worshipping their Master, without any reason alleged, or even suggested, for their idolatry; I am perfectly convinced, that this Gospel was not written earlier than near the middle of the second century; and that it is the patched-work composition of some convert from the Pagan schools. Whether my arguments may work the same conviction upon any of my readers, is not for me to judge; but I am confident, that whoever impartially considers, that, according to Luke's histories, the Christians of the apostolic age did not baptize in the terms of the form here prescribed, but simply in the name of the Lord Jesus; that his disciples were so far from knowing a watch was set round the sepulchre, that the women came early on Sunday morning to embalm the body; and were perplexed at finding the stone rolled away, and that the body was not in the sepulchre ; that a vision of two angels, in human shape, informed them he was risen, and reminded them, that it was only what he had foretold them must come to pass, long before they came to Jerusalem; that they gave them no orders to send the Apostles into Galilee to see him; on the contrary, that, though he did. not appear to two of the women, as the pre

tended Matthew asserts, yet he appeared that same day to Peter, at Jerusalem; to twó other disciples, as they went to Emmaus; and, the succeeding night, to the whole congregation of the disciples, not in Galilee, but at Jerusalem; and that, by his express command, the Apostles did not go into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of Pentecost; cannot rationally believe both these contradictory histories, and consequently he must be satisfied that one of them is grossly fabulous and false.

VIII. IN reviewing the miracles of Jesus recorded by this writer, we find most of them, like those of Luke, works of mercy and benevolence; only he relates more of them; and, with a view, no doubt, to aggrandize the miracle, it is observable that he frequently doubles the object or the malady to be healed, making two where Luke mentions but one; or making the demoniac, that Luke tells us was dumb, both blind and dumb also. But there are a few of a very different kind related by this author, of which Luke makes not the least mention; those are, c. xiv. our Saviour's walking on the water of the sea of Galilee, in the night time, to overtake his

disciples, whom he had "constrained to get "into a ship, to go before him unto the other “side,” though, as the ship was detained by contrary winds in the midst of the sea, till he came to them, their embarking seems to have answered no end, except the display of his supernatural power in this singular miracle; and his curing all the maladies of the people of Gennesaret, by letting them only touch the hem of his garment; c. xvii. his paying tribute at Capernaum, by directing Peter to take the required piece of money out of a fish's mouth, where the miracle is rendered the more wonderful by the fish's being able to hold the money fast in its mouth till Peter took it out, though it was caught and pulled up with an hook and line; and c. xxi. the cursing the fig-tree because he found no fruit on it, wherewith to mitigate his hunger. Whether such miracles as these are suitable to the character of Jesus Christ; and whether it be disparagement to the Gospel according to Luke, that they are not to be found in it, I leave to the candid reader to determine.

any

As to that most important mark, and to us the only convincing evidence of the authenticity of any sacred scripture, the testimony of the prophecies recorded in it, when com

pared with their corresponding events, I find but one in this Gospel attributed to Matthew, which is not evidently borrowed, and for the most part verbally copied from Luke; that is c. xvi. v. 18 and 19, where the author makes our Lord foretell, that "the gates of hell shall "not prevail against his church;" and that he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and that whatsoever he shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven. But what is meant here by the gates of hell, and by not prevailing against the church of Christ? Does the first expression mean impious violence, or death and destruction, or all together? And does the last mean only, according to the literal sense of the original Greek word, growing strong and powerful against it? or does it signify utterly destroying it, so as to prevent its being finally established in the world? If the last only be all that is intended, it is not so intelligibly expressed, but predicts merely the same thing as the two prophetic parables of the mustard-seed and the leaven hid in three measures of meal; but, in every other sense, it is a false prediction: for the violence and deadly persecution of Pagans and of the orthodox church, as other better authenti

cated prophecies foretold they would do, have prevailed so greatly against the true church of Christ, that a very small number of its members is any where to be found. And should any be inclined to think, as without doubt many do, that the orthodox church itself is the true church of Christ, yet ask Asia, Africa, and the south-east of Europe, whether Mahomedanism has not prevailed against her? And with respect to the latter part of the prediction, the very nature of the Gospel Covenant, as well as the whole history of Peter and the other Apostles, shews us, that neither he nor any of them had the power of forgiving or retaining sins; and that neither the whole college of Apostles, nor even Jesus Christ himself, ever have been or will be able (if it were possible to suppose them willing) to admit one vicious, unreformed person into, nor to exclude one virtuous, benevolent man out of, the kingdom of heaven. Indeed the whole conversation, of which this prophecy makes a part, is so exceedingly different from that which Luke tells us our Saviour held on the same occasion, that it cannot be entitled to any degree of credit, except with those, if any such can be, who think fit rather to reject the Gospel of Luke.