Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp. The direct object of this investigation is to prove that our three first Gospels did not come into use * before the end of the second century, or, which is the same thing, that all the Gospels which were in use before that time were different from our canonical Gospels, and independent of them in their origin. And since from external or internal evidence it seems that an affinity subsisted between the apocryphal and canonical Gospels, the inference drawn from the whole is, that the relation which the former bore to the latter can only be explained by their derivation from a common original document, or at least strongly favours that hypothesis. The proof of the main proposition is of course only an approximation; it would however, if successfully established in each of the instances discussed, afford as much satisfaction as can be reasonably expected on such a subject. But Eichhorn's argument labours under the disadvantage that, from the scantiness and imperfection of the data which we have left respecting most of these lost works, it is scarcely possible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion respecting them; while a single positive proof of the early

* The use however which this proposition denies is not the private use, which may have been pretty extensive, but the public use of the Gospels as text books, which were read or discoursed on in the churches, or cited by ecclesiastical writers.

use of one of the three canonical Gospels would be sufficient to overthrow his main proposition altogether. And indeed as there is nothing in the hypothesis of an original Gospel irreconcilable with the generally-received opinion that our three first Gospels came much earlier into public use, it is not obvious at first sight what should have induced Eichhorn to make so paradoxical an assertion. For as he himself supposes our three first Gospels to have assumed very nearly their present form before the end of the first century, it is equally difficult, upon this supposition, to account for their long obscurity and their sudden elevation to canonical rank. But the fact seems to be that, as in the very references which have been supposed most distinctly and unequivocally to prove the use of our Gospels in the second century he discovered the strongest traces of his supposed original Gospel, this part of his argument in favour of the latter tended to overthrow every direct proof remaining of the early use of the former, and naturally led him to his general conclusion, the principal grounds of which we will briefly examine.

*

I. The Gospel of the Hebrews is much more

* Eichhorn considers it as a point which cannot admit of a doubt, that the inscription of this Gospel, xa9' 'Eßeάious, secundum, juxta Hebræos, denoted its authors. The analogy to the inscriptions of our Gospels does indeed at first sight seem to favour this construction, yet not so decidedly but that

celebrated than known. Eichhorn indeed asserts that it is the most ancient Gospel of which any traces are to be found in ecclesiastical history, and thinks that what we know of its contents is sufficient to authorize the conclusion that it bore an affinity to our Gospel of Matthew, though it was no more derived from it than the other canonical Gospels are. But the proof of the latter point at least is extremely imperfect. Though Eichhorn represents the traces of this Gospel as beginning with Papias, and running down through Ignatius, Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, to Origen, Eusebius and Jerom, yet when we examine this supposed series of evidence we find that it neither establishes the antiquity nor determines the character of the Gospel in question. The first author who names this Gospel is Clemens Alex. That it was used by any of the preceding writers mentioned by Eichhorn is far from certain. With respect to Papias, Eusebius only says that he has recorded an incident which is contained in the

Eichhorn himself in the next page but one (p. 10.) proposes to interpret Evangelium secundum XII. apostolos, a Gospel approved, confirmed, and sanctioned by the twelve apostles. What is there then to prevent us from construing Evangelium secundum Hebræos to mean a Gospel approved and adopted by the Judaizing Christians, for whom "Eẞçao was the generic name which seems to have included the particular sects, such as the Nazarenes, the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, &c.? As these were all "Eßpaio, though with different shades of opinion, so each of their Gospels was an 'Evayyελior xat' 'Espaisus, only differently modified.

Gospel of the Hebrews*. So in the writings of Hegesippus he found a few passages which he had also seen in that Gospel, and which he therefore believed to have been taken from it t. But that no great stress is to be laid on this opinion of Eusebius appears from the passage in the Ep. ad Smyrn. commonly ascribed to Ignatius, on which Eichhorn relies as one of the strongest grounds of his assertion. The words there quoted (c. 3.) λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐιμι δαιμόνιον ἀσώμatov, were found by Jerom in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he translated; and he therefore believed that Ignatius took them from it. This circumstance seems at first sight to afford a strong presumption in favour of that opinion of Eusebius, and of Eichhorn's general inference. But as we happen to know that the very passage here quoted by Ignatius, or at least the words which chiefly distinguish it from Luke XXIV. 39, were found by Origen ‡ in a book called by his translator Rufinus Doctrina Petri, (the same no doubt as the жpuyμa Пérρou so often cited by Clem. Alex. and perhaps as the Περίοδοι Πέτρου mentioned by Epiphanius Hær. 30. 15.) we see that Jerom only drew the same hasty, though natural, inference as Eusebius, from equally insufficient data. In fact few readers will be inclined to believe, as Eich

* H. E. III. 39.

Præf. ad Libros IIɛp Agx.

+ H. E. IV. 22.

horn seems to do, that the words ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν ἔφη αυτοῖς formed a part of Ignatius's quotation in the passage above mentioned; and as he must have had some particular motive for designating the apostles by this uncommon circumlocution, it would not be a very improbable conjecture, that he meant by this introduction to indicate the κήρυγμα Πέτρου as the source from which he drew. That Justin used the Gospel of the Hebrews is a mere conjecture of Eichhorn, which rests on a similar, but if possible a still slighter foundation. If then the antiquity of the work is so questionable, or if at all events nothing certain can be affirmed of its nature and character as it existed in the two first centuries, it is evident that any conclusion respecting its original relation to one of our canonical Gospels, drawn from fragments preserved by later writers, were they even much longer and more numerous than they are, must be extremely precarious. These fragments however in general discover so little affinity with St. Matthew's Gospel, that they would probably of themselves never have given rise to the suspicion of any connexion between the two works. But the language in which Jerom speaks of the Gospel of the Hebrews * scarcely admits of explanation,

* Catalog. vir. illustr. s. v. Matthæus. Matthæus—evangelium Hebraicis litteris verbisque composuit, quod quis postea transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Cæsariensi bibliotheca quam