To clear this, we must remember, that thefe Gofpels have claimed Apoftolick authority, and been publifhed under the names of St. Thomas, St. Peter, and St. Matthew, as I have above faid. Now there are feveral things here inconfiftent with the Apoftolick age, and much later than that time. To omit all other inftances, I fhall make choice of two, which appear to me most evident and demonftrative proof of the matter. 1. The firft is, that prodigious respect which through the whole Gospel (viz. of Mr. Sike) is paid to the Virgin Mary. Sometimes she is made to work miracles herself, (fee Ch. XIV.) almost always is made the inftrument or means of working it, and the perfon applied to, and receiving the praife of the work, while Jofeph ftands by as an unconcerned fpectator, and is never mentioned. But what is moft confiderable, is, that fhe is canonized, and called always (not only by the author of the Gospel, but by those who were perfect ftrangers to her before in Egypt, and elfewhere) diva Maria, and diva fanita Maria; which I know not how better to tranflate, than in the language of her worshippers, the Lady St. Mary. And old Simeon in his prayer, which is here, Chap. VI. and recorded Luke ii. 28, &c. is introduced as ftretching out his hands towards her, as though he worshipped her. But of all this the first ages were ignorant; nor in the first centuries after Christ do we find any thing of this prodigious deference to the Virgin : this was an invention of later ages, and was not heard of in the Church, till the fourth or fifth century, nor fo common as this book supposes, till fome centuries after. I remember indeed that Epiphanius, among the herefies of his time, mentions one which he entitles, Of the Collyridians, which he mentions in a letter fent by him to the churches of Arabia, and afterwards, as a diftinct Herefy. "There were some filly women who went from Thrace to Arabia, and spread "their doctrine in the upper parts of Scythia, and proceeded (fays the Father) to that degree of madness, as anữ Taúτην παρεισάγειν ἐσπεδακότας καὶ σπεδάζοντας, καὶ ἐν ἐμβροντήσει τινὶ a Hæref. 78. §. 1. et 23. b Hæref. 79. 66 хай σε καὶ φρενοβλαβεία φερομένως "; viz. Τo endeavour to obtrude the "Virgin upon us as a goddefs, with a zeal and fury like mad "perfons. Accordingly they were wont to keep meetings, " and by the devil's inftinct having adorned a table, and spread a cloth on it, at an appointed time they set bread (noλλvgída “Tà, a sort of fine manchet, cracknels, or wafers, from which "word they had their name Collyridiani) upon it for fome "days, and then made a facrifice of it to the Virgin, and the « honour of her name.' This is the first I know of any worship, or any thing like it, paid to the Virgin, and is well bantered and exposed by Epiphanius, out of whom I shall observe no more now, than that he calls it a new fable, wóder dé wárir ἡμῖν ὁ καινὸς μῦθος οὗτος ἐγήγερται ; Whence arofe this new fable? and fays, It was a herefy peculiar only to these women. After this, I find no mention in antiquity of fuch regards to the Virgin for a long time. Nondum Marianus cultus, nondum templa fructa TM EOTóny, qualia fane fequenti ævo Juftinianus ex Procopio; nondum preces, Ave Maria, Salve Regina, Rofaria, &c. nondum fefta in honorem Virginis, nec ullum ex feptem illis feftis Virgini dicatis, quorum primum (v. g. feftum "Tяαπávτns, seu occurfus vel purificationis) refertur a Thomasfino ad tempora Juftiniani ex Theophane et Anaftafio: nondum miracula illi adfcripta, &c. They are the words of the learned Chriftian antiquary Mr. Spanheim, fpeaking of the fifth a See the Epiftle now cited. Hæref. 78. §. 23. b Hæref. 79. §. 4. Hift. Chrift. Secul. V. p. 972. The Papifts indeed pretend to prove, that there were temples long before the fifth century, built and dedicated to the honour of the Virgin; concerning which I have met with a remarkable place in Durant. de Ritib. Ecclef. Cathol. 1. 1. c. 2. whofe words I thought it worth while to tranflate here. "Buterus "Vafæus, in his Spanish Chronicle, " and many others, relate, that the "Virgin Mary appeared to St. "James in the city of Saragoffa "in Spain, and that there the first temple was built to the Virgin, " and is called commonly in Spa"nifh, Nuestra Señora del Pilat. "Calixtus, the feventeenth Pope "from Peter [According to Eufebius's Catalogue he is the fifteenth from Peter. See the Catalogue collected by Valefius out of Eufebius. This Pope lived about the year 215.] "built the temple of the Virgin. "called Tranftyberinum (viz. on "the other fide the Tyber) in the "fame place where stood a taverṛn "which flowed with oil during the "whole day on which Chrift was "born. See Damaf. Vit. Pontif. "Orof. 1. 6. c. 18. 20. Paul. Dia"con. and others. The Temple built fifth century: "There was not yet any worship of the Vir "gin Mary, no temples built and dedicated to her, as by "Juftinian (according to Procopius) there was in the fixth 66 century; there were as yet no prayers to her, no Ave Ma"ria's, no Salve Regina's, no Rofaries, &c. no feasts as yet "appointed for the honour of the Virgin, nor one of the feven "feafts dedicated to the Virgin, the first of which (viz. that "of purification) is from Theophanes and Anaftafius referred "to the time of Juftinian by Thomaffin; no miracles as yet "afcribed to her, &c." The fame is largely proved by the learned Chemnitius a, and many others of the Reformed writers against the popifh doctrine of the invocation of Saints. Now hence it follows, the Gospel of Chrift's Infancy must be Spurious and Apocryphal, as containing those compellations of the Virgin which were not known, and that respect which was not thought of, till the fourth or fifth century, or afterwards. It is Apocryphal therefore by Prop. X. and could not be the compofure of Thomas, Matthew, Peter, or any Apofile. 2. The other inftance of fomething in this Gospel, which is later than the time of the Apoftles, and which proves it fpurious, is that which we read Ch. V. viz. The old woman's taking Christ's foreskin when he was circumcised, putting it in an alabafter box of oil of Spikenard; giving it her fon, who was a druggift, and charging him not to fell that ointment, though he fhould be offered three hundred pence for it. This smells fo much of later ages, that one would be apt to imagine at first thought, that the book was the composure of some idle monk, or Popish priest; as Erafmus tells us, fome perfon in his time wrote a book of Christ's playing with the boys in Egypt, which was larger than the Bible. But to come to the argument: the author of the Gofpel fays, Chrift's fore-fkin was kept in a box of oil, or ointment, by the old woman; though of this he is not sure; for he adds, Others fay it was his navel-string which She took and preferved; which by the way is enough to exclude it from the Canon; for authors pretending to infpiration fhould not by any means be in any doubt or uncertainty about their facts which they relate. But however, we will fuppofe him to be in the right, and that it was Chrift's fore-skin which was preferved (though by the way, again I obferve, that both the forefkin and the navel-ftring are to be feen, and commonly fhewn to the miferable deluded people at Rome 2, among the other ridiculous reliques which are of so much use to the priests); yet the business of preferving reliques was a thing unheard of in the early ages of Chriftianity: the primitive Chriftians knew other ways more ferviceable to promote the interest of religion, than by fuch vile delufions of the people; and the minifters of the Gospel at that time found other methods of procuring maintenance, than by fuch bafe impoftures. I dare venture to affirm, that for the first three centuries after Chrift, there was nothing of this ridiculous fuperftition in the Chriftian world, nor the least intimations of it in Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, or indeed any writer of those times. Pontificii igitur fuæ venerationis Reliquiarum verum aut firmum patrocinium ex probatis hiftoriis antiquitatis primitivæ Ecclefiæ per annos trecentos et amplius, nullum habere pofjunt, fays Chemnitius, one of our beft writers against the Papifts, who had with great care and diligence enquired into this matter; and proves, that for 300 years and upwards they have no foundation for regarding reliques in any of the genuine records of Chriftianity. In the following pages that excellent author gives a very learned and accurate account both of the time and occafion of the first respect fhewn to reliques, viz. that Conftantine, who always endeavoured to recommend Chrift a The fore-fkin is fhewn in St. John's, and the navel-ftring in St. Mary's; as alfo the ftone on which Chrift was circumcifed, in St. James's. See Fabrit. Cod. Apoc. Exam. Concil. Trident. Par. ianity 1 ianity to the Heathens, obferving with what pomp the bodies of those, who were great men among them, were translated from the obscure places where they had been buried, to more splendid and honorable places, thought proper to pay the same respect to the bodies of the Apoftles, Saints, and fuch who had been eminent among the Chriftians; and accordingly did begin to tranflate the reliques of faints and martyrs from obfcure places to Conftantinople. In this he was followed by many devout perfons; miracles were often wrought, or supposed to be wrought by the bones; and then more strict search was made after them. In fhort, men generally entertained a prodigious veneration for them; among which were Austin, Jerome, Chrysostom; and they thought the reliques and bones were the protection of their cities where they lay: hence they became defired by many; perfons made long pilgrimages to fee them, and it became a beneficial trade to fell them. And fuch was the foundation of the Popish fuperftition and veneration for reliques; whence it appears they could not be much regarded till about the year of Chrift 350, or 400. Mr. Spanheim alfo places their original about the fame time 2. Now hence I argue, that the Gofpel of our Saviour's Infancy is Apocryphal; for if there was no cuftom in the primitive Church of preferving and regarding reliques, and it appears, as above, that this Gospel mentions such a custom; it follows, that it was composed either in the fifth century, or in the latter end of the fourth, and confequently that it is fpurious and Apocryphal by Prop. IX. I know, indeed, that the Papists would perfuade us, that the custom of worshipping reliques is of much greater antiquity. They would deduce it from Scripture, the most antient Fathers, and Councils; which are justly confidered by Chemnitius in the place cited, and need no other refuting. Instead of that, I fhall choose to entertain the reader in the close of this head, with a few things out of Durant's celebrated Account of the Rites and Customs of the Catholick, or Roman Church ». a Hift. Chrift. Secul. IV. p. 865. & Secul. V. p. 972, 973. b De Ritib. Eccl. Cathol. 1. 1. c. 25. p. 272, &c. After |