"crucified: St. Luke that the Jews compelled one "Simon a Cyrenian to bear the crofs after Jefus. St. "Luke tells us, that after our Lord's death, Jofeph "of Arimathea took the body and laid it in a new

fepulchre; that the women were present and saw "how and where it was laid; and went and prepared "fpices and ointments to embalm it with, as foon as "the fabbath was ended. This writer, on the con"trary, informs us, that Jofeph and Nicodemus together embalmed the body with an hundred pound "weight of myrrh and aloes and other fpices" as the "manner of the Jews is to bury;" and then laid it in "the fepulchre. St. Luke affures us that in the

" evening after our Lord's refurrection, that is, in the beginning of the fecond day of the week, he

ap

peared to all the eleven apostles and other difciples, "who were affembled together with them; and from "that time to his afcenfion was frequently seen by them "at Jerufalem; that he then explained to them the " meaning of the prophecies concerning himself, in"structed them in the nature and purport of the

gofpel, and bid them tarry at Jerufalem till the day "of Pentecoft, when they were to receive the holy "Ghoft or holy infpiration; that they did fo, and "never returned again to dwell in their own country. "Galilee. The pretended John, in contradiction to "all this, tells us, that the evening on which the dif "ciples faw our Saviour was the first day of the week, "which fhews that he was no Jew, but one who "reckoned his time like the Greeks and Romans;

" that

that all the eleven apoftles were not prefent; for that Thomas was not with them, and did not fee "him till eight days after; that instead of telling "them to wait till Pentecoft for the gift of the holy inspiration, he then "breathed on them and faid, "receive ye the holy Ghost."

Now, whatever inconfistency there may be in these respects between John and Luke, nothing can be inferred from it, but that one of them was better informed than the other; and the probability will be that John, who was prefent, is the more exact of the two. The difficulty about the preparation of the paffover, I think I have fufficiently explained in the Differtations prefixed to my Harmony of the Gofpels, where I fhewed, p. 111, that it must mean that preparation for the fabbath which fell in the pafchal week.

The washing of the apostles' feet, though ridiculed by Mr. Evanson, appears to me not at all improbable, and a very instructive action; and not being intended to be imitated literally, I am not surprised that we find no mention of the disciples doing it after him. The words before you in Luke need not to be underftood literally, as every thing that had paffed was immediately reported to them; fo that they knew it as well as if they had been themselves prefent. And Jefus might begin to carry the cross, but appearing to be unable to do it, it might have been given to another perfon. What was done to the body of Jefus by Jofeph of Arimathea might not be known

to

to the women, or they might choose to make fome addition to it. Luke might not know but that Thomas was prefent the first time that Jefus appeared to the apoftles, or eleven being their number after the defection of Judas, as twelve had been before, the phrase might be used by him though one of them was then absent. The other differences in the accounts have been more or lefs noticed before.

Upon the whole, I fee nothing in these remarks of Mr. Evanfon but a determination to undervalue the Gospel of John, as he had done thofe of Matthew and Mark; but without any more fpecious ground for it; and with the fame predilection for any of these three, he might, with as much plaufibility, have cried down the Gospel of Luke.

Such are the reafons for which Mr. Evanfon has been led to reject, as he fays, p. 255, "three of the "four generally received Gofpels as fpurious fictions "of the fecond century, unneceffary, and even pre

judicial to true Chriftianity, and in every respect " unworthy of the regard which so many ages have " paid them." And fuch are the reasons which lead me to adhere to the hitherto univerfally received opinion on the fubject. Compare them, and judge for yourself.

I am, &c.

LETTER

LETTER X.

Of Mr. Evanfon's Objections to the Epistle to the

Romans.

Сс

DEAR SIR,

MR. Evanfon, not content with rejecting three of the four Gospels, has been led, as he fays, p. 255, "by the fame train of investigation to reject several "of the canonical epiftles, upon the fole authority "of fome of which feveral fundamental doctrines " of the orthodox church, of various fects of profeffing Chriftians, are confidently taught the peo"ple for doctrines of the gospel of Christ." "I there"fore," he fays, p. 256, " think it my duty to add "briefly my reasons for expunging alfo out of the "volume of duly authenticated fcriptures of the "New Covenant, the Epiftles, to the Romans-to "the Ephefians-to the Coloffians-to the Hebrews "-of James-of Peter-of John-of Jude,-and, "in the book of the Revelation, the Epiftles to the "feven churches of Afia." He alfo fays, p. 284, "Not one of these epiftles contains in it that neceffary internal teftimony of the divine authority of "the writer, the spirit of prophecy; whilst St. Paul's

་

"Epiftles

cr

"Epiftles to the Corinthians, Theffalonians, Galatians, and Timothy, have the historic teftimony in their favour ftrongly corroborated by "that and every other internal evidence of au"thenticity."

Mr. Evanfon fhould fay what, in his idea, conftitutes a canonical book of the New Teftament. In my opinion it is nothing more than a book written by an apostle, or other perfon of their age, well açquainted with the circumstances of the promulgation of Chriftianity, and therefore qualified to tranfmit an account of it to pofterity, and alfo of fo much importance as to deserve the attention of all Chriftians. Indeed, whatever such persons wrote concerning Chriftianity would neceffarily be entitled to fuch attention. It is enough, therefore, for us to be fatisfied with refpect to the genuineness of the epistles afcribed to Paul or the other apostles; and the ancients had evidently no other object in their inquiries into this fubject. Whether when they wrote they had any prophecy to communicate, depended both upon their having fuch prophecy, and a sufficient reafon for communicating it at that time. And there are many proper occafions of writing, both to churches and particular perfons, wholly independent of every thing of this nature. However, it happens· ́ that the epiftle to the Romans does contain a prophecy, and a very important one, viz. that of the final converfion of the whole of the Jewish nation, which fhould have recommended it to the recep