taining many relations which are not in the other; but it is nevertheless very probable they both are the product of fome one antient Gospel, which went through very many alterations, interpolations, &c. To fupport this, I observe, That there are feveral relations in both, which cannot with any reafon be doubted to have been the fame. For inftance, the ftory of Chrift's forming the twelve sparrows on the Sabbathday out of mud, a certain Jew's being offended, Chrift's clapping bis hands, and the fparrows flying away, in Cotelerius's Gofpel, Ch. II. is related with very little alteration in Mr. Sike's, Ch. XLVI. compared with XXXVI. So is that ftory, Cotel. Ch. IV. with Sike's XLVI. The ftory of Chrift's learning his alphabet of a schoolmaster named Zaccheus, in Cotelerius's Gospel, Ch. VI. is related with little difference in Mr. Sike's, XLVIII, XLIX. So alfo the account of Chrift's going into the dyer's fhop, of which we have a part in Cotelerius's Gospel, Ch. VII. is related at large in Mr. Sike's, Ch. XXXVII. From hence it is evident, near half that Gospel which Cotelerius published, is contained in Mr. Sike's; which, if it be impartially confidered, as also that the former of these is only a fragment or imperfect part of a more large Gofpel, and therefore might contain, as very probably it did, many other things which are in Mr. Sike's; it seems to have as much probability as the nature of the thing will allow, that they both were either originally one and the fame, or proceeded from one and the fame original. II. The Gospel under the name of Thomas the Apostle, so frequently mentioned by the antients, was a book different from that, intitled, Concerning the Infancy of our Saviour. This observation is necessary to be made here, not only because in that Gospel which is published by Cotelerius, the author pretends to have been Thomas the Apostle, but because without it there is much danger of confufion in treating on this subject. Mr. Fabritius, in his large collections relating to this Gospel, has with much labour amaffed together the teftimonies of the antients and moderns concerning the Gospel of Thomas, and prefixed them to thefe two Gofpels of the Infancy of our Saviour; but in fuch a manner, as muft needs involve the reader in the utmoft perplexity: to avoid this, I have made the prefent observation, viz.. that the antient Gospel of Thomas was very different from the Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. This appears, because 1. The antient Chriftian writers have mentioned these as two different and diftinct books. In Pope Gelafius's Decree we read, Evangelium nomine Thomæ Apocryphum, The Gospel under the name of Thomas is Apocryphal; and a little after, Liber de Infantia Salvatoris Apocryphus, The book of the Infancy of our Saviour is Apocryphal. In a small tract of Timothy, a Prefbyter of Conftantinople, we find, among the other books forged by the Manichees, recited as a distinct one, Tò narà Owuär Evaylinor, The Gospel according to Thomas; and a little after, Τα παιδικά λεγόμενα τῷ Κυρίε ἃ συνέταξαν οἱ αὐτοὶ, θέλοντες δό κησιν ἀποφῆναι τὴν σάρκωσιν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐκ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ; The accounts of our Lord's infancy, which the Manichees forged, with defign to reprefent Chrift not as having been really incarnate, but only in appearance f. This Timothy is supposed by Dr. Caveb to have lived about the year of Chrift DCX. 2. The Gospel of Thomas, mentioned by Cyril of Jerusalem, and feveral of the antients after him, was compofed by Thomas, one of the three difciples of Manes, the father of the Manichees (i. e. in the latter end of the third century, about the time of Aurelius Probus, or Dioclesian); but the books of our Saviour's Infancy were extant in the time of Irenæus, and the forgery of the Gnofticks in the beginning of the fecond century. This is clear from the noted chapter in Irenæus, adv. Hæref. (viz. c. xvii. 1. 1.) which, as far as it relates to my purpose, I fhall presently produce at length. I must indeed confefs, that there was a Gofpel under the name of Thomas, extant before this compofed by the disciple of Manes, as appears by that place of Origen, which I have had occafion fo often to cite in the second part of the former a Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. t. 1. P. 139. . Liter. Vol. I. p. 447• See the former Volume, Part II. Ch. XL. No. LXV. and particularly the teftimony of Cyril there. volume (viz. Homil. in Luc. i.). But there is not the least ground to conclude, either from Origen or any one of the Christian writers, that the Gospel under the name of that Apoftle had any reference, or treated at all about the affairs and actions of our Saviour's infancy. From all this I infer, that I have not here any occafion to concern myself with the Gospel of Thomas; but concluding it to be a loft book, muft judge it fufficient to refer the reader to its proper place among fuch books (viz. Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XL. Num. LXV.). My business now is with the treatises of our Saviour's Infancy; and relating to thofe, I observe, farther, III. Some of thofe called Chriftians in the beginning of the fecond century, published and received fome book, or books, in which were contained the memorable actions of our Saviour in his infancy, or the history of Christ before he entered upon his publick miniftry. The Chriftians I mean were the Marcofians, a branch of the noted fect called Gnofticks; and as to the fact, we are affured by Irenæus, who faith, εἰπὲ Αλφα, αποκρίνασθαι το fay A, anfwered 4; again, when the mafter bid him fay B, the Lord said to him, Do you firfi tell me what A is, and then I will tell you what B is. And this they fo expound, as if he alone underfood the myftery which he revealed in the letter 4. I know not that any of the antient Chriftians befides the Gnofticks did receive these books as genuine, or indeed that any one befides Irenæus has made mention of them within the first four centuries after Christ. IV. The Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour was known to Mahomet, or those who affifted him in compiling the Alcoran. I add those who affifted him; because it is certain that Mahomet himself could neither write nor read, as he confeffes twice in the fame chapter of the Alcoran (viz. Ch. VII. intitled, Of Prisons, p. 165.); and I have in the former Volume (Append. p. 462, &c.) fhewn who his affiftants were. These, I fay, knew the Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. I have already proved in the Appendix now cited, that many, or most of those things which are in the Alcoran, relating to Christ and Christianity (which I have also there produced) were taken out of fome Apocryphal or spurious writings, and particularly instanced in some taken out of the Gospel of the Infancy. Since the writing of that volume, I find the learned Hinkelmannus has afferted in his Preface to his Arabick edition of the Alcoran, that Mahomet and his affiftants made ufe of this Gofpel in many places of the Alcoran. In hunc infelici fuo et aliorum fato cum adjutoribus fuis incidit Impoftor Mahomedes, et paffim, præcipue capite tertio, multa ex eodem in Corenum fuum tranfcripfit magno fuo opprobrio, et nova religionis detrimento; i. e. The impoftor Mahomet, by his unlucky fate, and his disciples, ples, met with this book (of the Infancy of Chrift), and has in many places, especially in the third chapter, transcribed many things out of it into his Alcoran, to his own fhame and the injury of his new religion. If my fearches into the Alcoran do not deceive me, this learned editor is mistaken, and, instead of many places, there are but two only to be found there, in which the compilers have transcribed out of this Gospel. I question not but he confounded the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, or, which is the fame thing, the Protevangelion of James, with the Gospel of the Infancy: for whereas he cites. the third chapter of the Alcoran, and faith much of it was transcribed out of the Gospel of the Infancy, he is mistaken, the contents of that chapter being manifestly taken more out of the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, Ch. II. or the Protevangelion of James, Ch. IV. Notwithstanding this, as I have above observed, there are two things in the Alcoran manifeftly taken out of the Gospel of the Infancy, as that Ch. III. and Ch. V. intitled, Of the Table (in my collection out of the Alcoran, Num. II. and Num. VII. Vol. I. p. 451, and 455.) Concerning Chrift's speaking in his cradle, which is in so many words in the Gospel of the Infancy, published by Mr. Sike, Ch. I. and the ftory of Christ's making a bird out of mud or flime, in the laft-cited places of the Alcoran, which is in both the Gospels above produced, viz. that of Cotelerius, Ch. II. and that of Mr. Sike, Ch. XXXVI. and XLVI. 1 It will not be improper to add here, that though the generality of the Mahometans know little or nothing concerning Christ besides what is contained in the Alcoran, yet there have been among some of them fome traditions relating to Chrift's infancy which are not there; fome of which, as they are collected by Mr. Fabritius in feveral places, I fhall here lay together, particularly, 1. That which Mr. Sike relates out of La Broffe's Perfic Lexicon; It is affirmed, fays he, in an Apocryphal book of the Perfians, that our Saviour practifed the dyer's trade, and See Vol. I. p. 464. It is alfo obferved by Cotelerius, Annot. in Q4 Conftit. Apoftolic. 1. 6. c. 17. that |