fixion a "large lintel, or beam of the temple," (see above, Chap. XXV. No. XXIV. XXV.) "was rent and fell down," contrary to three of our evangelists, who say, this happened to the veil of the temple" at that time.

2. I argue further, that this Hebrew Gospel was apocryphal by Prop. IX. as it contained several ludicrous and trifling, or silly and fabulous relations. Such certainly is that (referred to by Origen above, Chap. XXV. No. IV. and Jerome, No. XVIII. as also No. XVII.) concerning Christ's saying, “that "his mother, the Holy Ghost, laid hold of him by one of his "hairs, and carried him into the great mountain Thabor," &c. And that of the Holy Ghost's saying, "My Son, during all "the time of the prophets I was waiting for thee, that I might "rest upon thee, for thou art my rest;" mentioned by Jerome, No. XVI. Such is that of the rich man's scratching his head, when Christ bade him sell all, and give to the poor, mentioned by Origen, No. V.

3. It may be further proved apocryphal by Prop. X. as it contained things later than the times of their being said, or in which it pretended to be written. Such seems to me that declaration said to be made by our Saviour above, (Chap. XXV. No. XII.) "that he came to abolish all sacrifices, and denounce "the wrath of God upon all those who did sacrifice.” It is certain, from the whole of our Saviour's conduct, that he was more careful than to give any such offence to the Jews, and purposely declined all such express opposition to, and abolishment of, the Mosaic economy, as in several other instances is obvious to observe. I take this therefore to be the forgery of a person, who lived not only after our Saviour's time, but even after the time of St. Matthew's writing, when the controversy was hot between the Gentile and Judaizing Christians. Such also seems to me that compellation, with which our Saviour addresses himself to James, (in that passage of Jerome, No. XIV.) Mi frater, my brother; a title not known to be given by our Saviour, nor in those early times when St. Matthew wrote, but afterwards very common among the Christians.

Thus much may suffice to prove the Gospel of the Nazarenes apocryphal; I shall conclude with a short account, " Matt. xxvii. 51. Mark xv. 38. Luke xxiii. 45.

V. Of what seems most probable to me, of the nature and design of this famous book, with some short account of the heretics who received it.

I take it to have been an early translation of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew into Hebrew, with the addition of many fabulous relations and erroneous doctrines, composed in the name of the twelve apostles, by some convert or converts to Christianity among the Jews, who with their profession of Christ retained their zeal and affection for the law of Moses, with the most preposterous and absurd notions concerning Christ and the Christian religion.

The several parts of this hypothesis will appear by the following aphorisms.

1. The Gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew. This I having so largely proved in another book shall take here for granted. See Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. XVII. XVIII. XIX.

2. That the Nazarene Gospel was compiled out of St. Matthew's is very evident, because it is so frequently called by his name, (as above,) which cannot be imagined to have happened upon any other supposition, since there was another Gospel extant under his name. One remark I have made out of a fragment of it in Epiphanius, Chap. preced. No. XI. which seems to me to demonstrate, that it was made out of St. Matthew's Greek. For whereas in this we read, chap. iii. 4. that John the Baptist's food in the wilderness was åxgídes naì pédi ǎypiov, i. e. locusts and wild honey; instead thereof in the Nazarene Gospel we read, his food was μέλι ἄγριον, οὗ ἡ γεῦσις ἦν Toũ μávva ás éyxpìs, wild honey, whose taste was like manna, or cakes made with honey and oil. Now, forasmuch as it is certain that locusts were a very common food in those eastern countries, as is undeniably proved by Bochart*, and such food seems very agreeable to the rest of John's way of life, it is but reasonable to conclude our present Greek reading (viz. åxgídes) to be the true and authentic one; and if so, then it is evident that this Nazarene Gospel was a translation of St. Matthew's Greek, and that the translator read ἐγκρίδες instead of ἀκρίδες,

Hierozoic. par. 2. 1. 4. c. 7. See also sir Norton Knatchbull's Annotations on that place of Matthew.

and being a Jew, accustomed to the use of the Septuagint Greek Bibles, very probably was led thereto by the Septuagint translation of those words, Exod. xvi. 31. Tò dè yeûμa aŭtoũ ws ἐγκρὶς ἐν μέλιτι, or as it is in Num. xi. 8. Καὶ ἦν ἡ ἡδονὴ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ γεῦμα ἐγκρὶς ἐξ ἐλαίου. And this by the way seems a very demonstrative proof, that St. Matthew's present Greek was not a translation out of Hebrew, seeing there was no possibility of such a mistake in reading the Hebrew word, as to translate it ἀκρίδες, where it ought to have been translated ἐγκρίδες.

3. That it pretended to be made by the twelve apostles is evident from its bearing that title; as also from a passage of that fragment in Epiphanius, (which is above, No. XI.) where we read, there was a certain man named Jesus, about thirty years of age, who chose us to be his apostles: where it is plain the writer speaks in the name of them all, or at least of several; just as in the pretended Constitutions of the Apostles we continually read of exhortations and commands given in the name of all the apostles. Nor do I know any reason for disputing whether it bore this title, save only that Beda is supposed to distinguish between the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, in the place above cited, Chap. XXVI. No. I. See the passage at length in Sixtus Senensis: but upon a strict inquiry I do not perceive that Beda has at all distinguished them, but rather that Dr. Grabez and Mr. Fabritius a are mistaken in supposing he did.

a

4. That it was a very early composure, I make no doubt, from the early mention we have of it. It is not improbable (as I have said) that it was referred to by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, which was written about the year of Christ LVII or LVIII. It was undoubtedly extant in the beginning of the second century; though nothing seems more absurd than Dr. Grabe's opinion, that it was written before St. Matthew wrote his. It is like supposing the child born before his father.

5. That it had in it many idle and fabulous, as well as false and erroneous relations, is largely proved already. These are

so many, and so very notorious, that I wonder how father Simon could have so high an opinion either of these or the Gospel that contained them. Can any one unprejudiced give the preference to such a heap of fables, and contradictions, above St. Matthew's plain and consistent accounts?

But because that learned writer was so far prejudiced in favour of this Hebrew Gospel, as to prefer it to the Greek of St. Matthew, even with all these differences, I would argue a little upon his own hypothesis against him. Suppose, then, our Greek copies of St. Matthew were really a translation out of the Hebrew, in which that apostle first wrote; how came it to pass that the Greek translation should be so very different from its original, as it is in every one of the remaining passages? This difference cannot be supposed to have happened but upon one of these two following accounts; viz. either,

First, Because the version was made when the Hebrew original was more pure, and that these additions were made by the Nazarenes afterwards; or,

Secondly, Because the author of the Greek version epitomised it, and altered it according to his own mind.

Father Simon, according as it served his purpose, supposes both these, though most evidently contradictory to each other; seeing the difference could not proceed from both causes. But whichsoever of them we suppose true, will overthrow his hypothesis; for if we say the first, viz. that the Greek version was made before the Nazarene additions, it follows, their Gospel must now be esteemed apocryphal, because the alterations and additions were so great, as not to have left scarce any thing of St. Matthew remaining: for there is not one of all the fragments now extant, but differs from St. Matthew's Greek; which, according to the supposition, is pure and perfect, being made before the Nazarene alterations. If he say the latter, viz. that the difference proceeds from the fault of the Greek translator; then I answer, that this supposes the things in which the Nazarene Gospel differs from St. Matthew's Greek, to be good and useful; which is contrary to what has been above proved.

6. This Hebrew Gospel, or translation of St. Matthew's See his Crit. Hist. of N. T. part 1. c. 7, 9.

Greek into Hebrew, with the forementioned additions and interpolations, seems to have been made by some convert Jews, to favour their notions of mixing Judaism and Christianity together. That there was very early such a sort of persons of the Jewish nations, who were for uniting their old religion with the new one of Christ, is evident from a great part of St. Paul's Epistles; three of which seem purposely to be written against them; viz. that to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That these were principally delighted with the Gospel entitled, according to the Hebrews, (¿ μáλioτa 'Eßpaíwv oi Tòv Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσι,) we are expressly assured by Eusebius, as well as by many other ancient writers. Of this Gospel they had so prodigiously great an opinion, that for the sake of it they contemned and rejected all others, and only made use of this: so we are told by Irenæus, Eusebiuse, and others. Now hence it seems undeniably to follow, that there were in this Gospel several things which favoured their peculiar notions, and consequently that it was made by some Christianized Jew, or rather Judaizing Christian f.

That which remains is only to give some brief account of the Nazarenes, who used this Gospel.

They are said by Epiphanius "to have arose from some "Christian Jews, who went from Jerusalem to Pellas." It is very uncertain why they were called by this name. He who has a mind may see a plausible account in Dr. Mangey's Answer to Mr. Toland's Nazarenus, c. 8. Out of these sprang the Ebionites, who had in a great measure the same opinions with the Nazarenes h, and yet are made two distinct sects by Epiphanius. The truth is, they are so confounded by that father, that one can scarce tell how to give any clear account of them. But to do it in the best manner I can, I shall give the reader an abstract out of Irenæus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, in the following manner.

Concerning the Nazarenes.

1. They maintained the perpetual obligation of the law of

e Histor. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 25. d Adv. Hæres. 1. 1. c. 26.

e Eccl. Hist. 1. 3. c. 27.

fThis would probably admit no doubt,

Concerning the Ebionites.

1. They obliged themselves to the observation of all things com

if more of it had been preserved.

* Hæres. 29. §. 7. See also Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. c. 5. h Epiph. Hæres. 29. §. 1.