1.) The first instance of this fort which I affign is that in the paffage of Jerome above produced, Chap. XXV. Numb. XV. where it is faid, The mother and brethren of Chrift fpake to him, and faid, John the Baptift baptifes for the remiffion of fins, let us go and be baptifed by him: He faid to them, In what have I finned, that I have need to go and be baptised by him? unless my faying this proceeds perhaps from ignorance. The meaning of this paffage will be best perceived from a parallel one in another Apocryphal book, intitled, The Preaching of Peter, hereafter to be produced in which it was related 2, that Chrift confeffed his fins, and was compelled, contrary to his own inclinations, by his mother Mary to fubmit to the baptifm of John. Now hence it follows,

First, That Chrift was a finner; at least, was doubtful whether he was not fo: but this is contrary to the whole defign of the Chriftian scheme, which is entirely founded upon the supposition of Chrift being free from all manner of fin, in order to his making atonement and the neceffary fatisfaction. See 2 Cor. v. 21. 1 Peter ii. 22. 1 John iii. 5.

Secondly, That Chrift was unwilling to fubmit to the baptifm of John. But this is contrary to the certain notions we have of Chrift and his conduct, who never was backward to obey any of the divine commands. Befides, St. Matthew fays, (chap. iii. 15.) he compelled John to baptise him; so far was he from being unwilling. To which it may be worth adding, that after this Gospel had related the baptism of Jesus by John, it a little after adds, that John was defirous to be baptifed by Jefus, and then confounding St. Matthew's words, fays that of Chrift's denying John baptism, which St. Matthew says of John's denying Christ baptism, and makes Chrift to give that as a reason for his not baptifing John, which St. Matthew says he gave as a reason for his being baptised by John. For fo the words of it are related by Epiphanius, (above, Chap. XXV. Numb. XI.) John fell down before him and faid, O Lord, I pray thee baptife me: but he hindered him, saying, that it is fo fit all things should be fulfilled; on which that

• Tract. de non iterand. Baptifm. ad calc. Opp. Cypriani.

Father

Father justly cenfures that Gospel for falsehood, disorder, and confufion.

2.) The next inftance of falfehood I obferve in that Gospel is that history related by Jerome, (above, Chap. XXV. Numb. XIV.) concerning James's oath, that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, till he fhould fee the Lord rifen from the dead, &c. This is not only an idle fable, but contrary to known fact; for it has been long a very just observation, that as our Lord's Difciples feem to have had few higher expectations from him than the advancements of a temporal kingdom; fo they either did not believe, or but faintly believe, that he should be put to death, and rise again. As to their disbelief of his resurrection (which is all I have to do with now), the matter is very eafily gathered from the whole conduct of the Apoftles before his crucifixion, but especially from the relations of our Evangelifts of what happened afterwards. So Mark tells us, that when Mary Magdalen had feen him after his refurrection, she told his Difciples that he was alive, and had been feen of her; but they believed her not b; as allo, when two of the Apoftles had feen him, and affirmed it to the reft, they did not believe them; and that upon Chrift's appearing to them all assembled, he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was rifend. St. Luke expreffes this fomewhat more ftrongly, viz. that when report was made to the Apostles of Chrift's refurrection, The words of them (who related it) feemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. And St. John, speaking of himself and Peter, faith, They knew not the Scripture as yet, that Chrift muft-rise again from the dead. Now after fuch plain teftimonies, there is not any room left to question the truth of the fact, which by confequence demonftrates the falsehood of the Nazarene Gospel, which supposes the Apostle James, not only before Chrift died, to be perfuaded of his death, but also to be very positive

in his belief, both before his crucifixion and afterwards, that he fhould rife again.

3.) To the two former may be added the account Jerome more than once gives us out of it, that at our Saviour's crucifixion a large lintel, or beam of the temple (see above, Chap. XXV. Numb. XXIV, XXV.) was rent and fell down, contrary to three of our Evangelists, who say, this happened to the veil of the temple a at that time.

2. I argue farther, that this Hebrew Gofpel was Apocryphal by Prop. IX, as it contained several ludicrous and trifling, or filly and fabulous relations. Such certainly is that (referred to by Origen above, Chap. XXV. Numb. IV. and Jerome, Numb. XVIII. as alfo Numb. XVII.) concerning Christ's faying, 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 Ghoft's faying, My Son, during all the time of the Prophets I was waiting for thee, that I might rest upon thee, for thou art my reft; mentioned by Jerome, Numb. XVI. Such is that of the rich man's fcratching his head, when Chrift bad him fell all, and give to the poor, mentioned by Origen, Numb. V.

3. It may be farther proved Apocryphal by Prop. X. as it contained things later than the times of their being faid, or in which it pretended to be written. Such feems to me that declaration faid to be made by our Saviour above, (Chap. XXV. Numb. XII.) that he came to abolish all facrifices, and denounce the wrath of God upon all those who did facrifice. It is certain from the whole of our Saviour's conduct, that he was more careful than to give any fuch offence to the Jews, and purposely declined all fuch express oppofition to, and abolishment of, the Mofaick œconomy, as in several other inftances is obvious to observe. I take this therefore to be the forgery of a perfon, 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 Judaifing Chriftians. Such also

a Mat. xxvii. 51. Mark xv. 38. Luke xxiii. 45.

seems

seems to me that compellation, with which our Saviour addreffes himself to James (in that paffage of Jerome, Numb. XIV.) Mi frater, my brother; a title not known to be given. by our Saviour, nor in thofe early times when St. Matthew wrote, but afterwards very common among the Christians.

Thus much may fuffice to prove the Gospel of the Nazarenes Apocryphal; I fhall conclude with a fhort account,

V. Of what feems moft probable to me, of the nature and defign of this famous book, with fome fhort account of the hereticks who received it.

I take it to have been an early tranflation of the Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew into Hebrew, with the addition of many fabulous relations and erroneous doctrines, compofed in the name of the Twelve Apostles, by fome convert or converts to Christianity among the Jews, who with their profeffion of Chrift retained their zeal and affection for the law of Mofes, with the most prepofterous and abfurd notions concerning Chrift and the Chriftian religion.

The feveral parts of this hypothefis will appear by the following aphorifms.

1. The Gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in Greek, and not in Hebrew. This I having fo largely proved in another book fhall 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 fo frequently called by his name (as above), which cannot be imagined to have happened upon any other fuppofition, fince there was another Gospel extant under his name. One remark I have made out of a Fragment of it in Epiphanius, Chap. preced. Numb. XI. which seems to me to demonftrate, that it was made out of St. Matthew's Greek. For whereas in this we read, chap. iii. 4. That John the Baptift's food in the wilderness was axpídes xai μéλı äygiov, i. e. locufts and wild honey; instead thereof in the VOL. I. Nazarene

X

Nazarene Gofpel we read, his food wας μέλι ἄγριον οὗ ἡ γεῦσις ἦν Tỡ Máva ŵs èynpís, wild honey, whofe taste was like manna, or cakes made with honey and oil. Now forafmuch as it is certain, that locufts were a very common food in those Eastern countries, as is undeniably proved by Bochart, and fuch food seems very agreeable to the reft of John's way of life, it is but reasonable to conclude our present Greek reading (viz. anpides) to be the true and authentic one; and if so, then it is evident that this Nazarene Gospel was a tranflation of St. Matthew's Greek, and that the Tranflator read yxpides instead of axides, and being a Jew, accustomed to the use of the Septuagint Greek Bibles, very probably was led thereto by the Septuagint tranflation of those words, Exod. xvi. 31. Tò dè γεῦμα αὐτῷ ὡς ἐγκρὶς ἐν μέλιτι, or as it is in Num. xi. 8. Καὶ ἦν ἡ ἡδονὴ αὐτῷ ὡσεὶ γεῦμα ἐγκρὶς ἐξ ἐλαίε. And this by the way feems a very demonftrative proof, that St. Matthew's present Greek was not a tranflation out of Hebrew, seeing there was no poffibility of fuch a mistake in reading the Hebrew word, as to tranflate it angides, where it ought to have been tranflated 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, Numb. XI ) where we read, there was a certain man named Jefus, about thirty years of age, who chofe us to be his Apostles: where it is plain the writer fpeaks in the name of them all, or at least of several; just as in the pretended Conftitutions of the Apoftles, we continually read of exhortations and commands given in the name of all the Apoftles. Nor do I know any reason for difputing whether it bore this title, fave 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. Numb. I. See the passage at length in Sixtus Senenfis: but upon a ftrict enquiry I do

a Hierozoic. par. 2. 1. 4. c. 7. See alfo Sir Norton Knatchbull's Annotations on that place of Mat

thew.

Biblioth. San&t. 1. 2. ad voc. Hebræorum.

P. 64.

not