and prepare a scourge of small cords for the purpose, he drove all the traders and animals out of the temple, overthrew the tables of the money changers, and scattered all their money about, with a violence as unbecoming the meek and benevolent Jesus, as it is improbable it would have been tamely submitted to by the other parties. It is to be observed also, that this supposed Apostle, in recording the instrument of violence, constructed and used by our Saviour, in this extraordinary manner, expresses it by a word, neither of Greek nor Hebrew origin, but by a Latin word, barbarously written in Greek characters, which, as I have observed in the case of the two preceding Evangelists, of itself affords strong grounds of presumption, that whoever the writer may be said to be, he did not live till after the beginning of the second century; and, when corroborated by other circumstances, so highly improbable in themselves, and so directly contradictory to the history of Luke, is a very satisfactory proof that he was no Apostle, nor any Jew, nor even a respectable Greek convert of the Apostolic age; but one of the many composers of spurious and fabulous writings of

S

the second century; and that he deserves not the least credit or attention.

II. WHEN Our Saviour had staid some time at Jerusalem, this author informs us, c. iii. v. 22, still in contradiction to the whole tenor of the Gospel according to Luke, that he dwelt with his disciples in the land of Judea; and that, by his disciples, as it is explained, e. iv, v. 2, he baptized there greater numbers than John, at the same time that John baptized in Enon, for that John was not yet cast into prison. This passage is so replete with the most palpable falsehood, that it is astonishing how any kind of delusion should have induced creatures, endowed with reason, so long to have received it as the word of truth, and the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the two writers called Matthew and Mark both positively assert, that Jesus did not enter upon his public ministry, nor was followed by a single disciple, till after John was cast into prison; and though, for reasons already stated, if Luke's history did not more than insinuate the same thing, their testimony would have no weight with me, yet such gross contradiction ought to convince

the most orthodox, that there must be falsehood on one side or the other, if not on both; and that, therefore, common sense and reason require them, at least, to reject as false and spurious, either this Gospel attributed to John, or both the Gospels attributed to the other two. In the next place, from the two respectable histories of Luke, confirmed by the very nature and circumstances of the Gospel, we know for certain, that baptism was never used by the disciples of Jesus, till after the memorable day of Pentecost, and then only for the same purpose, for which it had been always used by the Jews, as a form of admitting proselytes to their religion; á religion they then preached for the first time, and which, during their master's life, they did not themselves understand. When the twelve, and afterwards the seventy, were sent forth to excite the attention of the people, by miraculous acts of kindness and compassion, and to announce to them the approaching promulgation of the New Covenant of the kingdom of God, baptizing made no part of their commission; and they returned without any addition to their numbers; nay, so far were all men from coming to Jesus as disciples, as is asserted v. 26, that when the Apostles and the

whole society of Christians were assembled together, after his ascension, the number amounted but to one hundred and twenty, that is, only about forty more than those original disciples, who had been deputed on the two commissions; whereas the Baptist's disciples were so numerous, that Josephus attributes his death to Herod's jealousy of him on that very account.

In the fourth chapter, this historian relates our Lord's removal from his dwelling in Judea to Galilee; and, as the road lay through Samaria, he entertains us with an episode concerning our Saviour and a libidinous woman of Samaria, who, having had no less than five husbands, was then living as the concubine of a sixth man. This woman expresses her surprise, that he, who was a Jew, should ask drink of a Samaritan, which the author explains by informing us, that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans; though, to account for our Lord's being left alone, he had just told us, that all his disciples, who, a few verses before, are represented to be so numerous, were gone away into the Sama"ritan city Sychar," (a city never heard of by any one else) "to buy meat." On their return with the meat, whilst the woman went

66

into the city to tell the people she had found the Messiah or Christ, in a conversation with his disciples, he observes that it was then four months to the time of harvest, which fixes the time of year to be about our January; so that this writer makes our Lord continue in Judea, after the preceding Passover, baptizing and making disciples, during John's baptizing and preaching, as long a time as the three other Gospels allot to the duration of his whole public ministry; which they assure us did not begin till John's ministry was ended by his imprisonment. From the natural harvest, he takes occasion to suggest the spiritual harvest, which then presented itself in the ripeness of the Samaritans for conversion; who, if this account be true, were wonderfully more mature than their neighbours the Jews, though, as is remarked, v. 22, they were far more ignorant in affairs of the true religion; and though, according to Luke's histories, the Samaritans refused to receive him, when he was going to the feast of the Passover, at which he died; and no Samaritan city was converted to the Gospel, till Philip preached it in Samaria, after the death of Stephen. In the words of this writer, our Lord adds, "Herein is that