or cited it; which, as I have shewn of Papias, I proceed to shew of them.

The second who is said to have made use of this Gospel is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who lived in the beginning of the second century. The passage, supposed to be by him taken out of it, is as follows g.

Καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς, Λάβετε, ψηλα φήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον· καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν, κρατηθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι.

And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said unto them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal dæmon; and presently they touched him, and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit.

This is generally said by the critics to have been taken by Ignatius out of this Gospel. So judged Baroniush, Drusius 1, Valesius k, Dr. Grabe', and many others; whence they have formed a more high opinion of the book. That which persuaded them to suppose it taken thence is the express assertion of Jerome to this purpose: (see above, Chap. XXV. No. XXVIII.) but this will appear very improbable; for,

1. Ignatius does not make any mention of this Gospel, either in this or any other place of those epistles which go under his name; and therefore it may as well be supposed he cited what he had heard, as what he had read, especially if we consider him as one who lived very near the apostles' times, if not in them, and at this time in a troublesome journey under a guard of soldiers, and so destitute of his books m. Can any one imagine, that in this journey Ignatius carried the Gospel of the Nazarenes, wrote in a language which he could scarce understand, along with him from Syria to Rome? And if he did not, is it not more probable he cited a passage which he had heard by tradition, than quoted it out of this apocryphal Gospel? Nor am I alone in this conjecture. The great Casaubon in the place cited, and bishop Pearson ", suppose the very same, viz. That Ignatius did not take the passage out of the Nazarene

Gospel, but referred to some unwritten tradition, which was afterwards inserted into the Hebrew Gospel attributed to Matthew. But if this be not sufficient, I observe, as what seems indeed most probable;

2. That the passage above produced is so very little different from the words of St. Luke, chap. xxiv. 39. that these seem to have been intended or referred to by Ignatius, and no other. This will appear by the comparing of them.

The words of Christ, as they are

in St. Luke's Gospel.

Ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου, καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου, ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι· ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

The English of St. Luke's words. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have.

The words of Christ, as they are

in Ignatius's Epistle. Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώ

ματον.

The English of Ignatius's words. Take, handle me, and see, that I am not an incorporeal spirit (or dæmon.)

These two sentences are so extremely alike, not only as to the whole sense and design of them, but even as to the very words, that if there were no other argument, this would of itself be sufficient to prove the point I am contending for. But this will be much corroborated, if we consider,

First, That the Christian fathers, especially the oldest, were continually wont to cite the scriptures memoriter, i. e. by their memories, without consulting their copies, and so not expressing the very words of the sacred writer whom they cited, thought it sufficient to express the sense or design of the place. This is evident by a thousand instances, and is very well urged by Dr. Whitby against Dr. Mill, who has very unfairly made their memoriter citations so often to be various lections, or to proceed from different copies. Nor can it seem strange, that the fathers did cite thus, when we see the same daily practised by the best writers. Besides, the form of their volumes was such, as occasioned much greater difficulty to find any passage in them

• Examen variant. Lection. D. Millii. c. 1. §. 1, 2, &c.

than it now is in ours P. I might add further, that they had not as yet their books distinguished into chapters and verses, as ours now are, &c.

Secondly, That Ignatius (as I have observed) was now on a journey, under a strict guard of soldiers, and therefore as he probably had not his books with him, it is not strange he should give only the sense of St. Luke's words, and not all the words themselves. And this he, who will be at the pains to observe, may perceive in many other citations in the epistles of Ignatius.

Thirdly, I observe, the epistles of Ignatius are strangely corrupted and interpolated since their first writing. This is well known, and archbishop Usher has abundantly proved it, and particularly in this same place 9; from whence I conclude, that the words here were formerly perhaps more like those of Luke than they are now.

To conclude, many learned men have imagined all these epistles of Ignatius to be spurious, and the celebrated Mr. Daillé has endeavoured, from this very place, to prove that they

are so r.

CHAP. XXVIII.

A particular proof that neither Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, nor Jerome have appealed to the Gospel of the Nazarenes as of any authority, but on the contrary rejected it, as not canonical.

THE next who is supposed to have taken any thing out of this Gospel is Justin Martyrs, viz. an account of a fire kindled in the river Jordan, when Christ was baptized. Thus thought a learned friend of Mr. Dodwell's, whom he has mentioned in his Dissertations on Irenæust. But of this there is so little probability, no Gospel being named by Justin, nay the passage in Justin being different from that in the Nazarene Gospel, that I think it needs no further notice, than to be considered

P See my account of the ancient ways of writing and form of volumes. Vindic. of St. Matt. Gosp. c. 15. p. 151, &c. a Edit. Epistal. Ignat. in Proleg. c. 3, 4.

r Contr. Epist. Ignat. lib. 2. c. 17. p. 339, 340.

Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud. p. 315. t Dissert. II. §. 9. p. 106.

among those uncertain sayings and histories of Christ, which will be collected in the Appendix to this part.

Hegesippus (an early writer of the second century) is the next who is supposed to have used it, and, according to Dr. Grabe, "to have had frequent recourse to it ";" and Mr. Toland, "to have alleged it as a true Gospel." This they gather from a mistaken translation of these words of Eusebius, Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους Εὐαγγελίου, καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ, καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ̔Εβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν); thus translated by Valesius ; Nonnulla item ex Hebræorum Evangelio, et Syriaco, et ex Hebraicá linguâ profert in medium, &c. But I think much better rendered thus in English; "He has discoursed or said some "things concerning the Hebrew Gospel, and the Syriac and "Hebrew language;" for to cite things out of the Syriac and Hebrew dialect seems a very bald and incongruous expression. Hence Ruffin has translated it, Disseruit de Evangelio secundum Hebræos, &c. And therefore Eusebius's words do not imply that Hegesippus cited it. But suppose they did, and he really did cite it, it does not appear after what manner he cited it; and I may as well suppose he cited it to confute it, as they do that he cited it for authority, just as Eusebius tells us in the next words, that he mentioned some of the traditions of the Jews. But if it should not be thus, I would say Hegesippus was a Nazarene, (as Mr. Toland would have him to be,) because he was originally a Jew 2; and I cannot see any authority or credit will be procured to this Nazarene Gospel, because a Nazarene made use of it.

Clemens Alexandrinus is another, from whose citation of this Gospel the abovementioned authors would gain credit to it; but though it is indeed cited in his works a, yet this will prove no more favourable to their scheme than the former instances; for,

1. He has mentioned it only once in all his works; viz. lib. 2. p. 380. Mr. Toland b refers indeed to a place in the first book; but I dare aver it is not there mentioned: but I easily see how Mr. Toland made this mistake; he followed the

u Lib. cit. Sæcul. 1. p. 16, 24.

- Nazar. c. 20.

y Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 22.

2 See Euseb. loc. cit.

a See above, chap. xxv. N°. 3.

b

Amyntor, p. 35. He has committed the very same blunder, as to this passage, in his Nazaren. p. 78.

false print of Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium, p. 26. But this is no uncommon thing with him to follow the mistakes of the press. I more wonder Mr. Fabritius should be guilty of the same in this very instance. But to return; if Clemens cited this Gospel but once, it is plain he had no high opinion of it, or not so high as of our present Gospels, which he appeals to in almost every page. But to put an end to the dispute,

2. Clemens in so many words denies the authority, and absolutely rejects all Gospels besides those four now received. This he does more than once; so in the third book of his Stromata, p. 465; and in the fragment of his books de Hypotypos, preserved by Eusebius, if these last be his.

3. I might here add, that Clemens did not understand the Hebrew language, in which the Nazarene Gospel was written; and so could not cite it; nor could he use a version, there being none at that time made, as has been proved.

After Clemens they reckon Origen his scholar, as having cited this Gospel with regard to its authority. So Dr. Grabe would persuade usd, "that he took testimonies out of it to 66 prove the articles of our faith;" and Mr. Toland, that "he alleged it as a true Gospel." But in this they are more notoriously mistaken than in the former instances: For,

66

1. The Gospel of the Nazarenes was certainly the same with that according to the twelve apostles. This Dr. Grabe and Mr. Toland both assert; but the Gospel according to the twelve apostles is expressly rejected by Origen, as apocryphal, and placed among the books of the heretics; which were not to be received. See the place at large above, Chap. VII. No. V. Therefore Origen could not appeal to the authority of this Gospel.

2. There are several places in the works of Origen wherein he asserts, "there ought only four Gospels to be received in "the church," viz. those which we now receive. See the places cited in the notes at the bottom of the page f.

3. In both the places where he produces passages out of this Gospel, he plainly intimates, that he looked upon it as of very little credit. Hence he introduces them both in the same man

c Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.

d Lib. cit. p. 24.

e Nazaren. c. 20. p. 80.

f Comment. in Matth. lib. 1. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 25. et in Philocal. c. 5. p. 29.