not perceive that Beda has at all diftinguished them, but rather that Dr. Grabe 2, and Mr. Fabritius, are mistaken in supposing he did. 4. That it was a very early compofure, I make no doubt, from the early mention we have of it. It is not improbable (as I have faid) that it was referred to by St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Galatians, which was written about the year of Chrift LVII or LVIII. It was undoubtedly extant in the beginning of the fecond century; though nothing feems more abfurd than Dr. Grabe's opinion, that it was written before St. Matthew wrote his. It is like fuppofing 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 fo many, and fo very notorious, that I wonder how Father Simon could have fo high an opinion either of thefe, or the Gospel that contained them. Can any one unprejudiced give the preference to fuch a heap of fables and contradictions, above St. Matthew's plain and confiftent accounts? But because that learned writer was fo far prejudiced in favour of this Hebrew Gofpel, as to prefer it to the Greek of St. Matthew, even with all thefe differences, I would argue a little upon his own hypothefis against him. Suppofe, then, our Greek copies of St. Matthew were really a translation out of the Hebrew, in which that Apoftle firft wrote; how came it to pass that the Greek tranflation fhould be so very different from its original, as it is in every one of the remaining paffages? This difference cannot be fuppofed to have happened but upon one of these two following accounts; viz. either, First, Because the Verfion was made when the Hebrew original was more pure, and that thefe additions were made by the Nazarenes afterwards; or, Secondly, Because the author of the Greek Verfion epitomised it, and altered it according to his own mind. Father Simon, according as it served his purpose, supposes both thefe, though moft evidently contradictory to each other; seeing the difference could not proceed from both causes. But whichfoever of them we fuppofe 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 efteemed Apocryphal, because the alterations and additions were fo 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 fuppofition, is pure and perfect, being made before the Nazarene alterations. If he fay the latter, viz. that the difference proceeds from the fault of the Greek tranflator; then I answer, that this supposes the things in which the Nazarene Gofpel differs from St. Matthew's Greek, to be good and useful; which is contrary to what has been above proved. 6. This Hebrew Gofpel, or tranflation of St. Matthew's 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 fort of perfons of the Jewish nations, who were for uniting their old religion with the new one of Chrift, is evident from a great part of St. Paul's Epiftles; three of which feem purposely to be written against them; viz. That to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That these were principally delighted with the Gofpel intitled, According to the Hebrews (μársa Εραίων οἱ τὸν Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρεσι), we are exprefsly affured by Eufebius, as well as by many other antient writers. Of this Gospel they had fo prodigiously great an opinion, that for the fake of it they contemned and rejected all others, and only a See his Crit. Hift. of N. T. part 1. c. 7, 9. Hiftor. Ecclef. lib. 3. c. 25. made made ufe of this: fo we are told by Ireneus, Eufebius", and others. Now hence it seems undeniably to follow, that there were in this Gospel feveral things which favoured their peculiar notions, and confequently that it was made by fome Chriftianised Jew, or rather Judaifing Christian . That which remains is only to give fome brief account of the Nazarenes, who used this Gospel. They are faid by Epiphanius to have arofe from fome Chrif tian Jews, who went from Jerufalem to Pella. 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. viii. Out of these sprang the Ebionites, who had in a great measure the fame opinions with the Nazarenes, and yet are made two distinct fects 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 fhall give the reader an abstract out of Irenæus, Eufebius, and Epiphanius, in the following manner. Concerning the Nazarenes. 1. They maintained the perpetual obligation of the law of Mofes, and differed only from the Jews, in that they profeffed the name of Chrift, and urged, as neceffary, the use of facrifices, circumcifion, &c. f 2. They denied the Divinity of Chrift, afferting him a Adv. Hæref. 1. i. c. 26. b Eccl. Hift. 1. 3. c. 27. This would probably admit no doubt, if more of it had been preferved. • Hæref. 29. §. 7. See also Eu Concerning the Ebionites. 1. They obliged themfelves to the observation of all things commanded in the law of Mofes, fuch as facrifices, circumcifion, &c. profeffed enemies to St. Paul and his writings, because he wrote fo warmly against the law %. to be a mere man; fo we read in Theodoret, that they looked upon him only as a just and good man. Hær. Fab. 1. ii. c. 2. a 3. They used the Gospel according to Matthew in the Hebrew, moft entire, according to Epiphanius, who adds, that he was uncertain whether they had taken away out of it the genealogy from Abraham to Christ, or no ". fome afferting him a mere man, born, as other men, of Jofeph and Mary'. Others confeffed him to have come from Heaven, but made before all, and being a fuperangelical Creature, had the dominion of allc. 3. They made use of St. Matthew's Gospel alone, and that in Hebrew, but according to Epiphanius, not entire, but corrupted and adulterated, and took away the genealogy from it, and began their Gospel with these words; And it came to pass in the days of Herod, &c. It is plain therefore, that there was a very great agreement between these two antient fects; and though they went under different names, yet they feem only to differ in this, that the Ebionites had made fome additions to the old Nazarene fyftem ; for Origen exprefsly tells us *, Καὶ Ἐβιοναῖοι χρηματίζεσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Ιεδαίων τὸν Ἰησῶν ὡς Χρισὸν παραδεξάμενοι, They were called Ebionites, who from among the Jews own Jefus to be the Chrift. And though Epiphanius feems to make their Gofpels different, calling one wλnpésarov, most entire, the other λngésarov, not entire, yet this need not move us; for if the learned Cafaubon's conjecture fhould not be right, that we fhould read the fame, viz. ¿ wλnpésatov, in both places a (which yet is very probable for any thing Father Simon has proved to the contrary): yet will the difficulty be all removed at once by this fingle confideration, that Epiphanius never faw any Gofpel of the Nazarenes; for though he calls it wλngésarov, yet he himfelf fays, ἐκ οἶδα δὲ εἰ καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας περιεῖλον 5, that he did not know whether they had taken away the genealogy as the Ebionites had done, i. e. having never seen the Nazarene Gofpel, for ought he knew, it might be the very fame with that of the Ebionites, as indeed it moft certainly was. CHA P. XXX. The Acts of Paul and Thecla extant in the Bodleian Library, and published by Dr. Grabe. Acts of Paul a different Book. Thefe falfely fuppofed by Dr. Mill to be wrote by faithful Chriftians, A. D. LXIX. to fupply the Defects of Luke's Hiftory of the Apostles' Acts. A filly Forgery rejected by all the Antients who name it. The Preaching of Paul and Peter one Book. A Book under the Name of Paul. The Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul generally thought to have been two Books. Aridiculous Blunder of Mr. Toland's, relating to it. Proved by feveral Arguments to be only different Titles of the fame Book. A Conjecture concerning a Passage of Tertullian, wherein he refers to this Book. The Title of a Revelation under the Name of Paul now extant in a Manufcript in the Library of Merton College at Oxford.. Numb. XLIII. The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA. TH HESE are mentioned by Tertullian, and from him by |