I obferve, that Father Simon fuppofesa, that our Greek Verfion, as he calls it, of St. Matthew, and many others, were made out of this Hebrew Gospel very early, even before the Nazarene interpolations. But in this he is mistaken; it being much more probable, no Greek Verfion was made of this Nazarene Gospel before Jerome's time; which, as it will be of fome importance in the following controverfy, I fhall endeavour to fupport by the following remarks, viz.

First, There is not the leaft intimation in all antiquity of any fuch Verfion before that made by Jerome.

Secondly, Had there been one made before Jerome's, there feems to have been no reason for his being made, at least it is probable he would have mentioned it as an imperfect tranflation; as he usually does in other cafes, where he speaks of his own tranflations.

Thirdly, It is probable enough, the Jewish Chriftians would be cautious to prevent their Gospel being made publick: as their forefathers were of the books of the Old Teftament, who, if I mistake not, kept an anniversary day of humiliation on account of the LXX. Verfion being made. And hence Jerome intimates, that the Nazarenes at Bercea favoured him, when they allowed him to take a copy of it. Mr. Fabritius therefore too haftily cenfured Jerome for making a tranflation of a book already tranflated; which, fays he, Origen and others read before in Greek ; for as I think it at leaft probable from what is faid, that there was no Verfion of it made before Jerome's, fo it does not appear, that either Origen or others read it in Greek, or cited it; which, as I have fhewn of Papias, I proceed to fhew of them.

The fecond, who is faid to have made use of this Gospel, is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the beginning of the fecond century. The paffage, supposed to be by him taken out of it, is as follows.

Καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τὰς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς, Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι ἐκ εἰμὶ Δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον· καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτῇ ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπίςευσαν, κρατηθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτᾶ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι.

And when he came to thofe who were with Peter, he faid unto them, Take, handle me, and fee that I am not an incorporeal Damon; and presently they touched him, and believed, being convinced by his fefh and fpirit.

This is generally faid by the criticks to have been taken by Ignatius out of this Gofpel. So judged Baronius a, Drufius b, Valefius, Dr. Grabed, and many others; whence they have formed a more high opinion of the book. That which perfuaded them to fuppofe it taken thence is the express afsertion of Jerome to this purpose: (see above, Chap. XXV. Numb. XXVIII.) but this will appear very improbable; for,

1. Ignatius does not make any mention of this Gofpel either in this, or any other place of thofe 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 confider 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 foldiers, and fo deftitute of his books. Can any one imagine, that in this journey Ignatius carried the Gospel of the Nazarenes, wrote in a language which he could fcarce understand, along with him from Syria to Rome? And if he did not, is it not more probable, he cited a paffage which he had heard by tradition, than quoted it out of this Apocryphal Gofpel? Nor am I alone in this conjecture. The great Casaubon in the place cited, and Bishop Pearfon', fuppofe the very fame, viz. That Ignatius did not take the passage out of the Nazarene Gospel, but referred to fome unwritten tradition,

which was afterwards inferted into the Hebrew Gofpel attributed to Matthew. But if this be not fufficient, I obferve, as what feems indeed most probable;

fo

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

The words of Chrift, as they

are in St Luke's Gofpel. Ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς με, καὶ τὰς πόδας με, ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι· ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀςέα ἐκ 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 fee, for a fpirit hath not flesh and bones, as you fee me have.

The words of Chrift, as they

are in Ignatius's Epiftle. Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι ἐκ εἰμὶ Δαιμόνιον ασώματον.

The English of Ignatius's words. Take, handle me, and fee, that I am not an incorporeal fpirit (or Damon).

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

- Firft, That the Chriftian Fathers, efpecially the oldeft, were continually wont to cite the Scriptures memoriter, i.e. by their memories, without confulting their copies, and fo not expreffing the very words of the facred writer whom they cited, thought it fufficient to express the fenfe or defign of the place. This is evident by a thousand instances, and is very well urged by Dr. Whitby a against Dr. Mill, who has very unfairly made their

• Examen variant. Lection. D. Millii. c. I.

§. 1, 2, &c.

memoriter

memoriter citations fo often to be various lections, or to proceed from different copies. Nor can it seem strange, that the Fathers did cite thus, when we fee the fame daily practised by the best writers. Befides, the form of their volumes was fuch, as occafioned much greater difficulty to find any paffage in them, than it now is in ours a. I might add farther, that they had not as yet their books distinguished into chapters and verses, as ours now are, &c.

Secondly, That Ignatius (as I have obferved) 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 fenfe 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 Epiftles of Ignatius.

Thirdly, I observe, the Epiftles of Ignatius are strangely corrupted and interpolated since their firft writing. This is well known, and Archbishop Ufher has abundantly proved it, and particularly in this fame place; 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 Epiftles of Ignatius to be fpurious, and the celebrated Mr. Daillé has endeavoured, from this very place, to prove that they are foc.

CHAP. XXVIII.

A particular Proof that neither Justin Martyr, Hegefippus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, nor Jerome have appealed to the Gospel of the Nazarenes as of any Authority, but on the contrary rejected it, as not Canonical,

HE next who is supposed to have taken any thing out of

ΤΗ

this Gospel is Justin Martyr a, viz. an account of a fire kindled in the river fordan, when Chrift was baptifed. Thus thought a learned friend of Mr. Dodwell's, whom he has mentioned in his Differtations on Irenæus b. But of this there is fo little probability, no Gospel being named by Justin, nay the paffage in Juftin being different from that in the Nazarene Gospel, that I think it needs no farther notice, than to be confidered among those uncertain sayings and histories of Christ, which will be collected in the Appendix to this volume.

Hegefippus (an early writer of the second century) is the next who is supposed to have used it, and, according to Dr. Grabe, to have bad frequent recourse to it; and Mr. Toland &, to have alledged it as a true Gospel. This they gather from a mistaken tranflation of these words of Eufebius, Ex de rè nad Εβραίες Εὐαγ[ελία, καὶ τῷ Συριακῦ, καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος διαλέκτε Tvà Tin; thus tranflated by Valefius; Nonnulla item ex Hebræorum Evangelio, & Syriaco, & ex Hebraicâ linguâ profert in medium, &c. But I think much better rendered thus in English, He has difcourfed or faid fome things concerning the Hebrew Gofpel, and the Syriack and Hebrew language; for to cite things out of the Syriack and Hebrew dialect seems a very bald and incongruous expreffion. Hence Ruffin has tranflated it, Differuit de Evangelio fecundum Hebræos, &c. And there

a Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud. P. 315.

Differt. II. §. 9. p. 106.

c Lib. cit. Sæcul. 1. p. 16, 24. d Nazar. c. 20.

e Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 22.

fore