EO | 
2 
to 
fy 
MSCONOCHIR’S DISSERTATION ON FHE FOURTH GOSPEL, 
cially by Mark and Luke, Mr. Marsh 
has shewn is established by his hypo- 
thesis: that although the hypothesis re- 
lating solely to the origin of the gospel, 
has no concern with the state in which 
Se have descended to the present age; 
yet the principle upon which it is founded, 
ge verbal testimony of the three first 
Evangelists, affords a strong evidence, 
at they remained unaltered during the 
irst hundred years, and thus “ carries 
the proof of their integrity up to the 
rery source, which never had been done 
before.” Nor does the hypothesis dero- 
gate from the inspiration of the gospels, 
ce it will admit, as clearly as any 
ther, “a never-ceasing superintendence 
of the motr Spirit to Fels the Evan- 
gelists from error.” ‘These are the sub- 
_jects upon which the first part of the 
“Mus ation is employed. In the second 
_part Mr, Marsh silences the objection 
_which the remarker had drawn from the 
ant of historical evidence; he shews 
ow the original document may have 
lost and forgotten, though he can- 
r 
& 
mot “ produce an instance,’ as his 
Whee tequites him to do, “ of 
_ any originals the very memory of which 
P fer ke blotted out and annihilated; and 
he convicts him of having advanced 
123 
many futile and absurd objections, 
and of wilful misrepresentation or gross 
ignorance in multiplying the two sources, 
from which Mr. Marsh derives the three 
first gospels, into ten. He then advances 
to the analysis of the instances which the 
anonymous remarker has produced from 
the Evangelists, to prove that the phe- 
nomen’, for which the hypothesis is to 
account, do not exist; and he shows in 
the most satisfactory manner, that they 
are either erroneously stated, or-confirm 
the existence of the phenomena. 
Through this examination our limits 
will not permit us to follow the learned 
author, nor to do more than to observe 
that he has substantiated the accusation 
which he before alleged against his 
“‘ anonymous adversary,” of having bors 
rowed his learning, and unfairly used 
it; and proved, in a very masterly man- 
ner, all that he had asserted respecting 
the Awoprnoryxre of Justin. 
We thus take our leave of this truly 
learned author, sincerely thanking him 
for the service which he will be found 
to have rendered to the cause of Reve- 
lation, when his hypothesis shall be 
more generally understood, and the 
consequences deduced from it, to which 
we are convinced it leads. 
» Art, TX. A Dissertation concerning the Writer of the Fourth Gospel ; or, Considerations 
tending torshew that John the Apostle and John the Evangelist were different Persons. 
- Dedicated to the Memory of Dr.-George Campbell, late Principal and Professor of 
Divizity ig the Marishall College, Aberdzen. 
By the Rev. Mr. James M‘Conocnisy 
ar Minister of the Gospel at Crawford. 8vo. pp. 117. 
CRITICS have ever experienced some 
_ difficulty in reconciling the character of 
_ the beloved disciple and the Evangelist, 
with that of the son of Zebedee and 
the Apostle ; but, as far as we know, it 
has never occurred to any person but 
' the author of the treatise before us, that 
_ they were two different persons; “ It 
_ appears to me,’’ he observes, p. 7. “ that 
' John, the son of Zebedee, or John the 
' “apostle, whose occupation, before he was 
_ called by our Saviour, had confined him 
f to the sea of Tiberias and its banks, was 
at the author was a native of Jerusa- 
tem, or of the land of Judea, near to 
ay em; that he, or some of his re- 
iMhae author of this (John’s) gospel; - 
8. that he is ‘led to maintain this solely 
from a persuasion, that such a supposi- 
tion will be found to cast light upon 
various facts and incidents, recorded in 
that and the other gospels, which are 
but very imperfectly explained on the 
common system.” 
In order to establish this new hypo- 
thesis, the author collects all the notices 
he finds in the three first gospels, con- 
cerning John the Evangelist, and then 
considers what John says of himself in 
his own gospel. 
He remarks that “ John the apostle is 
no where mentioned without his brother 
James, and both are commonly designed 
the sons of Zebedee;’’ whence he would 
Le cner ee eecrennr ce aS 
~Tations, had property in the city of Je- 
| Fusalem, or near to it; that he attended 
+ on Jesus when he was at Jerusalem, 
Or when he tarriéd in what is called in 
the New Testament, the land of Judea, 
t that he seldom accompanied him 
_ thto Galilee.” He further observes, p. 
conclude that there must have been an- 
other disciple called John. The title 
given to the sons of Zebedee accords 
not, he thinks, with the character of 
the Evangelist: and in the reply which 
Jesus made'to the twelve upon océasion 
of by dispute concerning precedency, he 
8 
