The Editors rather consulted their wishes than their critical judgement, when they confounded the terms Nazarene, Ebionite, and ancient Hebrew Christians with each other, as synonymous. The epithet Nazarene only once occurs in the New Testament, Acts xxiv. 5. where it is used by an adversary as a term of reproach, and applied indiscriminately to the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. That it was not adopted by the primitive Hebrew Christians, is evident, from Agrippa's Address to the Apostle Paul, who was one of thea; Acts xxvi. 28, also from 1 Pet. iv. 16. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who flourished about A. D. 178, is the first writer who mentions the Ebionites: he mentions them as a sect separated from the body of Chris tian believers, who opposed the doctrines preached by the apostles, and rejected the greater part of the books of the New Testament. They only made use of a Hebrew Gospel, which they called Matthews', contemning and rejecting all Paul's Epistles, and calling him an apostate from the law. They appear to have been divided into two sects, one of which believed that Christ was born of a virgin this was denied by the other, which considered him to have been born of Joseph and Mary. In the time of Epiphanius and Jerome, those judaizing Christians who departed the least from the apostolic faith, were called Nazarenes.

:

Such were the sentiments of the Ebionites, on whose fidelity the Unitarians repose, for preserving pure and unmutilated the text of the Gospel of St. Matthew. If a deviation from the apostolic doctrines, and a rejection of whole books of the sacred writings of unquestionable authority, serve as a passport of recommendation to an ancient writer or sect, the Ebionites cannot be said to want the necessary credentials.' p. 85.

The Author then proceeds to furnish extracts from the ancient writers respecting the Hebrew Gospel.

Epiphanius says:-1st, "They (the Nazarenes) have the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language among them; for truly this is preserved among them as it was at first in Hebrew characters. But I know not whether they have taken away the genealogy from Abraham to Christ.

"They (the Ebionites) also receive the Gospel according to Matthew. For this, both they and the Cerinthians make use of, and no other. They call it The Gospel according to the Hebrews.

"In that Gospel, which they (i. e. the Ebionites) have called the Gospel according to Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call The Hebrew Gospel, it is written Also Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using this same Gospel of theirs, would prove from the beginning of that Gospel according to St. Matthew, viz. by the genealogy, that Christ proceeded from the seed of Joseph and Mary. But they (viz. the Ebionites) have quite other sentiments; for they have taken away the genealogy from Matthew, and accordingly begin their Gospel, as I above said, with these words: It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea.”

JEROME had not only seen the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, but translated it into Greek and Latin; these translations are lost, but the occasional notice which Jerome has taken of this Gospel in his works, and the passages which he has quoted from it, supply us with data, from which we may draw a tolerably correct judgement of the claims this Gospel has to be considered as the genuine Gospel of St. Matthew.

1st. In his Note on Matt. ii. 5, Jerome observes, that the Hebrew Gospel reads Bethlehem of Judah, and not Bethlehem of Judea. The Nazarenes who live in Beræa, a city of Syria, and make use of this volume, granted me the favour of writing it out, in which (Gospel) there is this observable, that wherever the evangelist either writes himself, or introduces our Saviour as citing any passage out of the Old Testament, he does not follow the Septuagint, but the Hebrew copies, of which there are two instances, viz. that. Out of Egypt I have called my Son;' and that, He shall be called a Na<zarene.' pp. 92-97.

Now from these citations it clearly appears, that the testimonies of Epiphanius and Jerome are mistaken or misrepresented by the Editors of the Improved Version. For, in the first place, it is evident that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were in the possession and use of Gospels which differed from each other: that of the former was most entire (npσTOTO); that of the latter was not entire, but corrupted and curtailed (Evμvov xxxpanμOV), and this commenced with the words: It "came to pass in the days of Herod king of Judea.' The direct testimony of Epiphanius is, therefore, wanting as to the omission of the first and second chapters in the Hebrew Gospel. And in the next place, the testimony of Jerome is positively in favour of the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes containing the passages in question.

་

The case of Marcion is considered at length by the Author of this Vindication, and is very satisfactorily treated.

The

⚫ first and second chapters of this Gospel (Luke's),' say the Editors of the Improved Version, were wanting in the copies used by Marcion, a reputed heretic who flourished very early in the second century. His gospel was undoubtedly that of Luke, though he does not mention the evangelist's name : and he maintains its antiquity, authenticity, and integrity. • Marcion was one of those who, being ashamed of the simplicity of the gospel, blended it with the wildest speculations of an erroneous philosophy. But his character was unimpeached, even by his bitterest enemies, till it was calumniated by Epiphanius, 200 years after his death. He is accused by his enemies of mutilating and corrupting the Scriptures. The falsehood of many of the charges alleged by Epiphanius, is exposed by Dr. Lardner. But at any rate, it would be the

"most egregious trifling to argue, that those who appeal to the testimony of Marcion in a particular case, are bound to followhim in all the eccentricities of his opinions.' This is the whole of the Editors' note relating to the case of Marcion. That Marcion should be thus highly estimated as an evidence on the points at issue, will appear very remarkable to every reader of the volume before us, when he shall have perused the quotations. made by the Author from some of Mr. Belsham's publications, and the remarks which follow them. We shall present a sample of these to our readers.

• Marcion was so far from believing that Christ was born of a virgin, that he did not admit him to have been born at all; as that would have been to admit that Christ had real flesh and blood, of which he had divested him, as partaking of the evil properties which he ascribed to matter. Consequently, for Christ to be born of a woman, whether virgin or wife, was inconsistent with this part of his system; he therefore began his Gospel thus :-" In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee," (Tertul. Adv. Mar. lib. iv. c. 7.) connecting the beginning of the third chapter with the thirty-first verse of the fourth chapter of Luke, and omitting what is between, as well as what precedes; that is, besides the first two chapters, the account of John the Baptist, the baptism of Christ, the genealogy, the temptation of Christ, and his visit to Nazareth.

The Gospel of Luke was probably the basis of Marcion's Evangelium. His variations from the Gospel of Luke were intended, as will appear upon examination, to make it more conformable to his own opinions, that the God of the Jews was not the father of Christ; that the Jewish prophets did not foretel his advent; that Christ was hot born of a woman, and so did not partake of flesh and blood, but was man in appearance only: yet Mr. Belsham gravely asserts, that "there was nothing in his system, that we know of, which was inconsistent with the history of the miraculous conception."

But after all, notwithstanding their appeal to the evidence of Marcion, the Editors shew no great respect to it. They retain, in opposition to it, the first four verses of the first chapter of Luke, in which verses there is nothing inimical to Marcion's opinions. Equal disregard have they evinced to his evidence in other parts of their version of Luke's Gospel; for with one only exception, where Marcion's omission'favoured their own opinions, they have not once corrected the text of our copy of Luke by him, notwithstanding his numerous variations already noticed; which proves, if any proof were necessary, that Marcion has been brought forward, on the present 'occasion, not because the Editors wanted critical acumen to discover the inefficiency of Marcion's evidence to correct our text of Luke, but because, in the absence of better evidence, they could not dis pense with that of Marcion.' pp. 118-121.

"But," say the Editors, his Gospel was undoubtedly that of Luke." Whence do they derive this information? We are certain

t

that it is not from Marcion. This they acknowledge themselves, in their corrected note; though, with a strange inconsistency and pertinacity, they persevere in claiming a right to appeal to the testimony of Marcion. The conduct of the Editors is indeed inexplicable; for Mr. Belsham, the principal Editor, has, in his Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, explicitly declared Marcion's Evangelium to be a compilation of his own, and not the Gospel of St. Luke.-But Mr. Belsham shall speak for himself.

"Marcion lived before the canon was formed. And he selected one of the narratives then in circulation; biassed, no doubt, in his choice, as he naturally and unavoidably would be, by an unperceived prejudice in favour of his own system; and very probably adding or omitting, upon the authority of other copies, what he thought might be necessary to make that which he selected more perfect, and to supersede the necessity of receiving more histories than one. Thus forming what he calls an Evangelium, or an epitome of evangelical history, according to his views of it, exactly upon the principle upon which Luke professes to have formed his own. This ist is the more probable, as Marcion does not attribute his copy to any particular author, at the same time that he contends for its being an authentic history of Christ." pp. 336-338.

We have not room for the remarks which follow, nor, indeed, is it necessary for us to copy them, since every intelligent reader will perceive in what manner the Author must proceed with a commentary, the text of which is furnished by the passages extracted from Mr. Belsham's Reply. We refer our readers to the note which we have inserted from the Improved Version, and when they have well considered its decisive boldness of assertion, we would then remind them,-That there is no evidence that the Gospel of Luke was ever used by Marcion; That, according to Mr. Belsham's own account, Marcion's Gospel was a compilation, in the composition of which he used great liberties, his selections being determined by his preju→ dices; and, lastly, That the system of Marcion was such as to require the exclusion of passages from his Evangelium, which ascribed to Christ real existence in the flesh. The Editors are very tenacious of the assistance which they imagine they receive from Marcion; but nothing more is required to deprive them of aid from that quarter, than their own admissions. They remark that, at any rate, it would be the most egregious trifling to argue, that those who appeal to the testimony of Marcion in a particular case, are bound to follow him in all the eccentricities of his opinions. They may not be so bound; but what egregious trifling can there be in denying the validity of such testimony as that which they adduce from Marcion? They allow his eccentricities. They would allow. also, we suppose, the eccentricities of Evanson. But of what

value would be an appeal to his edition of the New Testament, by a writer some centuries hence, who should adduce it as evidence that the books which he excluded, were not received as genuine Scripture by Christians in the eighteenth century?

The Editors of the Improved Version adduce the genealogy in the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel, as being of itself conclusive evidence against the genuineness of the remaining portion of the first and the whole of the second chapter of that book. They produce Epiphanius as stating, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the Gospel of the Ebionites, argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was the Son of Joseph and Mary; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning their Gospel with these words: "And it came to pass in the days of Herod the "king." It is probable, therefore,' they say, that the first sixteen verses of this chapter are genuine, and that they were ** found at least in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates." The Editors think that it can hardly be supposed that the descent of Christ from Abraham and David, could be omitted by an author who wrote for the instruction of Hebrew Christians. The portion of Matthew's Gospel which follows the genealogy, and closes at the end of the second chapter, could not have been written, they say, by the author of the genealogy, because it contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the Son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abra'ham and David; whereas the design of this narrative is to shew, that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account, therefore, of the miraculous con'ception of Jesus Christ,' they add, must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebionites; and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious.'

The Editors of the Improved Version,' remarks the present Writer, 'admit the genuineness of the first sixteen verses in the first chapter of Matthew; but so averse are they to legitimate evidence for what they do receive of the first two chapters, that the only evidence to which they appeal for retaining the genealogy, is what Epiphanius, a writer of the latter end of the fourth century, says respecting Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Their reason for preferring such remote and circuitous evidence, when that which was good and direct lay before them, was, we may presume, because this latter evidence is equally in favour of the genuineness of the remainder of the first two chapters, which they reject as spurious: so far they are consistent. They ap pear, however, somewhat conscious of the deficiency of this evidence of Epiphanius, and therefore attempt to support it by conjectures of their own; but here, unfortunately, they are deserted by their favour