? And did not Elijah stretch himself upon the dead child, as if he might bring him to life by communicating warmth to it? But suppose our Saviour really meant to give the blind man an idea that he did not cure him by a miracle, but by some medicinal effect of the ointment, what serious objection could be made to his conduct? All that could be said would be, that, in this case, he chose to exert his benevolence without wishing to have it known at the time that the miracle had any other use, his other public miracles being abundantly sufficient to establish his divine mission. 5. Mr. Evanson has two other objections to this Gospel of Mark on the subject of prophecy: "The only prophecies that I have observed peculiar to this Gospel attributed to St. Mark, are, first, chap. x. 30, where he makes our Lord predict, that whosoever hath forsaken houses, lands, or friends, for his sake and the gospel's, shall receive not only eternal life in the world to come, but now in this time the very same articles multiplied an hundred fold, with persecution. As persecution can be exerted only upon a person's property, liberty, or life, it seems inconceivable how possessions of any kind should be so greatly multiplied in a state of perse Exod. xvii. 6. See Vol. XI. p. 155. + Mr. Evanson objects, that "the striking the rock-is recorded as being immediately condemned by the Deity himself." Letter, p. 69. See, on Numb. xx. 12, Vol. XI. p. 249. 1 Mr. Evanson says, this "was no miracle, but a restoration of the waters of Mara to salubrity and an agreeable taste, by means of the naturally medical prorty of a particular wood." Letter, p. 69. See, on Exod. xvi. 25, Vol. XI. p. 151. cution; and the very terms of the prediction appear to imply in them a manifest contradiction: but howsoever they may be interpreted, the whole history of religious persecution, from the illustrious messenger of the new covenant to the present hour, proves the prophecy to be absolutely false, and the writer of it altogether unworthy of credit. "The second is the prediction respecting St. Peter's denying his Master, chap. xiv. 30, where, in direct contradiction to both the writings he had before him, he makes our Lord tell him,, that before the cock should crow twice, he would thrice deny him. Accordingly, vers. 68-72, he says, the cock crew as soon as Peter had once denied him, and after he had repeated his denial twice more, with oaths and curses very unbecoming a chosen disciple of Jesus Christ, the cock crew a second time. This relation is so absolutely irreconcileable with what is given us in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and that with the circumstances of the same event recorded by St. Luke, that two out of the three must inevitably be false: and which those are, the judicious reader will decide as he thinks fit."* A person used to the figurative language of scripture, and especially that of our Saviour, might have spared himself the former of these remarks, by supposing that, the literal sense being impossible, some other must have been intended; and it is not very unnatural to suppose that, instead of the actual possession of houses and lands, the Christian deprived of them by persecution would have more than an equivalent satisfaction of another kind; or he might have supposed a very few words to have been inserted by an error of the transcriber. I wonder that the sagacity of Mr. Evanson did not find another and much stronger objection to this passage, viz. that a man who had lost one mother by persecution, should be rewarded with two or more, and one ancient version has futhers as well as mothers. On this topic, Mr. Evanson might have displayed as much ingenious sarcasm as on any other, on which he has with so much seeming satisfaction enlarged the most. I wonder that he omitted the opportunity. The slight difference about the cock crowing needs no answer; at least it cannot be said, that the account which supposes two cock-crowings was an abridgement of that which made only one. Upon the whole, there is so little that Mr. Evanson objects to the Gospel of Mark, that, the external evidence • Dissonance, pp. 218, 219. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 264-266, being the same for both, I do not see why he might not have made this his only genuine Gospel, and have thrown that of Luke into the class of apocryphal ones. The passages he objects to in Luke he supposes to be interpolations, and those in Mark to be the composition of the writer. But this is perfectly arbitrary. He might just as well have ridiculed Luke for the absurdities he finds in his Gospel, and have supposed the few things he objects to in Mark to have been interpola. tions. That the Gospel of Luke is written in a better style and manner, is with me far from being any evidence of its not being a later fabrication, by a person more used to composition. I am, &c. LETTER IX. Of Mr. Evanson's Objections to the Gospel of John. MR. EVANSON finds much more to object to the Gospel of John than to that of Mark, nor do I wonder at it. There are many striking peculiarities in his Gospel; but all that can be justly inferred from this circumstance is, that he is an original writer, and did not copy from any other, though antiquity says, that he had seen the works of the other evangelists. On this account he has not many things in common with them, and when he does go over the same part of the history, he appears to me to have done it for the sake of greater exactness for in all those cases he is remarkably circumstantial; as in his account of the feeding of the "five thou sand," and of Peter denying his master. These parts, as well as every other in his Gospel, bear more internal, unequivocal marks of being written by an eye-witness, than any other writings whatever, sacred or profane. His view seems to have been, without directly saying that the other Gospels were not sufficiently exact, to relate the story in a more correct manner. But this is no impeachment of the veracity, or general good information, of the other evangelists. It is evident also that the Gospel of John was not composed as one continued or complete work; and it is probable that it was written at different times, and through the inattention of the writer, or his friends, who might assist in putting the parts of it together, they are not always properly * John vi. 5-18. See Vol. XIII. pp. 152, 158. ↑ John xviii, 15-18, 25-27, Sce Vol. XIII. p. 342. arranged; the fifth chapter, as Mr. Mann has shewn,* being evidently out of its proper place. The last chapter may be considered as a kind of supplement, added after the rest of the work had been formally concluded in the preceding chapter. Critics have also discovered some interpolations in this Gospel, but they are pretty easily distinguished. These things, however, by no means affect the authenticity of the work in general, which was received by all the primitive Christians as unquestionably the writing of the apostle. 1. Mr. Evanson objects to the style of this Gospel as remarkably different from that of the Revelation. It is not, however, more different from it than the style of some of the epistles of Paul is from that of others; and the same persons, in different circumstances, and on different subjects, write in a very different manner. Besides, the apostles not being native Greeks, might be assisted in the composition of their writings, and by different persons at different times.§ As there is an uniform tradition in favour of the apostle John being the author of the Gospel, and of the first of the epistles that bear his name (and the style of them is remarkably similar), the different style of the Revelation has been alleged as an argument to prove that this book was not written by him, but by another John.|| Mr. Evanson, indeed, says, that "the apostle John" is "the avowed author of the prophetic book of the Apocalypse." But this is so far from being the case, that because the author of this book does not call himself an apostle, but only John, it has by many been ascribed to the other John.** That Mr. Evanson should be guilty of this great oversight, considering the See supra, p. 51; Appendix, No. III. + Dissonance, p. 220. Ed. 2, p. 267. This Mr. Evanson warmly contests as to "those Epistles of Paul which" he allows "to be genuine." Letter, p. 71. Mr. Evanson rejects "the supposition," especially in the case " of Paul, who spoke the Greek language with the utmost fluency; and who preached the gospel to the Athenians, and to every principal city of Greece, in their native language." Ibid. "A Presbyter." See Lardner, VI. pp. 627, 629. "The grand revelations of the gospel," says Mr. Evanson," after our Lord's ascension, were made first to John in the visions of the Apocalypse, and secondly, to Paul, as he has informed us in his Epistles; and since the latter was the apostle to the Gentiles, nothing can be more improbable than that our Saviour should have passed by all his other chosen apostles, and manifested his predilection of some other John that nobody ever heard of, by sending angels to shew him the prophetic visions of that book, which is emphatically denominated the Revelation of Jesus Christ." Letter, p. 72. ་ Dissonance, p. 219. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 267. This Mr. Evanson calls "an insinuation that the Apocalypse was not written by John the Apostle." To him, however, Dr. Priestley ascribes it, Vol. XIV. P. 442, attention he has given to this book, is not a little extraordinary. 2. The author of this Gospel, says Mr. Evanson, "it must be evident to every competent, unprejudiced judge, who reads it in the original, particularly the exordium, was well acquainted with the writings of Plato." He also says, "The supposed John begins with representing him" (Jesus) "as the divine logos of Plato, under a human form, dwelling among men," (which by the way is very remote from any thing in Platonism,) "and repeatedly represents him as omniscient."+ He therefore says, "I am perfectly convinced that this Gospel was not written earlier than the beginning of the second century, and that it is the patchwork composition of convert from the Pagan schools." || Now this supposed deep knowledge of Platonism rests on the slightest foundation; for the term logos by no means necessarily means the logos of Plato, but is most probably that of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, meaning that logos, or word of God, by which, according to Moses and the Psalmist, all things were made, and with which no Jew could be unacquainted. And if it was the same logos that was in Christ, and acted by him, it might be said to dwell in him; and being the power of God himself, could not but be both omnipotent and omniscient, though the latter attribute is not particularly mentioned by this writer. It is possible, however, that the apostle John might have heard of the logos of Plato, as well as of that of the Gnostics, and might intend, in opposition to them, to speak of the true logos, viz. that of the Scriptures. But this is not incompatible with the age or the circumstances of the apostle John. 3. Mr. Evanson finds the greatest contradiction between the Gospel of John and that of Luke, and even those of Matthew and Mark, in his representing Jesus as making disciples before John was cast into prison, and the disciples baptizing for him at that time. "Such gross contradiction," he says, " ought to convince the most orthodox, that there must be falsehood on one side or the other, if not on In his Letter to Bishop Hurd, 1777, and his "Reflections upon the State of Religion in Christendom; particularly in the Countries situated within the Limits of the Western Roman Empire, at the Commencement of the Nineteenth Century of the Christian Æra," 1802. + Dissonance, p. 220. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 268. 1 Ibid. p. 234. (P.) "See Ch. i. 48, ii. 25, iv. 18, xxi. 17." Ed. 2, p. 283. § Altered to "the middle," in ed. 2. || Dissonance, p. 205. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 248. It is on Matthew that Mr. Evanson here makes this remark. |