I think that we can not insist too earnestly that brethren who hold rationalistic views of the Scriptures should avoid intruding them upon the children in the Sunday-schools and the Endeavor societies. I have already remonstrated with our young brother, H. L. Willett, on this kind of intrusion, and his essay in the [291] Christian-Evangelist on the lesson for May 19 gives me another occasion. Here is what he says about the account of the ass which Jesus rode during his public entry into Jerusalem:

      Mark has prepared the oldest account, embodying the recollections of Peter, in which only one beast is mentioned. He is followed by Luke, and John so describes the event. But the first Gospel changes the narrative to fit the words of the Messianic passage in Zechariah, and speaks of two animals--an ass and its colt--on both of which the disciples placed their garments, and both of which were used by Jesus in the course of his journey.

      To say nothing of the assertion that Mark "has prepared the oldest account," which is only the latest fad of criticism on "the synoptic problem," we have it here asserted that "the first Gospel changes the narrative." How does Professor Willett know this? How does he know that the dam was not brought as well as the colt? Does the fact that the other writers say that the colt was brought, prove that the dam was not brought, and that Matthew has changed the narrative when he says she was? It would be nonsense to so affirm, yet there is no other ground that I can see for the charge.

      But the worst part of this charge is the motive assigned for the change. It was a dishonest motive. He "changes the narrative to fit the words of the Messianic passage in Zechariah." The facts as they occurred did not fit the words of the prophet, and Matthew changed the facts to make them fit. What kind of men were the writers of these Gospels in the estimation of Professor Willett? It would be well for him to break his studied and answer some of these questions.

      But this charge against the first Gospel carries with it a palpable misunderstanding of that Gospel's narrative. Professor Willett says that the author "speaks of two [292] animals--an ass and its colt--on both of which the disciples placed their garments, and both of which were used by Jesus in the course of his journey." It is true that the disciples, before they knew which animal Jesus was going to ride, threw garments over both of them; but who told the Professor that Jesus rode both of them? And how did he ride them? Was he a circus performer, riding two animals at once? Or did he ride one for a time and then mount the other? Is it possible that the words, "riding on an ass and a colt, the foal of an ass," are construed to mean that he rode both animals? If so, why so? When a man rides a foal of an ass, he rides an ass. The prophet said first that he should ride an ass; and then to show what kind of an ass, he adds, a colt, the foal of an ass. Why, then, should it be thought that Jesus had to ride two asses to make out the case?

      Having thus laid Matthew out as a perverter of Scriptures, our commentator next turns his weapons on John. Speaking of the expulsion of traders from the temple, as recorded by Matthew, he says: "The cleansing of the temple recorded by John 2:13-17 is almost certainly to be identified with this, and is misplaced where it now stands at the beginning of Jesus' ministry." So, then, if Matthew changed certain facts to make them fit a prediction, John is guilty of misplacing a fact by the space of two whole years, for John misplaces this fact at the first Passover which Jesus attended, while Matthew correctly places it two years later. Did John, who was certainly present, make such a blunder as this, or has Professor Willett, who knows nothing about it except what Matthew and John have told him, committed the blunder of attempting to correct an apostle? As I was not there, I am simple enough to believe both of these eye-witnesses. Because John says that he cast out [293] certain traders at his first visit, I believe that he did; and because Matthew says he cast out a set of the same kind of intruders at his last visit, I believe that he did. In other words, I believe that these Gospel writers tell the truth; that they neither change facts to make them fit predictions nor commit blunders by misplacing facts. Bro. Willett believes otherwise, or else he misrepresents himself. Unfortunately, he is permitting blind guides to lead him.

[SEBC 291-294]