unless we suppose that he saw such a resemblance between the two as led him to believe the apocryphal to have been an enlarged and corrupted edition of the canonical Gospel, and therefore that the common rumour which represented them as identical was only incorrect, and not absolutely unfounded. And otherwise it seems strange, not only that Jerom should not have expressed himself more decidedly on this point, but that the opinion he mentions should have been so prevalent *; for this can scarcely have arisen out of the mere circumstance of the language in which the Gospel of the Nazarenes was written, but must have originated in the reports of those who had seen it. On the whole then it appears that we have no means of ascertaining with any degree of precision the date of the composition of this Gospel, and therefore that it might have been derived from our Gospel of Matthew, according to any hypothesis respecting the original language of the latter, either as an enlarged and corrupted edition or translation of it. If we were to form our opinion

Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a

Nazaræis qui in Beroa urbe Syriæ hoc volumine utuntur describendi facultas fuit.

* Advers. Pelag. III. c. 1. In Evangelio juxta Hebræossive ut plerique autumant juxta Matthæum. And Comment. in Matth. ad XII. 13. In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaræi et Ebionitæ et quod nuper in Græcum de Hebræo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthæi authenticum.

respecting the contents of the Gospel of the Hebrews from the general character of the fragments which are left of it, we should pronounce it equally unallied to any of our canonical Gospels, and the work of a later age and a different spirit; if we consider these passages as spurious additions, and in the absence of any fair specimen of the genuine text appeal to the language of the father who was best acquainted with the work, we must conclude that notwithstanding the freedom with which it had been treated, and even the mutilations which it had undergone, it still preserved unequivocal marks of its derivation from our first Gospel

*

* This result is sufficient for our present purpose. Paulus, in the Conserv. p. 143, 144, goes farther, and endeavours to show, in a fragment preserved by Jerom, and another in Epiphanius, traces of the use of Matthew's Gospel, and even of his Greek text. It does indeed seem from Jerom ad Matth. 27. 16, as if the writer of the Gospel of the Hebrews had converted the accusative termination in the word Bapaßßar into the Hebrew suffix of the first person plural; and in the beginning of the Ebionite Gospel, quoted by Epiphanius, 30, 13, a mistake is committed in the date of the Baptist's appearance, which might have been occasioned by the seemingly definite reference έv Taïs yμépais inelvais, Matt. 3. 1. But as in the passage in Jerom it is not quite clear from his filius magistri eorum what the Hebrew text really was, and as the date in the fragment in Epiph. is supposed by Eichhorn himself to be an addition of an ignorant transcriber, it is perhaps safer to confine ourselves to the general argument. I have even scrupled to avail myself of Epiphanius's authority as to the character of the Gospel of the Hebrews. For he seems never to have seen the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and to speak of it only from general report, 29. 9. That which he de

II. The nature and origin of Marcion's Gospel is a point of greater importance; and it is one for the determination of which we have much more ample data; though in the application of them there is need of great industry and caution. The generally received opinion, founded on the unanimous evidence of ecclesiastical writers, that Marcion mutilated and corrupted St. Luke's Gospel in order to adapt it to his theological system, was first called in question by Semler, whose distrust of the fathers sometimes passed the just limits of critical scepticism. His doubt was adopted by several succeeding critics*; and Eichhorn, who saw

scribes in the 30th heresy seems to have differed from it so much, that it is doubtful whether the same arguments would apply to both.

The same subject has since been very ably discussed by Prof. Olshausen of Königsberg, in his elaborate and instructive work, Die Echtheit der vier Canonischen Evangelien ans der Geschichte der zwei ersten Jahrhunderte erwiesen. Königsberg, 1823. The result at which the author arrives is, that the Gospel of the Hebrews was derived from an Aramaic original of St. Matthew's Gospel, and differed from the latter almost exclusively in additions and enlargements. He explains in a very satisfactory manner the distinction between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. The industry, accuracy, and soundness of judgement displayed in this work render it a most valuable companion in all researches connected with the early history of the Gospels and the Canon.

* Bishop Marsh has dismissed the subject in a short note to Michaelis (vol. iii. part 2. p. 159, second ed.) far too hastily; for the assertion with which he cuts short all farther inquiry is not warranted by the argument he produces, which we shall afterwards have occasion to consider.

r

in his own hypothesis of an original Gospel a sufficient explanation of the phenomena which seemed to favour the common opinion, naturally took the same side. His conclusion is, that the fathers mistook the shorter and simpler, but more genuine and unadulterated Gospel, for a mutilated one. He does not indeed say what some critics have not scrupled to conjecture, that the supposed additions were introduced to suit the views of Judaizing Christians; but as he supposes them to have been made in order to round and polish the original rude and abrupt narrative, we should certainly in this case have reason to doubt their authority, and to regret that Marcion's Gospel was not preserved to us instead of St. Luke's. Paulus, in the review above-mentioned, has corrected some hasty conclusions of Eichhorn, and in another part of his collection has given his own view of that work of Marcion which formed the subject of Tertullian's five books (adversus Marcionem); a point which the vagueness of Tertullian's allusions renders very obscure. The question has been since discussed in a masterly manner by Professor Hahn of Königsberg, whose work * must, I think, satisfy every impartial inquirer, that the ancient opinion has been abandoned without sufficient ground. He there states and clears from misrepresentation the evidence of the fathers on this

* Entitled Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner Ursprünglicher Gestalt.

head, gives a full and distinct view of the peculiarities of Marcion's theological system, exhibits the real character of his work, shews by an elaborate comparison of Tertullian, Epiphanius and other writers who have quoted or mentioned this Gospel, that it coincided exactly in contents and arrangement with St. Luke's, except where doctrinal motives naturally led to omission and alteration; and finally he removes the objections which had induced modern critics to reject the old opinion. According to Eichhorn's own statement, which renders Marcion's Gospel the main prop of his hypothesis, it agreed with St. Luke's in contents, order and even in words, with the exception of some passages omitted at the beginning and end and throughout the course of the work, and of occasional various readings and a text in general more concise and abrupt. On the latter point however he has frequently been led into mistakes, as Paulus and Hahn have observed, from inattention to the desultory manner in which Epiphanius quotes from Marcion; as he was deceived on the former points by a misapprehension of the plan and design of Epiphanius, who did not intend to point out all Marcion's variations, but only to give such extracts from his Gospel as appeared to afford the best opportunity of refuting his opinions. Since however this statement is by no means at variance with the assertion of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, Eichhorn proceeds to examine the nature