After having cited feveral antient books to establish the Popish practice in this matter, he cites out of Chryfoftom, "That the "garments of deceafed faints drive away devils." Out of Bafil; "He who toucheth a martyr's bones, shall become in fome "measure partaker of his holiness, by reafon of the virtue that

refts upon the body. Thefe, fays he, are bulwarks to our "country, and defend us from our adverfaries." Out of Gregory Nyfiene; "If any one happen to touch the duft of a martyr "or his reliques, he will then find how defirable a thing it was "to do fo, and the reward of his prayers." Out of Gregory Nazianzen; "The martyrs have feafts and honours appointed "for them; by them devils are drove away, difeafes are cured, whofe bodies are able to do as much as their holy fouls, if they "be touched and honoured; nay, even a drop of their blood, or "the leaft fign or mark of their fuffering, will do the fame as "the whole body." Out of Auftin; "The bodies of the faints, "and especially the reliques of the martyrs, are to be truly ho"noured as Chrift's members." The fame Father, lib. 22. c. 8. et in Serm. de Stephano, tom. 10. fpeaks of “mighty miracles

wrought by St. Stephen's reliques, and of a perfon cured of a "palfy by a small parcel of duft that came out of Chrift's grave.” Out of the fame (Confeff. 1. 9. c. 7.) "That the bones and re"liques of the martyrs Prothafius and Gervafe caft out many "devils, as the devils themselves confeffed." Out of Jerome ;" "The devil roared at the reliques of Andrew, Luke, and Ti"mothy; that the reliques of St. Babyla flopt the devil's mouth "at the Delphick Oracle, and overthrew Apollo's Temple. Out of Chryfoftom; "The Saints' reliques torment the devils "Let us go to their tombs, worship and touch their reliques "with great faith, that we may obtain a bleffing." Out of Gregory Nazianzen, " St. Cyprian's duft is almighty, as they "found who have tried it, and told us of its miracles." "Bafil "extols Peter and Paul's chains; Chryfoftom, Austin, and Gregory Speak of St. James's epifcopal chain, kept by his fuc"ceffor at Jerufalem; Peter's key honoured by Gregory; Am"brofe prefers the nails that faftened Agricola to the cross, above any treasures." In a word, he proves (as he thinks) from many Fathers, and nine or ten Councils, that the greatest VOL. II.

S

bonour

honour is due to the bones and ashes of faints. From all this we fee, how in the fifth century and afterwards, men grew exceeding fond of reliques. It is not my business here to confute the opinion; nor fhall I add any more; only having made this fhort digreffion, fhall relate one ftory of reliques, which I find in the place of Chemnitius last cited, p. 20. as told by one whom he calls Andreas Abbas Amelunxhornenfis, that one of our English Kings, named Edward, being troubled with the tooth-ach, ordered the teeth of Apollonia to be fent to him, which were kept in all the churches of his kingdom among the reliques, and that he had, out of the churches of England alone, fo many of these teeth of Apollonia, which were kept as reliques, that feveral large tubs would not contain them.

I might here, if it were needful, add several other argu ments by which the spuriousness of these Gofpels would appear; fuch as, That the temper and difpofition of the author is different from any one of our Lord's difciples (Prop. XIII.). That feveral parts of it are borrowed and jumbled together out of our Gofpels, as will be evident to every one (Prop. XIV.). That it is not in the Syriack Verfion (Prop. XV.). But omitting all these, I shall conclude my difcourfe on these Gofpels with some account of what feems to me moft probable concerning their original as to author and time. In this matter I have not met with the opinion of any, except our countryman Dr. Mill

and Mr. La Crofe.

The former is of opinion, that it was a compofure of the Ebionites, and intimated to be fo in the Epistle under the name of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus, and prefixed, together with the Protevangelion of James, before their Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; Proleg. in N. T. §. 275, 276. And in another place, viz. §. 329. that the Valentinians tranflated feveral things out of the book of Chrift's Infancy into their Gofpel; and §. 336. that it was interpolated, and revived the addition of feveral idle ftories by Leucius Charinus, as is intimated in the fore-cited Epifle to Chromatius and Heliodorus.

Mr. La Crose, in a letter dated at Berlin, the fourth of the Ides of December, 17182, fuppofes it written by fome perfon

a

Apud Fabrit. Cod. Apoc. N. T. tom. 3. p. 421.

whe

who was a Neftorian; because in a Synod called Diamperana, held by Alexius de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, in the diocese of Angamala, in the mountainous country of Malabar, in the year of Chrift 1559, he found it thus condemned: "The book "which is intitled, Of the Infancy of our Saviour, or the "History of our Lady, already condemned by the antient "faints, because it contains many blafphemies and herefies, "and many fabulous ftories without foundation, &c." Inftances of which are produced in that Synod, the fame as are in Mr. Sike's Gospel; and it is there faid, that it was commonly read among the Neftorians in Malabar. His other reafon is founded upon a trifling criticism not worth regarding. I will not here enter into a particular difcuffion of these two opinions, but propofe what I judge most probable, and make such reflections upon them as may be to my purpose.

1. The first book of Christ's Infancy, and the ftories thereof, were forged by the Gnofticks in the beginning of the fecond century. This is plain from Irenæus, l. 1. c. 17. (fee the preface above), who expressly faith, that thefe Hereticks were the authors or inventors of thefe idle ftories. Dr. Mill's conjecture is therefore groundless, who fuppofes that the Gnofticks borrowed them out of a book of Chrift's Infancy written by the Ebionites; nor does the Epiftle to Chromatius and Heliodorus intimate any fuch thing..

2. The book of the Infancy of cur Saviour feems to have been joined to, or as a fecond part of the Gospel of Mary; or, which is the fame, of the Protevangelion of James. This I gather from these reasons :

1.) Because they are spoke of as one book in the Epiftle of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome, and in his answer to them. Their letter begins; We have found in fome Apocryphal books an account of the Virgin Queen Mary, as also the birth and infancy of our Lord Jefus Chrift, in which we obServe many things contrary to our faith-Armenius and Virinus tell us, that your holiness hath found a volume in Hebrew,

2 I have published the three letters out of Jerome's works above, before the Protevangelion of James.

written with the Evangelift Matthew's own hand, in which is defcribed the infant-state of the Virgin Mother and our Saviour. In Jerome's answer, after he had spoke concerning his tranflating it out of Hebrew, as they defired; he concludes, that he hoped he should receive the benefit of their prayers, who by means of his labour should come to the knowledge of the Infancy of our Saviour. By this one would imagine, that Jerome (or whoever was the author of the Epistle) had in one volume, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of the Infancy, joined together; especially seeing in the last paragraph he seems to mention the hiftory of Chrift's Infancy by itself, as what was the most confiderable part of the book which he had translated. And though there be not in the Gospel of Mary, which follows thefe Epiftles in Jerome's work, any thing of Chrift's Infancy, yet it might formerly have been, and left out by fome fcribe afterwards.

2.) Because the compilers of the Alcoran having joined together, in a continued series of history, part of the Gospel of Mary or Protevangelion, and part of the Gospel of Chrift's Infancy (Alcoran, ch. 3. p. 97, 98. See the former Volume, Append. p. 464.); this is not fo likely to have happened, unless these hiftories had been fome way or other joined together. What I have here conjectured concerning the book of Chrift's Infancy being joined to the Gofpel of Mary, I fince find fully proved by that which the old editor of Jerome's works, after the Prologue to the Gospel of Mary, or letter to Chromatius and Heliodorus (above, Ch. XIV.) says, that he would not print Librum ipfum de Infantia, licet in quodam exemplari repererim, qui aniles quafdam fabulas continet—quia Evangelicæ auctoritati in Cana Galileæ initium fignorum Salvatoris fuiffe teftanti repugnare videtur; the book of the Infancy, though he found it in a MS. because of its idle ftories, and its not agreeing with the Gospel, which faith, Chrift wrought his firft miracle in Cana of Galilee. Now hence it follows, the Gofpel of the Infancy was joined to the Gospel of Mary in his copy; viz. because the preface to the Epiftle of Jerome, to which the editor fubjoins this, is the very fame which in

another

another part of Jerome's works is prefixed to the Gospel of Mary, as above, Ch. XIV.

3.) Because Cotelerius, in a note after that Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour, which I have above tranfcribed out of his notes on the Conftitutions of the Apostles, 1. 6. c. 16. tells us, that befides that Gospel, there is in the French King's Library a manufcript, (Num. 2276.) which begins thus, "The beginning of the hiftory of Joachim and Anna, and "concerning the birth of the bleffed mother of God, the per<c petual Virgin Mary, and concerning the Infancy of our Sa“viour; I James, the son of Joseph, &c." and at the end of the book is written, Explicit liber de Infantia Salvatoris ; Thus ends the book of our Saviour's Infancy. From whence it is evident these were formerly joined as one book.

3. Hence I gather, that Seleucus, or Leucius Charinus (who is the fame) was fo far concerned in altering and interpolating the Gospel of the Infancy, as to be efteemed its author. For whereas the author of the Epistle to Chromatius says, that Leucius was the author of the book which he tranflated, viz. of the Birth of Mary and the Infancy of Chrift, and these two were the fame; it follows, that this notorious compiler of Apocryphal books was concerned in the forgery of the Gofpels which I am now upon, or some confiderable part of them. And herein Dr. Mill appears to have conjectured right. And,

4. Whereas I have above obferved fome things in this Gospel later than the time of Leucius Charinus, i. e. later than the end of the third century, which was the time in which he lived; thefe, I fuppofe, were added either by the Neftorians, or fome later Chriftians in Afia, whom Mr. La Crose supposes to have been the first authors of the work.

This is proved, Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XXI. p. 245, &c.