a
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
A
NEW AND FULL
METHOD
OF SETTLING
THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED
A VINDICATION OF THE FORMER PART
OF
ST. MATTHEW'S, GOSPEL,
FROM MR. WHISTON'S CHARGE OF DISLOCATIONS,
IN THREE VOLUMES.
BY
THE REV. JEREMIAH JONES,
VOL. I.
OXFORD:
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS.
MDCCXCVIII.
3
DISSERTATION
CONCERNING
THE NECESSITY
OF SETTLING
THE CANON
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
THE defign of the following volumes being to eftablifh
the Canonical authority of the books of the New Tefta-
ment, I imagined nothing could be a more fuitable introduc-
tion to the work, than a diflertation concerning the necef-
fity of it. My defign is not to make any fervile apology for
this work's appearance in the world (every man not only
having a right, but being alfo obliged to do all he can for the
interefts of Chriftianity) j but only, if it may be, to evidence 4
the abfolute neceffity of a Chriftian's employing his utmoft
diligence, in order to be upon good grounds determined in a
queftion of fo great importance as that is, What booh are to
be received as the word of God ?
What I defign in this matter fhall be comprifed under the
following obfervations ; viz.
VOL. I. B I. That
The Necejfity of Settling, the
I. That the right fettling the Canonical authority of the
books of the New Teftament is attended with very
many and great difficulties.
II. That it is a matter of the greateft confequence and
importance.
III. That a great number of Chriftians are deftitute of any
good arguments for their belief of the Canonical authority
of the books of the New Teftament.
IV. That very little has yet been done on this fubjedt
OBSERV. I.
That the right Settling the Canonical Authority of the feooks of
the New Tejlament is attended with very many and great
Difficulties.
I AM very fenfible fuch a propofition as this may feem at
firft furprifmg to many ; and that what is faid under it
may perhaps be, on the one hand, mifimproved by the ene-
mies of Revelation, to fet them more againft it; and, on the
other, by the weaker Chriftians, to (hock their faith in it.
But as the enfuing volumes are principally intended for the
fervice of thefe two forts of perfons, viz. to confute the for-
mer, and eftablifli the latter in their principles ; fo I cannot
but defire, they would form no judgment from what is here
faid relating to the main queftion, till they have honeftly
perufed the book itfelf.
This premifed, I fay, it is not fo eafy a matter as is com-
monly imagined, rightly to fettle the Canon of the New Tef-
tament. For my own part, I declare with many learned
men, that in the whole compafs of learning I know no quef-
tion involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties
than tbjs. There are indeed confiderable difficulties relating
to the Canon of the Old Teftament, as appears by the large
controverues
Canon of the New Ttjlament. 3
controverfies between the Proteftants and Papifis on this
head in the laft, and latter end of the preceding century ; but
thefe are folved with much more eafe than thofe of the New :
For,
1. The Canon of the yews was fettled by Ezra^ an infpired
writer-, but there is no fuch thing to be fold concerning the Ca-
non of the New. It is uncertain, either by whom, or at what
time, the prefent collection was made.
2. The Jewijh Canon was certainly approved by our Saviour
and his dpojlles a ; but it is impoflible, in the nature of the
thing, the Chriftian Canon fhould receive the fame evidence
and authority.
3. In fettling the Old Teftament collection, all that is re-
quifite is to difprove the claim of a few obfcure books, which
have but the weakeft pretences to be looked upon as Scrip*
ture ; but in the New, we have not only a few to difprove,
but a vaft number to exclude the Canon, which feem to have
much more right to admiflion than any of the Apocryphal
books of the Old Teftament ; and befides, to evidence the ge-
nuinenefs of all thofe which we do receive, fince, according
to the fentiments of fome who would be thought learned,
there are none of them, whofe authority has not been contro-
verted in the earlieft ages of Chriftianity. In fhort, whatever
almoft can be objected againft the authority of the prefent
Canon of the Old Teftament, either in behalf of any books
which are not in it, or againft any that are, may eafily be
anfwered by this fingle confideration, viz. that we receive the
fame and no other books^ than what the Jewijh Church received
in our Saviour's time^ as is evident from the copies the Chrif-
tians procured of them, and the catalogues they made of them
(efpecially that of Melito Sardenfis b ) foon after the deftruction
of Jerufalem. But the cafe is very different with refped to
the books of the New. The queftion concerning them di-
* If otherwife, they had certainly and that what they called Scripture
cenfured the Jews for their fault in was every part of it inlpired.
this, as well as other religious mat- b Vid. Euieb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c.
ters. Befides, St. Paul evidently al- 26. There are others very early,
lows, that all their Scriptures, were as Origen's in Pial. primo, &c.
the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2.
B 2 vides
4. The Neceflity of Settling the
vides itfelf into thefe two, viz. i. Whether any other books are
to be received with the fame authority , which they are ; and, 2.
Whether they are all of them of the fame authority, -which the
Church allows them by admitting them into her Canon.
If we confider either of thefe queftions, xve fhall find it
perhaps not fo eafilyfolved, as we are apt to imagine.
I. As to the firft, viz. Whether there arc any Other books to
be admitted as Canonical, befede thofe which new are j it will
appear difficult, if we confider,
1. 'The number of books that claim admi/fion is very confider ~a-
ble. Mr. Toland, in his celebrated catalogue ~, has prefented
us with the names of above eighty, which he would have us
receive with the fame authority, as thofe we now do. I can-
not do him that honour, which Mr. Nye does in his Anfwer ",
viz. to fay his catalogue is complete ; for it will fufficiently
appear, there are many more of the fame fort, which he has
not mentioned.
2. Their pretences are fpccious and plaufiblc, for the moft
part going under the names of ouj Saviour himfelf, his Apof-
ties, their companions, or immediate fucceflbrs.
3. "i.-r-y a>e generally thought to be cited by the firjl Chrif-
tian writers ^ith the fame authority (at leaft many of them)
as the f acred bocks we receive. This Mr. Toland labours hard
to perfuade us ; but, what is more to be regarded, men of
greater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expreflions of
the like nature. Every lody knows (fays the learned Cafau-
bon againft Cardinal Baronius 6 ), that 'Jujiin Martyr, Cle-
mens dlexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rejl of the primitive
writers, were wont [laudare libros] to approve and cite books,
which now all men know to be Apocryphal. Clemens Alexan-
drinus (fays his learned annotator Sylburgius') was too much
pleafed with Apocryphal writings. Mr. Dodwell (in his
learned difiertations on Irenaeus * ) tells us, that //'// Trajan, or
perhaps Adrian's time, no Canon was fixed - the fuppofiti-
c Amyntor, p. 20, &c. f Annot. in Clem. Oper. In ipfo
d Page 21. fine.
Exfrcit. i.adApparat.Baron. s DifT.it. i. . 3$, 39.
Annal. N. 18. p. 54.
tious
Canon of the New Teflament. 5
tious pieces of the hereticks ^uere received by the faithful^ the
Apoftles writings bound up with theirs^ and indifferently ufed in
the Churches*. To mention now no more, the learned Mr.
Spanheim obferves, that Clemens Alexandrines and Origen
very often cite Apocryphal books under the exprefs name of Scrip-
ture 1 . What thefe books are, with the whole of their pre-
tences and claims, I defign hereafter particularly to examine ;
and now only to infer hence, that it is not fo eafy a matter,
to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament, as is generally
imagined.
4. Hence the Canon has been judged imperfett, and it has
been thought necejfary by fever al learned men, that fame other
books which are in being, and the remaining fragments of thofe
which are //?, Jhould be received. This will but too largely
appear hereafter : in the mean time, I fhall only obfcrve the
fentiments of two learned men on this matter, whofe names
are well known among us ; viz. the prefent Archbifliop of
Canterbury, and Mr. Whifton.
The former, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to his Englifh
Tranflation of the Apoftolical Fathers, tells us, ch. x. . 4.
" That we cannot with any reafon doubt of what they deliver
" to us as the Gofpel of Chrift, but ought to receive it, if
" not with equal veneration, yet but with a little lefs refpeci
" than we do the facred writings of thofe, who were their
" mafters and inftru&ors. . n. That we are to look upon
" the writings of thefe holy men, as containing the pure and
" uncorruptcd doclrine of our bleflcd Saviour and his Apof-
" ties. That thefe writers were not only qualified by ordinary
" means to deliver the Gofpel of Chrift to us, but in all pro-
" bability were endued with the extraordinary afiiftance of the
" Holy Spirit too ; fo that what they t^ach us is not to be
" looked upon, as a mere traditionary relation of what had
" been delivered to them, but rather as an authoritative decla-
" ration of the Gofpel of Chrift to us. . 23. That they were
h Dr. Clarke afferts the very fame, were bound in diftinft volumes frcm
as to the promilcuous citation of thofe of the Apoftles. Reflect, on
ours and other books, and is quite Amyntor, p. 44.,
miltaken in faying, that Mr. Dod- ' Hiftor. Chriftian. Secul. 3. p.
well owns the Apocryphal books 706.
B 3 " infpired
6 The Neceffity of Settling the
" infpired men, and therefore not only have not miftaken the
" minds of the Apoftles, but were not capable of doing it.
" . 29. That they muft be looked upon to have nothing in
<c them but what was thought" (and confequently which we
are to think) " worthy of all acceptation. . 30. That they
" have received a more than human approbation and con-
" tain the true and pure faith of Chrift, without the leaft error
" intermixed with it." It is not my bufinefs here to enquire
into the truth of thefe afTertions, nor will I venture to give
my opinion in the matter, till I have produced the beft argu-
ments I can to fupport it, which will be done in the third
part of this work ; only this I cannot but obferve, that, not-
withftanding all this, many learned men have thought feveral
of thefe Apoftolical pieces not only fpurious, but filly and ri-
diculous j and fmce thefe books (which are, and always have
been excluded the Canon) are of fo great authority with fo
great and learned a writer, that fcarce any thing more can be
faid of the Canonical books themfelves, it is a neceflary and
natural inference, that it is a work much harder than is ge-
nerally imagined, to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament.
How much Mr. Whifton has enlarged the Canon of the
New Teftament, is fufficiently known to the learned among
us. For the fake of thofe who have not perufed his truly
valuable books, I would obferve, that he imagines the " Con-
" ftitutions of the Apoftles to be infpired, and of greater au-
t thority than the occafional writings of fingle Apoftles and
" Evangelifts. That the two Epiftles of Clemens, the Doc-
" trine of the Apoftles, the Epiftle of Barnabas, the Shepherd
" of Hermas, the fecond book of Efdras, the Epiftles of Igna-
" tius, and the Epiftle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned among
" the facred authentlck books of the New Teftament ; as alfo
" that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation, Preaching, Gofpel
" and A<5ts of Peter, were facred book?, and, if they were ex-
tant, fhould be of the fame authority with any of the reft k .'*
However this learned man may be miftaken in other matters,
and though I hope to prove the Canon of the New Teftament
* Eilay on the Conftit. Introd. p. 4. and ch. i.
complete
Canon of the New Tejlament. %
complete without any of thefe additions ; yet, as I think it a
very fhameful negleft in learned men, not to enquire into thefe
things, fo, I am fure, he who does, will find great difficulties
in fettling the Canon of the books of the New Teftament.
II. The other part of the queftion about the Canon is,
Whether all the books now admitted into the Canon of the New
Tejlament are of equal authority , or the fame authority which
their being placed in the Canon fuppofes. The difcuffing this
queftion will appear to be no lefs a difficulty than the former,
if we confider,
1. That it is impoffible to aflign any certain time, when a
collection of thefe books, either by the Apoftles, or any coun-
cil of infpired or learned men near their times, was made.
2. That they have been all, or moft of them, rejected by
fome hereticks, or others, in the firft ages.
3. That feveral of them have not been received by thofe,
who did not go under the name of hereticks before Eufebius's
time.
4. That feveral of them have had their authority difputed
by learned men in later times.
Though I hope fully to confute thefe fpecious objections,
and all others that can be made againft our prefent collection,
in the fourth part of this book ; yet every one muft allow
fuch objections to make the bufmefs of fettling the Canon not
fo eafy,as is commonly imagined.
I. As to the firft of thefe, viz. That we cannot ajjign any
certain time^ when a collection of thefe books was made^ or a Ca-
non fettled by the Apojlles, or any infpired perfons near their
time^ the matter is too certain to need much to be faid of it.
Mr. Dodwell ', Dr. Grabe ra , and Dr. Mills n , our beft
writers on thefe heads, have obferved it already j though I
1 Atqui certe ante illam epo- -39-
cham, quam dixi, Trajani, nondum m Canon faci*orum librorum non
conftitutus eft librorum facrorura ftatira conftitutus eft ab initio Ec-
Canon, nee receptus aliquis in EC- cltfiae, &c. Spicileg. Patr. Tom.
clefia Catholica librorum certus nu- i. p. 320.
menus nee rejeH Haereticomm D Vid. ejus Prolegom. in Novo
Pfeudepigraphi, &c. DnTert. in lien. Teftam. p. 23.
B 4 hope
J The NeceJJity of Settling the
hope to prove their arguings on this head (I mean of the two
former) to be falfe and groundlefs.
2 That many, or moft of the booh of the New Teftament,
have been rejettea by heretic ks in the fir Jl ages, is alfo certain.
Fauftus Manichaeus and his followers are faid to have re-
je&ed all the New Teftament, as not written by the Apof-
tles .
Marcion rejected all, except St. Luke's Gofpel -.
The Manichees difputed much againft the authority of St.
Matthew's Gofpel *.
The Alogians rejected the Gofpel of St. John, as not his,
but made by Cerinthus r .
The Acts of the Apoftles were rejected by Severus, and
the fe& of his name *.
The fame rejeded all Paul's Epiftles ', as did alfo the Ebi-
onites u , and the Helkefaites x .
Others, who did not reject all, rejected fome particular
Epiftles, of which inftances will be given hereafter.
3 Several of the books of the New Tejiament were not uni-
verfally received^ even among them who were not hereticks, in
the firjl ages. Eufebius tells us ?, the authority of the fe-
cond Epiftle of Peter, and the Epiftle to the Hebrews, was
difputed ; and in another place z , that the Epiftles of James,
Jude, the fecond Epiftle of Peter, the fecond and third Epif-
tles of John, were not univerfally received, but doubted of by
fome : the fame, or rather more, he fays of the Revelation of
St. John.
4. Several of them have had their authority difputed by
learned men in later times. Luther and feveral of his followers
utterly reject the Epiftle of James, not only as a fpurious piece,
Auguft. cont. Fauft. Manich. r Auguft. lib. de Haeref. 30. et
1. 32. c. 2. et 8. This is urged by Epiphan. Haeref. 51, de Alog.
Toland in Amynt. p. 6ij &c. but
difputed by Mr. Nye in his An-
fwer, u. 87, &c.
P Epiphan. Hasref. 42. de Mar- Epiphan. Haeref. 30. de Ebion.
cionu.
Vid. Auguft. cont. Fauft. 1. a.
3> et 7.
Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 29.
Ibid.
Id. lib. 3. c. 7 . Vid. et
Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 38.
Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1.3. c. 3.
Id. lib. 3. c. 25.
but
Canon of the New Teftament. *g
but as containing things dire&ly contrary to the Gofpel 3 .
Erafmushad a very mean opinion, and doubted the Canonical
authority, of the Revelations b . Calvin, Cajetan, and the
learned Kirftenius c , had the fame fenttments of it. But re-
ferring this and many other things, which might be faid under
this and the foregoing heads, to their proper place, I (hall only
infer from the whole, that if fo many books, befide what we
now receive, claim admiffton into our Canon, in the judgment
of learned men; if we can prove no certain time, when the Ca-
non was fixed in the firft, or beginning of the fecond century;
if there were fuch controverfies, not only among the orthodox
and heretics, but among the orthodox themfelves, concerning
the authority of feveral books ; and laftly, if feveral books
have been rejected by learned men of late ; it follows moft
undeniably, that it requires our utmoft diligence and induftry,
as being apparently a work of the greateft difficulty, to fettle
the Canon of the New Teftament.
O B S E R V. II.
That fettling the Canonical Authority cf the Books of the New
Tejlament) is a Matter of the greateft Confidence and Im-
portance.
TTlOR if, on the one hand, any book be received as the word
-L of God, which is not fo ; or, on the other hand, any book
be not received as the word of God, which really is fo, the
confequences are fatal and dangerous, and the neglect of due
enquiry in fuch a matter muft needs be very criminal.
I. As to the firft, viz. Receiving books for infpired^ which
are not fo^ the confequences are evidently very bad j as,
I. We thereby offer a notorious affront to our Maker ^ not
only making him the author of lies and forgeries, but imput-
ing the falfe, perhaps blafphemous conceptions of ill-defigning
a See Manton. Pref. to James. c See the Preface to Dr. Grego-
b Vid. Annot. in Rev. zz. ry's Works, p. 10.
men,
1 The Neeejjity of Settling the
men, fuggefled by the father of lies, to the infpiration of his
Holy Spirit. Thus injurious to the honour of God are ma-
ny of the Apocryphal books both of the Old and New Tefta-
ment, in which we find, not only the moft filly and frivolous
ftories, not like the dictates of the Holy Ghoft, but direct con-
trarieties to the moft certain truths. Thus the author of the
book of Tobit makes his angel guilty of a grofs /;>, faying
firft, that he was Azarias the fon of Ananias, ch. v. ver. 12.
and afterwards, ch. xii. ver. 15. that he was Raphael, one of
the feven angels.
The author of the Wifdom of Solomon very plainly af-
ferts the dotlrine of the pre-exijlence of fouh y before they are
brought into bodies, ch. viii. ver. 19, 20.
The author of Baruch fays, ch. i. ver. I, 2, 3. that he read
his book to the captives the fifth year of the captivity in Baby-
lon , when it is certain the true Baruch was with Jeremiah in
Egypt? J er * xliii - ver - 5> 6 > 7-
To omit a hundred fuch instances, I fhall only produce a
few fuch from the Apocryphal books of the New Teftament,
by which it will appear, how bad the confequence would be of
receiving thofe books for genuine, which are not. Thus for
inftance it would be, mould any receive thofe fpurious books y
attributed to our Saviour ", which, the wicked authors of them
pretended, did contain thofe magical arts, by which he wrought
his miracles.
Thus it would be, mould the celebrated Go/pel of the Na-
zarenes (which Father Simon and others reckon the true one
of St. Matthew) be received as infpired ; which makes our
Lord Jefus Chrift unwilling to be baptized by John, nay
intimates, he was not baptized at all ; that he queftioned, whe-
ther he was not a finner, &c e . that the Holy Ghoft took him
by one of his hairs into the great mount Thabor, &c f .
d Vid. Auguft. de Confenf. E- autem cis, Quid peccavi, ut vadam
vangel. 1. i.e. 9, 10. Tom. Opp. et baptizer ab eo, nifi forte hoc ip~
iv. fura quod dixi ignorantia eft ? Hi-
e Ecce mater Domini et fratres eronym. adv. Pelag. 1. 3. c. i.
cjxis dicebant ci, Joannes Baptifta f -Ap t\ai i^t i /xvnjp ^a ?
baptizat in remiffionem peccatorum ; a'yso* <anvfj.ee. /x<x rat
tamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit xa j ff y ^ t lf ro ofaj ro
Canon of the New Tejlament. 1 1
In the book, intitled The Preaching of Paul, we have al-
moft the fame ftory of Chrift's unwillingnefs to be baptized,
till forced to it by his mother ; his confeffing his fins, &c .
It were eafy to produce many fuch inftances ; thefe may
fhew us, of how dangerous confequence it is, to receive any
books for the word of God, which are not fo. feeing we im-
pute Tuch wretched fooleries, nonfenfe, and contradictions to
the infpiration of the Holy Ghoft.
2. By receiving books as the word of God, which are not
fo, we ajjent to the moft grofs and notorious errors as indubitable
truths, andfo very often Jhall be like to oblige ourfelves to many
burdensome imaginary duties, not only not required in the word
of God, but perhaps direclly contrary to the true mind and will
of God revealed in it.
St. Luke was fo fenfible of this dangerous confequence
from the many fpurious Apocryphal Gofpels extant in his time,
that he wrote his Gofpel with this kind intention to prevent
it, as he himfelf informs us in his preface h . St. Paul like-
wife, apprehenfive of fuch pernicious evils, that might be pro-
duced by any fpurious Epiftles pretending under his name to
infpiration, warns the Theflalonians not to receive them, nor
be influenced in their judgment by them '. And indeed there
is apparently the greateft reafon for care and caution in this
matter ; for inftance,
What wretched principles in Chriftianity muft they have,
who received the forementioned books, of CbrijFs working his
Miracles by magical arts, or believed him to be a finner! What
an odd religion muft they profefs and practife, who fhould re-
ceive that other book, attributed to our Saviour k , in which he
declares, he was no way againjl the heathen Gods, &c.
Qaug, &c. Origen. torn. 2. in Opp. Cyp.
Joan. p. 58. et Hieronym. 1. a. " Luke, i. 5. That this is the
Comment, in Mich. vii. 6. meaning of St. Luke's preface, I
B In hoc libro contra omnes have proved in my Vindication of
Scripturas, et Chriftum de proprio St. Matthew's Goipel againll Mr.
peccato confitentem invenies et ad Whifton, and mail more fully iew
accipiendum Joannis Baptifma pae- hereafter,
ne invitum a matre fua Maria efle ' z Theft", it. 2.
compulfum, &c. Vid. Traft. de k Vid. Auguft. di Ccnfenf. E-
.nou iterando Baptifrn. id calcem vang. 1. i . c. 34.
They
\l The NeceJJity of Settling the
They who received the book, called The Afls or "Journeys
of the Apojiles, Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, muft
believe, that Chrift -was not really, but only appeared as *
man ; and was feen by his Difciples in various forms \fometimes
as a young man,fsmetimes as an old one, fometimes as a child,
fometimes great, fometimes fmall,fometimes fo tall, that his head
would reach the clouds ; that he was not really crucified himfelf,
but another in hhjlead, while he laughed at thofe who imagined
they crucified him, &c. l
A little acquaintance with Chriftian antiquities will furnifh
us with various inftances of this fort. Pretences to infpiration
were very frequent in the firft ages, and it was the conftant
artifice of evil-minded defigning men, to publifli their errors
under the great name of fome Apoftle, or infpired writer, in
order the more effe&ually to propagate them among the un-
thinking multitude. Irenaeus tells us m , the Gnoftics for this
purpofe made a prodigious number of Apocryphal and fyuriws
Scriptures in his time ; and it is well known, that Bafilides,
Apelles, Cerinthus, Marcion, Tatian, and many other of the
firft heretics, purfued the fame method with too great fuccefs.
Thus, to give now no other inftance, the Nicolaitaas, men-
tioned Rev. ii. 6. forged a book under the name of the infpired
Apojile Matthias n , to juftify them/elves in the execrable vice cf
the communion of women . Thus does the receiving fpurious
books, under fpecious pretences, lay us under a. necefiity of
errors in do&rine and practice ; and it is. not without concern,
that I put the reader in mind of a living inftance of this in the
1 See this whole matter related books ; he muft ftrike out feveral cf
by the learned Phctius, who read theie to make room for it.
the book BibHoth. Cod . cxiv. I am m > A '.$, ^
apt to think it was m the Gofpel \ /& -,-
of Bafilides alfo, fince fuch a Gof- * J* f^ M
pel theie certainly was ; and Irenje- ' rel> '' I ' C- 1 7 '
madv. H*ref.l. i. c. 23. and Epi- B Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 3. p.
phanius Haeref. 24.. tell us, Bafili- 43 6.
des and his followers faid, it was It is fnppofed by learned men,
not Chrift that was crucified, but that the Traditions of Matthias
Sinion cf Cyrene. cited by the Nicolaitans, was a
N. B. If thefe were the Acts' of book, though perhaps properly
Peter, Mr. Whifton would have called Traditions, being never writ-
reckoned them among the facrcd, ten.
learned
Canon of the NtW Tejlament. I j
learned Mr. Whifton, whom one cannot without companion
behold honeftly paying the greateft regard to the pretended
Conftitutions of the Apoftles, and not daring (as he fays) any
more to dijbelieve the doftrines^ or difobey tbt duties therein deli-
vered and enjoined^ than he dare do the like^ as to the known doc-
trines and duties plainly contained in the unconteJJed books of the
New Tejlament ?.
II. It muft needs alfo be of very bad confequence, that any
book be excluded from the Canon, which really is the word of
God ; for hereby,
j. We caft contempt upon God and his Spirit, in refufing
to hear what the Lord our God hath fpoken to us.
2. We are injurious to ourfclves, as we deny ourfelves the
ufe of the means of falvation.
Thus the Ebionites, Manichees, and moft of the primitive
hereticks, by difowning feveral parts of the New Teftament,
fell into thofe errors, which proved fo fatal to their mcft im-
portant interefts.
O B S E R V. III.
Not with/landing the importance of this fubjefl, a very con ftdera-
ble number of thofe^ who are called Chriftians, are dejtitute of
any jujl arguments for their belief of the Canonical Authority
of the prefent Books of the New Tejlament.
PT^HOUGH I would by no means be the occafion of fhock-
J- ing any perfon's faith in a bufmefs of this ngture, yet I
think the prefent obfervation to be fo much to my prefent pur-
pofe, and withal fo very true, that I cannot pafs it over, though
it be on a fubjecl fo difagreeable. He, who has but the leaft oc-
cafion to acquaint himfelf with the religious ftate of mankind,
cannot but with furpriilng concern have obferved, how {len-
der and uncertain the principles are, upon which men receive
the Scriptures as the word of God. The truth is (though a
f Eflay on Conftltut. Introd. p. n.
very
14 The Necejjity of Settling tie
very melancholy one), that many perfons commence religious
at firft they don't know why, and fo with a blind zeal perfift
in a religion, which is they don't know what ; by the chance
of education, and the force of cuftom, they receive thefe Scrip-
tures as the word of God, without making any ferious en-
quiries, and confequently without being able to give any folid
reafons, why they believe them to be fuch. This has been
obferved and lamented by our beft divines long fmce, and by
none more than the pious Mr. Baxter, in whofe words I (hall
rather choofe to exprefs myfelf, on this tender fubjedt, than my
own : " Few Chriftians among us, for aught I find, (fayshes)
" have any better than the Popifh implicit faith in this point,
11 nor any better arguments than the Papifts have, to prove
" the Scriptures the word of God. They have received it
" by tradition: godly minifters and Chriftians tell them fo: it
" is impious to doubt of it : therefore they believe it. Though
" we could pcrfuade people never fo confidently, that Scrip-
" ture is the very word of God, and yet teach them no more
" reafon, why they fhould believe this, than any other book,
" to be that word ; as it will prove in them no right way of
" believing, fo it is in us no right way of teaching. It is
tc ftrange (fays he r ) to confider, how we all abhor that piece
<c of Popery, as moft injurious to God of all the reft, which
tc refolves our faith into the authority of the Church ; and yet
" that we do, for the generality of profeflbrs, content ourfelves
" with the fame kind of faith ; only with this difference, the
" Papifts believe Scripture to be the word of God, becaufe
'< their Church faith fo ; and we, becaufe our Church> or our
" leaders fay fo. Yea, and many minifters never yet gave
" their people better grounds, but tell them, that it is danv-
rt nable to deny it, but help them not to the necefiary ante-
" cedents of faith, * it is to be underftood, that many a thou-
" fand do profefs Chriftianity, and zealoufly hate the enemies
ct thereof, upon the fame grounds, to the fame end, and from
K the fame inward corrupt principles, as the Jews did hate
" and kill Chrift. It is the religion of the country, where
i Saint's Reft, part a. . i. p. r Ibid. . a. p. 201.
197. * Ibid. . 2. p. zoz.
" every
Canon cf the New Tefiament. 15
every man is reproached, that believes otherwife ; they were
born and brought up in this belief, and it hath increafed
<* in them upon the like occafions. Had they been born
** and bred in the religion of Mahomet, they would have
been as zealous for him. The difference betwixt him and
*' a Mahometan, is more that he lives where better lav/s and
" religion dwell, than that he hath more knowledge or found-
" nefs of apprehenfion." Thus far he ; nor is the cafe, I fear,
much altered for the better fmce his time. What forry rea-
fons, when afked, are the generality of perfons able to give for
the divine authority of Scripture ! Nay, to ufe Mr. Baxter's
words once more, " Are the more exercifed underftanding
< fort of Chriftians able, by found arguments, to make good
<4 the verity of Scripture ? Nay, are the meaner fort of minif-
*' ters in England able to do this ? Let them that have tried,
"judge'." If the queftion be, why Barnabas's Epiftle be
rejected, and Jude's received ; why the Gofpel of Peter was
excluded, and the Epiftle of Peter admitted into the Canon as
the word of God, &c. alas ! how little fhall we have given in
anfwer, unlefs what Mr. Baxter fays, we believe as the Church
does! As for thofe happy perfons, who are able, by the in-
ternal teftimony of the Holy Spirit, to diftinguifti between Ca-
nonical and Apocryphal books, I fhall fay nothing now ; only
obferve, their number is very fmall, defigning hereafter to do
all poflible juftice to this argument, fo much infifted on by
our firft Reformers. What I have now to do is to obferve,
from the melancholy experience we have of perfons ignorance
of the grounds of Scripture-belief, how neceflary it is we
fhould ufe our utmoft endeavours to remove it. Not that I
think it neceflary, or indeed poflible, for every one to fearch
the antient records of Chriftianity j but that thofe, who are
able, fhould do it, and endeavour to convey as much know-
ledge, as may be, of thefe matters into the minds of thofe who
cannot. And certainly this muft be of the utmoft neceflity j
for,
: Ibid. . i. p. 197.
r. Our
1 6 Tfo Nea/tty of Settling the
1. Our ajjent to any proposition can only be in proportion to its
evidence. The truth is, fays the learned Mr. Hooker",
" That how bold and confident foever we may be in words,
*' when it cometh to the point of trial, fuch as the evidence is,
* c which the truth hath, either in itfelf, or through proof,
tt fuch is the heart's affent thereunto ; neither can it be
*< ftronger, being grounded as it ihould be " This evidently
appears from the nature of things ; and therefore, as perfons
evidences for the truth of Scripture are, fuch will be their
aflent.
2. In proportion to the degree of our ajjent to any truth ^ will be
its influence upon us. This, however it may feem at fi r ft, will,
upon clofe enquiry, be found no lefs true than the former.
There feems to be no other way poilible of accounting for
men's difregard of the important duties of religion, but by
fuppofing their tacit difbelief of its principles. " For my
" own part (fays Mr. Baxter *) I take it to be the greateft
" caufe of coldnefs in duty, weaknefs in graces, boldnefs in
" finning, and unwillingnefs to die, &c. that our faith is ei-
" ther unfound or infirm in this point. This worm lying at
" the root, caufeth the languifliing and decay of the whole.'''
St. Paul, by this very means, accounts for the ftrange difobe-
dience of the Ifraelites, viz. they did not really believe the
promifes. (See Heb. iv. 2.) And it is a fort of proverbial
and very juft obfervation, that unbelief is the jour ce of, or is in,
all our fins. It were eafy to fay a great deal to fupport the
aflertion, of the proportion that is in our practice to our faith,
not only in principles of religion, but all other things; I fhall
only now make this reflection, that if it be fo, wearepropor-
tionably concerned, as we would have our practice agreeable
to the will of God, to ufe our beft endeavours to get the
ftrongeft evidence for the authority of the facred books.
u Ecclefialt. Polit. book 2. p. x Ubi fupr. p. : 9 7. Seep. 199,
117. 200.
OBSERV.
Canon of the New Te/lament. j 7
O B S E R V. IV.
That though it be a Matter of fo great Difficulty and Import-
ance, to determine the Canonical Authority of the Books of the
New Tejiament^ and though the generality of Chrijiians are
fo very ignorant in this Matter ; yet very little has been done
by learned Men on this Subjecl.
IT is indeed ftrange, that in fo great a variety of books of
all forts, fo few or none fhould have been publifhed on
this fubjecl. It muft be remembered, that I am now fpeak-
ing only of the New Teftament ; for about the Canon of the
Old, Chamier, Whitaker, Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Cofm,
Spanheim, Bifhop Burnet, and many others, have written
much, and to good purpofe. Mr. Du Pin is the only one I
know, who has wrote purpofely on the Canon of the New ;
befide what has been wrote occafionally in the Prefaces and
Prolegomena of commentators on particular books, and the
Reflections of Mr. Nye, Mr. Richardfon, and Dr. Clarke on
Toland's Amyntor. The firft of thefe is reckoned the moft
confiderable ; though, in my judgment, the other lefler pieces
have done much more to eftablifh the Canon than this larger
work of Mr. Du Pin : For,
1 . The greateft part of the work is upon fubjedts very dif-
ferent from the Canon ; fuch as, the purity of the Greek text,
the antient manufcripts, various readings, Latin and Oriental
verfions, the divifion of the New Teftament into titles, chap-
ters, &c.
2. There is in it but very little faid to eftablifh the Canoni-
cal authority of the books, and anfwer what is objected againft
the controverted pieces; viz. the Epiftle to the Hebrews, of
James, Jude, the fecond Epiftle of Peter, the fecond and third
of John, and the Revelations. In that place where he propofes
to eftablifh them, he does not fpend much above one page in
doing it ; and though, for the proof of the authority of thefe
books, he names fuch and fuch Fathers who cited them, yet
he neither informs the unlearned reader at what time thefe
Fathers lived, nor the learned, in what part of their works
VOL. I. C they
l8 The Neceffity of Settling &c.
they do cite them : fo that the former muft neceflarily be ig-
norant of the force of his argument, as the latter will be of
the truth of it.
3. His fixth chapter, which is all he has wrote of the Apo-
cryphal books of the New Teftament, is wretchedly defective,
both in the enumerating and confuting them ; befides that he
has given us fcarce any of their fragments, and indeed has
(aid fcarce any thing of them.
A METHOD
A
METHOD
FOR
SETTLING THE CANON
*''
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
PART I.
CHAP. I.
ff^bat the Jf^ord Canon Jignifies : Hqiv and when it came to be
applied to the Books of Scripture*
THE infinitely good God, having favoured mankind with
a revelation of his will, has thereby obliged all thofe,
who are bleffed with the knowledge thereof, to regard it as
the unerring rule of their faith and practice. Under this cha-
racter, the Prophets, Apoftles, and other writers of the facred
books, publifhed and delivered them to the world ; and on
this account they were dignified above all others with the
titles of the Canon and Canonical. The word Canon is ori-
ginally Greek, and did in that language (as well as in the
Latin afrerwards) commonly denote that which was a rule
er Jlandardy by which other things were to be examined and
C 2 judged.
20 'the Senfe of PART. I.
judged*. And inafmuch as the books of divine infpiration
contained the moft remarkable rules, and the moft impor-
tant directions of all others, the collection of them, in time, ob-
tained the name of the Canon y and each book was called Ca-
nonical. At what time they were firft thus called, is not
very eafy to determine. Some imagine St. Paul himfelf to
have given this title to the facred books extant in his time,
Gal. vi. 1 6. and Phil. iii. 1 6 b . But the Apoftle feems in thofe
places rather to fpeak of the doctrine of the Gofpel, than
any books which contained it ; although it is very probable
that St. Paul's ufmg the word Canon in thefe places, was the
occafion of its afterwards being affixed to the books themfelves-
This feems the moft genuine account of the original of this
appellation ; nor do I know of any other that has been, or
can be affigned, befide that of Mr. Du Pin and Mr. Whif-
ton.
The former c fuppofes the word Canon to denote the fame
as Catalogue^ and the infpired books to be called Canonical^
only becaufe the catalogue of them was ftyled the Canon. But,
in aniwer to this, it will be fufficient to obferve, that the
Greek word is never ufed in that fenfe, which he fuppofes, in
any prophane writers, nor even among the Chriitians till the
fourth century j before which time the word was certainly ap-
plied to the facred volume.
Mr. Whiiton d imagines the Canon of Scripture, or the
Canonical bocks of the Old and New Teftament, are thofe,
and only thofe, which are inlerted into the laft JlpojMical Ca-
non, and were fo ftyled by the antients only on that account.
a The word Kvi>r feems origin- xa j e 's tWrr.T* retvrr,t ayor. In
ally to have fignified the Tongue of Ran. v. 81 1 .
a Balance, or that fraall part of the 'At&wiruv jStAws V VfiaA
fcaks, which, by its perpendicular ^^ Ariltot< p olitic L z JQ<
muation, determines the even poize ,. , ....
or weight ; or, by its inclination ei- ... , *X' . "'=" ^' . ^ *
ther wly, the Uneven pciz,- of the Mkhael. Waltlur. Offic. Bibl. .
thinss which ai'e weighed. So the 5 *
ancient Greek fcholiaft of Arifto- . H ^ OI 7 of the x Canon of the Old
phanes has obfeivcd on xarara;.] j ' r '' ' \' -*~'
v , , , , ~ 1 J d Lffay on the Apottol. Conftit.
9VpHf TO HTOlIU Tie TeiTaMSJ 0V, c j c g^
But
CHAP. i. the IVord Canon* 21
But the fpurioufnefs of thefe pretended Apoftolical Canons
being a matter fo univerfally agreed on, and in itfelf fo very
certain, as I {hall mew hereafter, I need now fay no more to
difprove this opinion ; only will obferve thefe two or three
things : viz.
1. That if the antients ftyled the facred books Canonical,
becaufe they are recited in the eighty-fifth Canon of the
Apoftles, then it will moft undeniably follow, that all and
every one of the books recited therein mujl equally have been re-
puted or called Canonical. But the contrary to this is fuffi-
ciently known ; nor can any one fingle inftance be produced
out of any of the firft writers of Chriftianity, in which either
the Book of Judith, the three Books of the Maccabees, the
Wifdom of Syrach, among the books of the Old Teftament ;
or the two Epiftles of Clemens, or the Apoftolical Conftitu-
tions of Clemens, among thofe of the New, were reputed
Canonical ; yet are each of thefe inferted in the forementioned
Canon, which goes under the Apoftles' names : an argu-
ment fufficient of itfelf to prove the fpurioufnefs of thefe Ca-
nons ; the books therein recommended being not only evi-
dently fictitious, but in many things contrary to the known
doctrine of the Apoftles.
2. On the other hand, if the books were called Canonical
on account of their infertion in this Canon of the Apoftles,
then it ieems utterly inconceivable, how any book or books could
be ever reckoned Canonical^ which are not found in it. How 8
for inftance, could the book of Revelations be reckoned Ca-
nonical, which is not inferted in this Canon ? And yet we find
it exprefsly mentioned under this title by the antients very
early : for Origen, reckoning up the facred books (TO> IXK^W
arxoV <pv\a.-r\uv xcuionx, reciting the Canonical books^ as Eufebius
phrafes it c ) among thefe mentions the Revelation written by
John. Now if only the books mentioned in this Apoftolical
Canon were called Canonical, how came this book, not men-
tioned there, to be called fo ? How came this by the name,
as well as the reft mentioned there ? To fay a book is Ca-
e Orig. Comment, in Matt. Prooem. et Eufeb. H'.il. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 25.
C 3 nonical,
22
The Senfe of the Word Canon.
PART. I
nonical, becaufe recited in fuch a Canon, and yet the book
not there, is much the fame as to fay, the book is, and is not
in the Canon.
Notwithftanding what has been faid, there is no doubt but
this denomination of the facred books is of the greateft antiqui-
ty. Irenaeus, fpeaking of the Scriptures, ftyles them, Toxa*o*
T? a'xn&ia?, i. e. the Canon of Truth f . Clemens Alexandrinus,
difputing with fome heretics of his time, blames them for
making ufe of Apocryphal Scriptures, choojing rather to follow
any^ than the true Canonical Gofpels g. Eufebius h in fo many
words tells us, that Origen, in his Expofition on Matthew,
enumerates the books of Scripture according to the Canon oftbf
Church j i. e. the Canon received and eftablifhed in the
Church. Athanafius ' (if that book be his, de Synopf. Scrip-
tur. ) exprefsly mentions the books of Scripture, as contained
in a certain Canon. And Epiphanius k , fpeaking of the he-
retics called Apota&icks, fays, they received the Apocryphal
Afts of Andrew and Thomas^ rejecting the Canon received by the
Church. Philaftrius ufes the diftinction of Canonical and
Apocryphal^ as well known in his time 1 . I fhall only add,
that in the writings of Ruffin m , Jerome n , and efpecially Au-
ftin , we meet with thefe words in innumerable places.
f Adv. Haeref. 1. 4. c. 69. in fine.
1 Stromat. 1. 3. p. 453.
h Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. *5-
' Synopf. tot. Script, in initio.
k Haeref.6i. . i.
Ib. 87.
^ Expofit. in Symbol. Apoflel.
juxta finem.
n Prolog, in Matth. Comment, in
Ephef. c. v. ver. 31.
Epift. ad Hieronym. 19. Epift.
adPaulin. na. Lib. contra Fauft.
Manich. 1. n. c. 5. De Civit.
Dei, 1. it. c. 3. 1. 15. c. 23.1. 1 8.
c. 38. et 1. 19. c. 18.
CHAP.
C 23 ]
CHAP. II.
An Enquiry into the Intimations there are in the received
Writings of the New Teftament, of Spurious and Apo-
cryphal Pieces extant in the Apojlle? Time.
PROP. I.
Befide thofe books, which are now commonly received
into the Canon of the New Teftament, there have been
many others, under the names either of our Saviour, his
Apoftles, or their contemporaries, which may feem to
claim the fame authority.
IN order to eftablifh the Canon of the New Teftament, it
is of abfolute neceflity, that the pretences of all other books
to Canonical authority be firft carefully examined and refuted.
The large number of thefe books, the plaufible arguments
fome of them are fupported with, and the too favourable and
unguarded expreffions of many learned men relating to them
(as has been hinted in the preceding diflertation, Obferv. I.),
make it impoflible rightly to fettle the Canon, without a par-
ticular confideration of them. My firft bufinefs therefore
will be, to give the Reader as large and particular an account
of thefe as I can ; in order to which I obferve, in the firft
place,
That there are fome intimations of fitch books in the now re-
ceived Scriptures of the New Tejiament j fo very early was
this artifice of Satan againft the true intereft of Chriftianity.
The moft remarkable places of the New Teftament are the
following ; viz.
I. That of St. Luke in the preface to his Gofpel, c.i. v. i,
2, 3. Forafmuch as many have taken in hand to fet forth in
order a declaration of thofe things^ which are mojl [urely believed
among $, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eye-witnejjes andminijlersofthe Word,it feemed
good to me alfo^ having had perfett under/landing of all things
C 4 from
24 Of Apocryphal Writings PART, f .
from the very firft, to ^vrite unto thee In order, mojl excellent c Theo-
philus. A little confideration on thefe words will oblige us to
conclude, that there were in St. Luke's time many falfe and
fpurious gofbels, or hiflories of our Saviour's life and do&rine.
For the defign of them is evidently this, to give Theophilus
an account of the reafon or motives, which induced him to
write his Gofpel," viz. becaufe many others had engaged in
the fame work before. But this could not poflibly have been
any reafon for his writing, unlcfs thofe others had been de-
fective or falfe in their accounts. If otherwifc, viz. if thofe
other Gofpels had been genuine and true, the number of them
fhould rather have prevented than forwarded him in his work.
Thus the antients p , as well as moft modern writers, under-
ftand Saint Luke in this place 1 : But having treated of this
matter more largely in another place % I muft refer the Reader
there. Nor (hall I here enquire, what thofe Gofpels were,
which St. Luke refers to ; though feveral of the antients % and
Dr. Grabe l of late, have imagined, he efpecially refpected the
Gofpel of the Egyptians and the Nazarenes, as extant at that
time.
2. Another inftance of a fpurious writing under an Apoftle's
name feems to me fairly to be gathered from thofe words of St.
Paul, 2 ThcfT. ii. 2. B not foon Jhaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by fpirii, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of
Chrift is at hand. The plain purport of which words is, to guard
them again ft a groundlefs expectation they were in danger of
being wrought up to, of Chrift's fecond coming, by the de-
lufive artifices of falfe Apoftles. He cautions them not to be
deceived by any of their falfe methods, and particularly not
by any Epiftle tlieyihould produce under his name. Nothing
r Origcn. Hoinil. in Luc. i. i. Teilam. Par. i.e. 3.
Enieb. Hill. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 14. Vindication of St. Matthew's
Ambrol'. Comment, in Luc. i. Au- Gofpel againft Mr. Whifton, c. 2.
gult. tic Conleiif. Evung. 1. 4.. c. 8. p. 9, Sec."
Eraihius in Luc. i. i. Bel- 4 Origen. Homil. in Luc. i. i.
larm.de Matrini. Sacr. 1. i.e. 16. Hieron. Prcf. in Matth. Theopliy-
Grot. in Luc. i. i. Huet. De- lacl. in Luc. i. i.
roonft. Kvang. Prop. i. . 16. Fa- t Spicikg. Patr. fccul. i. p. 31,
thtr Simon Critic . H ilt. ot the New ice.
can
CHAP. II. in the Apoftle? Times.
can be more evidently implied in the words HTE
yp.*n, than that the Apoftle fufpected fome fpurious Epiftle to be
publifhed under his name in Theflalonica. Some of our beft
expofitors ", not obferving the force of the particle ? here,
have imagined Saint Paul in thefe words to refer to his former
Epiftle : but nothing can be more improbable ; for, I. It ren-
ders the fignificant particle w? quite ufelefs and fuperfluous :
2. It makes the Apoftle rank his own Epiftle in the fame clafs
with fpurious revelations and falfe difcourfes, which he warns
them not to be influenced by. Hence the antient writers of
Chriftianity, Tertullian, Origen, and others, who knew what
great numbers of books were forged early under the Apoftles* ,
names, expound this paflage of fome fuppofititious pieces falfely
afcribed to St. Paul w ; and fo alfo feveral of our modern writ-
ers x . I would only add, that this expofition is moft clearly con-
firmed by the conclufion of the Epiftle, which runs thus y , The
falutation of me Paul with my own hand^ which is the token in
every Epiftle, fo I zvrite. In which words, by reafon of the fup-
pofititious Epiftle under his name, he gives them a certain mark,
by which they (hould be always able to diftinguifli his genuine
writings, from any that pretended to be his. It is plain, there-
fore, that even while St. Paul was alive, there were counter-
feited Epiftles publifhed under his name.
3. 1 offer it as a conjecture, that St Paul hath refpe& to the
Apocryphal Gofpel of the Nazarenes, in thofe words, Gal. i. 6.
I marvel i that ye are fofoon removed from him that called you into
the grace of Chrijl^ unto another Gofpel. For though it is always
fuppofed, the word Gofpel here means the do<Strine of the Gof-
pel; yet perhaps, as I faid, it is that fuppofititious Gofpel, which
the Chriftianized Jews were fo fond of, that is here meant.
The reafons of my conjecture I fhall lay down in the follow-
ing obfervations ; for the fupport of which, I think it needlefs
u Beza, Hammond, and Whitby * Grotius et Calvin, in loc. Co-
in Joe. cus Cenf. vet. Script. Prefat. Eftius
* Tertullian.de Rerun-eft. Carn. in 2 Th-ji'. iii. 17. Fabrit. Cod.
c. ?4. Origen. Epift. ad Charos fu- Apucr. Nov. Teft. Tom. 2. p. 916.
us apud Ruffin. de deprav. Origen. / a TheiT. iii. 17.
to
26 Of Apocryphal Writings PART. i.
to offer any arguments, the things being, I fuppofe, well
known to all, who are at all verfed in Chriftian antiquities.
1. A great number of the converts to Chrijlianity^atfirft^were
ftich as profejfed the Jewijh Religion. We are told, Acts xxi.
20. of many (pvpu&$) ten thoufands of Jews, that believed and
received the do&rines of Chrift. Nor are we to fuppofe this
true only of the inhabitants of Jerufalem, and the land of Pa-
leftine, but of thofe alfo who lived in Gentile countries, and
very probably many of them, fuch who had been converted be-
fore from Paganifm to Judaifm z .
2. Thefe were generally fuch^ who were for mixing 'Judaifm
with Chriflianity^ and taught as necej/ary^ not only a belief of
yefus as the MeJJiah^ but an obfervance of the laws of Mofes.
This is very evident from the whole fcope of feveral of St.
Paul's Epiftles. And Epiphanius tells us, the Nazarenes (by
which name thefe half-chriftians were called) differed little or
nothing from the Jews in any thing^ only that they believed in
Chrift.
3. The better to fupport and propagate their principle s, they
had a Gofpel fuited to their own judgement s^ and called by their
own names. This they were fo exceeding fond of, as to rejel
all others n .
4. The converts to Chrijlianity among the Galatians were
certainly much prevailed upon by thefe Nazarenes^ to intermix
"Judaifm with Chri/iianity. And for this very reafon St. Paul
wrote this Epiftle to them, in order to prevent their being any
farther deluded by them. This is plain by the whole defign
of the Letter ; and therefore,
5. When in this Epiftle he makes mention of any falfe
Gofpel, by which they had been feduced to the principles of
the Nazarenes, it miijl be very unreafonable tff fuppofe, he did
not mean the Gofpel of the Nazarenes*
z 11 femble qifune grande par-
tie de ceux qui embrafserent les
premiers TEvangik dans ces lieux-
la, etoient des gens qui etoientpaflez
premierement du Paganifme dans le
JudaiTme, et qui rejurent eni'uite la
Religion Chretienne. Vid.LeClerc.
in Gal. i. 6.
1 T -nraY
^j itsfit
slf Xftri" o'^S
ref. zg. . 7.
b Vid. Eu
c. 25. et 27.
. ^ i i
Hlft " EccL L ? "
Cor oil.
CRAP. II. *n the Aptjlle? Times. iy
Coroll. If in the Apoftles' times, while they were yet alive,
there were fo many fpurious and fuppofititious pieces publimed,
it is not ftrange, if we find a much greater number after their
deaths, as the Chriftian Religion fpread farther j of which ia
She following Chapter.
CHAP. IIL
A large Catalogue of all the loft Apocryphal Books, which are
mentioned by the Writers of the firjl four Centuries, with the
Places, where they are mentioned.
HAVING given fome account of the Apocryphal books
under the Apoftles' names during their life,, I proceed
now to give fome account of the vaft number of fucb books,
that were in the world foon afterwards.
Papias of Hierapolis, who was one of St. John's difciples,
an intimate of Polycarp, and called a perfon of antiquity by
Irenaeus c , who himfelf lived in the fecond century, tells us J ,
in the Preface of his Commentary on our Saviour's fayings,
that the books he had read concerning Chrijl were notjo profita-
ble to him, as the conversation of thofe, who had been inti.'^ate
with the Apojlles ; which, as he never would have faid concern-
ing any infpired books, {hews he had met with feveral, which
he did not look upon as fuch e .
Hegefippus (contemporary with Juftin Martyr about the
year of Chrift 150, called by Gobarus f ^a^ Y^ x.*i asroro-
TUKOJ) in his Commentaries has a Difcourfe concerning the
Apocryphal books, feveral of 'which >, he fays, were made by the
Her eticks of his times.
* Adv. Haeref. 1. 5. c. 33. with, than any uncertain tradi-
* Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. tions.
c. 39. f Vid. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 232.
* If he had judged them the un- p. 894.
doubted writings of the Apoftles, he e Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4.
resit have been better fatisfied there- c . az .
Irenasus
28 Of Apocryphal Books PART I,
Irenaeus h obferves, that the Gnojlicks had in bis time an in-
numerable multitude of fpurious and Apocryphal books^ which
they had forged to delude the more weak and ignorant fort of
perfons, filled with the moft impious and blafphemous afler-
tions. After thefe times, Origen ! , Jerome k , Epiphanius ',
Ambrofe m , and others, tell us of great numbers of thefe
books, made ufe of by the Hereticks of their times. Philaf-
trius, in his catalogue of Herefies, names one Htsrejis Apocry-
pha n , viz. of fuch, who oppofed other books to the truly Ca-
nonical ones.
Of thefe books fame are quite loft, and not fo much as the
name, or the leaft part of them remaining. Of others there
are fame few fragments remaining in the writings of the Fa-
thers, but without any exprefs intimation, out of what books
they were taken. Of others there are undoubted fragments^
with the names of the books, from whence they were cited.
Others perhaps are Jl ill extant.
For the better managing my defign, I fhall confider them,
under the general divifion of books which are loft, and books
which are yet extant ; and, according to my propofal, treat
firft concerning thofe which are loji, or not extant. And as it is
neceflary to my defign, fo I hope it will not be unferviceable,
to prefent the Reader with as large and full a collection of thefe,
as I have been able to make, from the writers of the four firft
centuries after the birth of Chrift : my collection proceeds
no farther for thefe three reafons, viz.
1. Becaufe by the end of the fourth century, or therea-
bouts, there will appear to be almojl an universal agreement
concerning the Canon^ and what books (hould be received in-
to it.
2. Becaufe the writers of the fucceeding centuries are^ upon
many accounts^ very improper evidences in this matter.
3. Becaufe the books mentioned afterwards under the names
of the Apoftles, &c. have either very JJender^ or indeed no pre-
tences at all, to Canonical authority. Such are many of thofe
h Adv. Hzref. 1. i. c. 17. ' Adv. H*ref. fepe.
1 Homil. in Luc. i. i. m Comment, in Luc. i. i.
k Pr*t. inMatth. n Hserei". 87.
mentioned
CHAP. ill. in the four firjl Centuries. 29
mentioned in Mr. Toland's catalogue, under the pompous
titles of St. Matthew, Mark, &c.
For thefe reafons I have fpared myfelf the needlefs labour of
reading, or fearching into the writers of the fifth, and follow-
ing centuries j and (hall now proceed to the catalogue itfelf.
A Catalogue of Books not extant now, formerly publijhed under
the Names of our Saviour^ his Apoflles^ their Companions^ &c.
with the Places^ where they are mentioned by any of the Wri-
ters of the firft four Centuries after Chrift.
N. B. The reader is not to think it ftrange, when he finds
the fame book mentioned in this Catalogue more than
once ; my defign being to produce every place, where there
is any mention of them.
In the Firjl Century.
AFTER the moft diligent fearch into the fuppofed writers
of the firft century, I cannot find, that any one of them
has mentioned fo much as one Apocryphal writing by name.
Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp,
in the pieces now extant under their names, never, in any
one place, cite by name any Apocryphal Gofpel. It muft in-
deed be confefied, there are feveral paflages in their writings,
which, as they are not in our Gofpels, feem to be taken out of
fome others : but thefe are all fome fayings of our Saviour,
which, with whatever others are to be found of the fame fort,
fhall be produced, and critically examined, in the fecond part
of this work.
It may not, however, be improper here to obferve, that
there are two or three pafTage<;, from whence fome have con-
cluded, that befide thofe Epiftles we now have of St. Paul's,
he wrote others, now loft . For inftance, from thofe words,
I Cor. v. 9. 1 wrote to you^ in an Epijlle, not to company with
fornicators ; they conclude, he had fent the Corinthians an
Epiftle before that, which is now called the firft. And Mr.
Gregory of Oxford * tells us, he faiv a third Epiftle of St.
* Preface to his works, p. n.
Paul
30 A Catalogs of FART. j.
Paul ta the Corinthians^ in the Armenian tongue, beginning^
Paul a fervant of Jefus Chrift\ but this, and the other in-
ftances, I defign particularly to examine hereafter.
In the SECOND CENTURY the following Apocryphal Booh art
mentioned.
By HEGESIPPUS.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Lib. Commentar.
*pud Eufeb. Hifl. Ecd. lib. 4. c. 22.
By IRENJEUS.
The Gofpel written by Judas Ifcariot. Adverf. Haref. Kb*
1. c. 35.
The Gofpel of Truth, made ufe of by the Valentinians. Id*
lib. 3. c . IT.
By HERACLEON.
The Preaching of Peter, jfpud Qrigen. lib. 14. Comment*
in yoan, iy. 22.
By SERAPION, Bifliop of Antioch.
The Gofpel of Peter. Lib. d< Evang. Pet. apud Eufeb*
Hifl. Ecd. I. 6. c. 12.
Dr. Cave faith , Serapion has cited the Acts of Peter; but
I believe he is miftaken in this matter, there being nothing of
it in Eufebius.
By APOLLONIUS.
A Catholick Epiftle of Themifon the Montanift, forged in
imitation of the Apoftles. Lib. cont. Gataphryg. apud Eufeb.
HijL Ecd. I. 5. c. 1 8.
By CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Stromat. l.i,p.
380.
o Hiftor. Liter, in Petnis, p. 5.
The
CHAP. in. Apocryphal Books not extant now. 31
The Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Lib. 3. p. 452,
465. See alfo p. 445.
The Traditions of Matthias. Lib. 2. p. 380. Lib. 7. p.
748. See alfo Lib. 3. p. 436.
The Preaching of Peter, or, according to fome, of Paul and
Peter, as one book. Lib. i.p. 357. /. 2. p. 390. /. 6. p. 635,
636, et 678.
The Revelation of Peter. Lib. Hyfotopof. apud Eufeb*
Hi/I. Ecd. lib. 6. c. 14.
By THEODOTUS BYZANTIUS.
The Preaching of Peter. Excerpt, feu Edog. p. 809. printed
after the end of Clemens Alexandrinus's Works.
The Revelation of Peter. Ibid. p. 806, 807.
By TERTULLIAN.
The Aas of Paul and Thecla. Lib. de Baptifm. c. 17.
About twenty-three years fince, our learned countryman, Dr.
Mills, caufed the Martyrdom of Thecla to be copied out of
the Greek manufcript in the Bodleian Library, and prefented
it to Dr. Grabe, who has fince publifhed it in his Spicileg.
Patr. Secul. I. and endeavours to prove it to be the fame with
this Book mentioned by Tertullian. How right his conjec-
ture is, will appear when we come to examine the Book itfelf.
The Gofpel of Valentinus. Lib. de Prafcript. adv. Ha-
retic. c. 49.
The Gofpel of Marcion. Lib. 4. adv. Mar don. c. 2, 4,
et6.
The Gofpel of Peter. Ibid. c. 5,
By CAIUS, a Prefbyter of Rome.
The Revelation of Cerinthus, pretending to be Apoftolical.
Lib. Difput. apudEufeb. Htfl. Ecd. I. 3. c. 28.
In the THIRD CENTURY, the following Apocryphal Books are
mentioned.
By ORIGEN.
The Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Homil, in Luc.
i.- I.
The
32 -A Catalogue of PART. l.
The Gofpel according to the twelve Apoftles. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Bafilides. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Thomas. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Matthias. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Peter. Comment, in Matth. xiii. 55, 56.
Tom. \ p. 223.
The Book of James. Ibid.
The DocVme of Peter. Proaem. in Libr. de Princip.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Traft. 8. In
Matth. xix. 19.
The fame. Tom. 2. in Joan. p. 58.
The Ads of Paul. De Princip. /. i.e. 2.
The fame. Tom. 2. in 'Joan. p. 298.
By CYPRIAN.
A fpurious piece under the name of Paul, Epijt. 27.
By an anonymous writer in Cyprian's time,
The Preaching of Paul. Tratt. de non iterand. Baptifm.
p. 30. at the end of Cyprian's works.
ByLACTANTIUS.
The Preaching of Peter and Paul at Rome. De Vera Sap.
I. 4. c. 21.
* In the FOURTH CENTURY are mentioned the following
Books.
By EUSEEIUS.
The Afts of Peter. HijL Eccl. I. 3. c. 3.
The Gofpel of Peter. Ibid.
The Preaching of Peter. Ibid.
The Revelation of Peter. Ibid.
The Afts of Paul. Ibid.
The fame. Lib. 3. c. 25.
* Porphyry, in his life of Ploti- Zoroafter, Zoftrianus, Nicotheus,
nus, accules the Chriftians with Allogcnes, Mdus, and leveral o-
having forged fevcral bocks, un- there,
der the title of Revelations, viz. of
The
CHAP. Hi. Apocryphal Books not extant now. 33
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Ibid.
The Revelation of Peter. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Peter. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Thomas. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Matthias. Ibid.
The Acts of Andrew and John. Ibid.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews, c . 39.
The Gofpel of Tatian. Lib. 4. c. 29.
The Book of the Helkefaites, which, they fay, fell down
from Heaven. Lib. 6. c. 38.
By ATHANASIUS.
1 The Ads of Peter. Synopf. S. Scriptur. . 76.*
The Ads of John. Ibid.
The Ads of Thomas. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Thomas. Ibid.
By CYRIL.
The Gofpel of Thomas. Catecb. IV. . 36. and Catech.
VI. . 31.
The Gofpel of Scythianus. Catech. VI. . 22.
By AMBROSE.
The Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles. Comment, in Luc. i. I.
The Gofpel of Bafilides. Ibid.
The Gofpel' of Thomas. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Matthias. Ibid.
By the anonymous Author of the Works under the name of
DIONYSIUS the AREOPAGITE.
The writings of Bartholomew the Apoftle. Lib. de Theol.
Myftic.c.i. .
* I confefs, it has been much here, yet it is not very material to
queftioned, whether that book, un- our defign, whether it was written
der the name of Athanafius, be by him, or any other perfon in or
really his, or not : but though I near his time,
thought it neceflary to mention this
VOL. I. D By
34- -A Catalogue of PART I,
By PHILASTRIUS.
The Ads of Andrew. Haref. 87.
The As of John. Ibid.
The Ads of Peter. Jbid.
The Ads of Paul. Ibid.
By JEROME.
The Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Prof, in Com-
merit, in Mattb.
The Gofpel of Thomas. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Matthias. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Bartholomew. Ibid.
The Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Bafilides. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Apelles. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Peter. Catal. Script. Ecclef. in Petr.
The A6ts of Peter. Ibid.
The Preaching of Peter. Ibid.
. The Revelation of Peter.
The Book of Judgment by Peter. Ibid.
The Gofpels publifhed by Lucianus and Hefychius. Pra-
fut. in Evang. ad Damaf.
The Acts of the Apoftles, by Leuthon, or Seleucus.
Ep'jl. ad Chromat. et Heliodor. inter Opp. Hieronymi.*
The Vifion, or Ads of Paul and Thecla. Catal. Script.
Ecclef. in Luc.
The Gofpel of Bartholomew. Ibid, in Panteen.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews, or Nazarenes.
Hid. in Matth. et Jacob. Adv. Pelag. 7.3. c. I. Comment,
in Ifai. xi. 2. et xl. 1 1. in Ezek. xviii. 7. in Mic. vii. 6. Se-
veral places in his Commentary on Matthew, viz. vi. n.
xii. 13. xxiii. 35. Pid. Grab. Spicileg. Patr. Tom. i.p. 30.
By EPJPHANIUS.
The Gofpel of Perfection. Haref. 26. Gnoflic. . 2.
* Some have imagined this E- Caiaub. Exercit. i. ad Apparat.
piltle not to be Jerome's. SeeSixt. Baron. Annal. N. 39. init.
bi.-iK.-ns. Bibliuth. Sanil. 1. 2. et
The
CHAP. ill. Apocryphal Books not extant now. 35
The Gofpel of Eve. Ibid.
The Gofpel of Philip. Ibid. . 13.
The Gofpel of the Nazarenes. Harcf. 29. . g.
The Gofpel of the Ebionites. Hteref. 30. . 13.
The Acts of the Apoftles, made ufe of by the Ebionites,
different from Luke's. Ibid. . 16.
Books forged by the Ebionites under the names of John,
James, Matthew, and others of our Lord's Difciples. Ibid.
23.
The Ads of Peter. Ibid. . 15.
The Gofpel of Jude. Hasref. 38. Ca'ian. . I.
The Anabaticon, or Revelation of Paul. Ibid. . 2.
The Gofpel of Marcion. Haref. 42. Prooem. Refut.
The Gofpel of the Encratites. Haref. 46. . i.
The Ats of Andrew, John, and Thomas. Harcf. 47.
.i.
The Gofpel of Cerinthus. Hteref. 51. . 7.
* The Gofpel of Merinthus. Ibid.
The Acts of Andrew and Thomas. Ha-ref. 61. . I.
The Gofpel of the Egyptians. Hcsref. 62. . 2.
The Ats of Andrew. Htcref. 63. . 2.
The Gofpel of Scythianus. Heeref. 66. . 2.
By AUSTIN.
Some Books, which claimed our Saviour for their Author,
in form of an Epiftle to Peter and Paul. De Confenf. Evang.
1. i. c. 9, 10.
Some other Books of our Saviour's. Ibid. c. 34.
An Epiftle of Chrift, produced by the Manichees. Cont.
Faujl. Manicb. 1. 28. c. 4.
A Hymn of Chrift's, which he taught his Difciples, received
by the Prifcillianifts, and other hereticks, as genuine. />/?
ad Ceret. Epifcop.
Some Books under the names of John and Andrew. Cont.
jfdverf. Leg. et Prophet. 1. i. c. 20.
* Xhefe two of Cerinthus and Gofpel, among other Apocryphal
Mu-inthus, he iuppofes, St. Luke ones, which were at that time "writ-
intended iu the firlt verle ot his tin.
D 2 The
36 A Catalogue of PART: I.
The A&s of Lentius*, under the names of the Apoftles.
Lib. de Fid. contr. Manich. c. 38.
The A&s of the Apoftles, wrote by Lenticiusf. De Aft.
cum Falic. Manicb. 1. 2. c. 6.
The A6ts of LeoiitiusJ, under the Apoftles' names. Lib.
de Fid. cont. Manicb. c. 5.
The Acts of the Apoftles, made ufe of by the Manichees.
Lib. cont. Adimant. Manicb. c. 17.
The Revelation of Paul. Trail. 98. in Joan, in fin.
By RUFFIN.
The Judgment of Peter. Expofit. in Symbol. Apo/lol. . 36.
By INNOCENT I.
Books forged under the name of Matthias.
Books forged under the name of James the Lefs.
Books forged under the names of Peter and John, wrote
by Lentius.
Books forged under the name of Andrew, wrote by
Nexochariftes** and Leonides.
Books forged under the name of Thomas. Epift. 3. ad
Exuper. TJjolof. Epifc. . 7.
By GELASIUS.
The Ads of Andrew.
The Ads of Philip.
The Afts of Peter.
The Ads of Thomas.
The Gofpel of Thaddsus.
The Gofpel of Matthias.
The Gofpel of Thomas.
The Gofpel of Barnabas.
The Gofpel of Bartholomew.
The Gofpel of Andrew.
The Gofpels corrupted by Lucian.
The Gofpels corrupted by Hefychiusff .
The Books of Lentitiusfi.
* Al. Leucius. ** Al. Xenocharides.
f Al.Leuciuset Levltiiio. ff Al. Ifitius.
J Al. Leucius. Jt Al. Leucius.
Leucius.
The
CHAP. III. Apocryphal Books not extant now. 37
The Ads of Thecla and Paul.
The Revelation of Thomas.
The Revelation of Paul.
The Revelation of Stephen. See the decree under Gela-
fius's name, de Libris Apocryph. apud Gratian. DiJlinEt. 15.
c. 3*. Whether, as fome imagine, it was wrote within my
time, or no, I (hall not here enquire ; only obferve, that if it
was not, it was fo very near it, that I thought it necefiary to
infert it.
Thefe are all the Apocryphal books, not extant, which I
have been able to find any mention of in the writers of the four
firft centuries after our Saviour. I propofed, indeed, to have
annexed here the catalogue of the books ftill extant in like
manner as the not extant ; but this catalogue will be fo ne-
ceflary in the third part of this work, that I (hall defer the
producing it in full, or at large, till then ; and in the mean
time defire the reader to be content with the following general
account.
The Apocryphal Books extant are,fucb as
Our Saviour's Letter to Abgarus.
Our Saviour's Letter, which fell down from Heaven at Je-
rufalem, directed to a Prieft named Leopas, in the City Eris.
The Conftitutions of the Apoftles.
The Creed of the Apoftles.
The Apoftolical Epiftles of Barnabas, Clemens, Ignatius,
and Polycarp.
The Shepherd of Hermas.
The Gofpel of the Infancy of our Saviour.
The Prot-Evangelium of St. James.
The Gofpel of Nicodemus.
The Martyrdom of Thecla, or Acts of Paul.
Abdias's Hiftory of the Twelve Apoftles.
St. Paul's Epiftle to the Laodiceans.
St. Paul's Six Letters to Sene*ca, &c.
Upon the whole, we may fee, how great the number of
fpurious and Apocryphal pieces was in the ages next after our
Saviour.
* Etapud Concil. Sanft. Tom. 4. p. 1260.
D 3 CHAP.
Why there arefo many PART. I.
CHAP. IV.
Reafons ajjigned, why there ivere fo many Apocryphal Pieces fa
early in the Chrijlian Church.
MANY who are not acquainted with the firft writers of
Chriftianity, will, no doubt, be furprized to fee fo large
a catalogue of books, fo early written under fuch fpecious
titles: before I proceed therefore, it may not be improper to
obferve, how it came to pafs that the number of them became fo
large^ or for what reafons they were wrote. And,
I. The very great number of hereftes and diviftons, that arofe
among the Cbriftians foon after the publijhing of the Gofpel> I
ajfign as the principal caufi of this multitude of books. It is in-
deed ftrange, that a religion fo exactly calculated to promote
unity, fhould have been fo much abufed, and its profeflbrs di-
vided into fo many various parties, and different denomina-
tions, as we find they were immediately after our Lord's Af-
cenfion. Hegefippus indeed tells us % that till Trajan's time
(near which himfelf lived) the Church continued as a pure and
uncorrupted virgin: but this (as learned men have obferved)
muft be candidly underftood \ not as though there were at
this time no herefies arofe in the Church, but that they had not
yet fb much fpread themfelves, and difturbed the peace of the
Church : for it is certain, that even in the Apoftles' times ma-
ny had perverted the great truths of Chriftianity ; St. Paul
often hints at fuch in his Epiftles r ; Peter ' and Jude r do the
fame; and John exprefsly mentions the Nicolaitans and others'.
In their time lived Simon Magus, to whom fo many herefies
owed their original. It would be tedious to mention the he-
refies of the fecond century, the various forts of Gnofticks w >
* Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccf. 1. 3. s i Pet. iii. 16.
c. 31. et 1. 4. c. 22. l Jude4. etiz.
" Valei". ad prior. Ice. Eufeb. et u Kev. ii. 15. et 20.
Spanheim. Hiftor. Chriftian. Seoil. w The learned Dr. Hammond, in
J. . 14. init. his Annotations on St. Paul's Epif-
' 2 Cor. xi. 16. Gal. i. 6,&c. ii. ties, meets with them continunlly
4, &c. zTim. ii. 17. there.
dw
CHAP. IV. Apocryphal Writings. 39
the Valentinians, Menandrians, Nicolaitans, &c. the Naza-
renes, Ebionites, Cerinthians, Carpocratians, Montanifts, the
followers of Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, &c. He" who has a
mind, may fee large catalogues of thefe in Irerijeus, Epipha-
nius, Auftin, &c. What concerns me to obferve is, that upon
account of thefe differing parties, a great part of thofe books
were compofed, which make up the foregoing catalogue; each
party to recommend and propagate their principles and tenets
under the great name of fome Apoftle or Difciple of our Sa-
viour. This will largely appear in the particular examination
of the books ; at prefent it will be fufficient, to fupport the
obfervation from the exprefs teftimonies of fome antient wri-
ters.
Irenasus * tells us, the Gnojlicks bad in bis time forged an in-
numerable multitude of fpurious and Apocryphal books, which
tbeyfpread abroad in order to pervert ignorant and unwary per-
fons. Hegelippus who lived at the fame time, in a difTertation
concerning the Apocryphal books of the New Teftament^,
allures us, they were many of them made by the heretics of that
age. If any regard be to be given to the Conftitutions of the
Apoftles, riot as a facred, but an antient book, we are there
told z , the ungodly wrote feveral books in their name ; that Si-
mon and CleobiuS) and their followers^ did compile poifonous books
tinder the name of Chrijl and his Difciples, and do carry them
about in order to deceive^ 13 c.
2. It is not improbable, that feme of the forementioned books
were compofed by honejl and pious men, with dejign to preferve
fome miracles and difcourfes of our Saviour ^ which they had re-
ceived by an undoubted tradition^ and did not meet with in any
of the authentic Gofpels. It can hardly be thought, but Papias>
and fuch others, who, like him, were fo induftrious in pro-
curing all accounts they could of our Lord's fayings and ac-
* Adverf. Haeref.
tvro
us uinol iirkeuretr, rovruv (fc. aVov-pfw*) Iropi".
ls lumifj^u TUV Apud Euleb. Hilt. Eccl. 1. 4.
y.cti ra T*J? aXr/Se/af yw C. 2.2.
z Conft. Apoft. 1. 6. . 16.
D 4 tions,
40 Why there are fo many Apocryphal Writings. PART I.
tions, would, out of the fame principle, tranfmit them to
others ; which accounts, falling afterwards into the hands of
fome zealous and well-meaning perfons, were, either through
miftake, or perhaps a more pious than honeft defign, publifhed
under the name of fome one of our Lord's Apoftles or follow-
ers, and that fometimes with many additions and interpola-
tions. The learned Cafaubon (than whom no one was ei-
ther more acquainted with, or more judicious in Chriftian
antiquities) has obferved this, in his diflertations againft Ba-
ronius * j I cannot y (ays he, but much refent the practice of many
in the earliejl ages of the Church^ who reckoned it an aftion
very meritorious to make additions of their own to the truths of
the Gofpel) with this view, that Chrijiianity might meet with a
better reception among the Gentiles. They called thefe, offi-
cious lies, contrived for a pious end. This produced innu-
merable books in thofe ages, wrote by men who were not
bad, under the name of our Saviour, his Apoftles, and follow-
ers. Among thefe books, that excellent critic places the Si-
bylline Oracles, and feveral of the preceding catalogue. But,
of all thefe, none feems to me more likely to have proceeded
from this caufe, than that famous book in antiquity, entitled,
The Preaching of Peter and Paul. I would only add, that
Tertullian and Jerome have furnifhed us with an undoubted
and remarkable inftance of this, in the book called, The Acts
of Paul and Thecla : this fpurious piece (fay thofe authors)
was wrote by a certain Pre/byter in Afia, under the name of
Paul, who being convifted of the forgery^ confejfid it, andfaid,
he did it out of love to Paul^ &c, c
a F.xercit. i. cont. Baron. An- c Vid. Hicron. de Script. Eccl.
naj. N. 10. p. 54. in Luc.
b Lib. de Baptifm. c. 17.
CHAP.
C 41 ]
CHAP. V.
A general Proof \ that the primitive Chriftians were well agreed
about the Books of the Canon.
PROP. II.
The greateft Part of Chriftians were very early agreed,
what Books were Canonical, and to be looked upon as
the Rule of Faith and Pradice.
IT would certainly evidence a very great ignorance in Ec-
clefiaftical hiftory in any perfoh, to pretend to aflign the
particular time, when the prefent collection, or Canon of the
books of the NewTeftament. was made: for though we have
all imaginable reaibn to conclude this certainly done long be-
fore the Council of Laodicea, yet the hiftories of thofe times
are fo defective, that we have no pofitive account of that mat-
ter. The Canon was indeed gradually enlarged, as the books
were wrote at different times, and in places at a very great
diftance from each other ; and fo a confiderable time was ne-
ceflarily requifite, both for the fpreading the books, and cer-
tifying their genuinenefs and authority. It is impoflible in
the nature of things, but fome Churches muft receive the
books long after others, as they lay at a greater diftance from
the places where they were written, or had lefs convenience of
communication with them. Befides, Chriftianity for a long
time laboured under the difadvantages of continual perfecu-
tionj no general Councils could be convened, and fo no pub-
lic notification of univerfal agreement in this matter. But
notwithftanding all thefe things, it is yet difcoverable, that, as
foon as can be fuppofed after the writing of the books, the
Chriftians in all countries remarkably agreed in receiving
them as Canonical : for the proof of which I obferve,
I. 7 hat in the few genuine writings of the firji ages now ex-
tant, the fame books are cited as Scripture. Jt is indeed, with-
out juft reafon, commonly prefumed, that the firft writers
cued
4* The frjl Chrijtians PART i.
cited the now-received books of the Canon, and others pro-
mifcuoujly. But as 1 (hall hereafter fhew this to be a miftake,
fo it will be enough here to obferve, that they were generally
agreed in receiving the fame books for Canonical, which we
do now j and this appears, I fay, from their agreement to cite
them, as every one muft acknowledge, who has but caft an
eye upon the writings of the firft centuries. To fay nothing
of the Apoflolic Fathers, fuch as Clemens, Barnabas, &c. it is
evident, that Juft in Martyr at Neapolis,Theophilus at Antioch,
Irenaeus in France, Clemens at Alexandria, Tertullian at
Carthage, &c. (who all lived within 120 or 130 years after
our Lord's Afcenfion, and fome of them much fooner, and
but a very fliort time after the writing of the books) have all,
though in very remote countries, quoted many, or moft, if
not all the fame books as Scripture. The fame might be ob-
ferved concerning Origen, Cyprian, and other writers of the
next century. But, to omit thefe, I obferve,
2. Tbatfeveral of the firjl writers of Chri/fianity have left
#5, in their works^ catalogues of the facred books of the New
Teftarticnt^ which, though made in countries at a vaft diftance
from each other, do very little differ. A particular account
of all the catalogues, I {hall give hereafter in this volume ; I
fliall only inftance now in thofe of Origen d and Eufebius 6 ,
which he who will be at the pains to compare, will eafily per-
ceive to be very nearly the fame. So great was the pains and
care of thofe early Chriftians, to be well affured what were
the genuine writings of the Apoftles, and to diftinguifh them
from all the pretended Revelations of defigning men, and the
forgeries they published under facred titles. Thus when the
Prefbyter of Afia abovementioned f had publifhed a fpurious
piece under the name of Paul, he was immediately convifiedj
and notice of the forgery was foon conveyed to Carthage^ and the
Churches of Africa.
Coroll. I. Hence it follows, that Mr. DodvvelPs opinion *,
" Comment, in Matth. init. et Eufcb. Hifh Eccl. I. 3. c. 25.
Comment, in Joan. 1. 5. apxid Eu- f Vid. fxipr. p. 40.
feb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 25. s In Iren. Diflot. I. . 3$.
efpoufed
CHAP. V. agreed In the Canon. 43
efpoufed with fb much zeal by Mr. Toland in his Amyntor h ,
is utterly falfe, viz. That the books of the prefent Canon lay
concealed in the coffers of particular Churches, or private men,
till the later times of Trajan, or perhaps of Adrian* not known
to the Clergy or Churches of thofe times, nor yet difflnguijhed
from the fpurious pieces of the Hereticks. For befides that it
has been already proved, by Mr. Nye and Mr. Le Clerc ",
that the writers of the Apoftolic age were well acquainted
with, becaufe they frequently cite feveral books of, our prefent
Canon ; I add, from what has been faid, tftat if thefe books
had not been well known in Adrian's time, but then lay con-
cealed, it would have been impoffible for them to have fpread
fo much by the middle of the fecond century, as to have been
quoted by all the writers of it, in whatever countries they
lived i.
Coroll. II. Hence it alfo follows, that the primitive Chrif-
tians are proper judges, to determine what book is Canonical,
and what not ; for nothing can be more abfurd, than io fup-
pofe, in thofe early ages, an agreement fo univerfal, without
a good and folid foundation; or, in other words, it is next to
impoflible, either that fo great a number of men fhould agree
in a cheat, or be impofed upon by a cheat. The celebrated
Huetius takes this for granted, and lays it down as his firft
axiom, That every book is genuine , which was ejieerned genuine
by thofe, who lived neareji to the time when it was written, and
by the agesfucceeding in a continued feries. This, fays he, is an
axiom that cannot be dlfputed by thofe, who will allow any thing
at all to be certain in hijlory. Demonftr. Evang. Axiom, i.
But there are fome particular circumftances, which will make
the inference more clear as to the Chriftian books, than others,
fuch as the prodigious ejleem the books at jirft were received with,
the conftant ufe that was made of them in their religious af-
femblies, the tranjlations made of them very early into other Ian-
h Amynt. p. 69; Harmony.
1 Anlwer to Amyntor, p. 47, ' Juftm Martyr unquestionably
&c. See my Vindic. of St. Matth. lived in Adrian's time, and Irenaeus
p. Z25, &c. not long after. Vid. Eufcb. Chro-
k Diifert. 3. at the end of his nic.
guages i
44 Various Methods of PART. j.
guages ; thele, I fay, and many other fuch circumftances there
are, which all concur to make an impofture in this cafe al-
moft impoffible.
CHAP. VI.
'Ike var'mis Sentiments of learned Men concerning the Methods
of determining the Canonical Authority of any Boo& y enquired
intO) and particularly difatfled.
PROP. III.
The main and principal Method, by which we are now able
to determine the Canonical Authority of any Book, or
Books, is by fearching into the moft antient and authentic
Records of Chriftianity, and finding out the Teftimony or
Tradition of thofe, who lived neareft the Time in which the
Books were written, concerning them.
THE preceding Corollary evidenced the firft Chriftians to
be proper judges ; the defign of this proportion is to
fhew, that they are the main and principal judges, by whom
we muft determine the queftion concerning the Canon of the
New Teftament. Though the propofition may at firft feem
clear and evident, the difputes of many, both foreign and Eng-
lifli divines, have made it neceflary more largely to be dif-
cufled : for the truth is, it has happened here, as in many
other cafes, the cleareft truths have become ftrangely per-
plexed and confounded. Such is the zeal of the contending
parties among Chriftians, that becaufe they differ in fome things,
they think themfelves obliged to differ in all they can, and fo
arife difputes about queftions, which are in themfelves plain,
and the fierceft contention about things, in which both fides
would moft certainly agree, if they had but patience and im
partiality enough to know each other's meaning. This is in
a great meafure the cafe ia the prefent queftion } concerning
the
CHAP. VI. determining the Canon. 45
the authority of the Scriptures : fome tell us, they derive their
authority from the Church ; others, that they can only rightly
appear to be true frpm their own internal evidence, and their
powerful influence on the heart ; others add to this, the inward
tejlimony of the Spirit evidencing their divinity , and confequent-
ly their genuinenefs ; others laftly are perfuaded, we have no
other way of knowing whether any book was written by the
perfon whofe name it bears, and confequently whether it be
of the authority it pretends to derive from its author, but by
well-approved teftimonies of thofe, who lived in or near the time
tf its being firfl written. I {hall firft give fome brief account
of each of thefe opinions, and then endeavour to fhew what
is moft probable upon the whole.
I. Thefirjt is the opinion of the Papi/fs, who have generally
affirmed, in their controverfies with the Proteftants, that the
authority of the Scriptures depends upon, or is derived from, the
power of their Church : i. e. It is in the power of the Pope, or
Council, or both, to determine what books Jhall be received as Ca-
nonical. This is a matter fo well known, that I fhall not
produce many iflftances to prove it. Hermannus, in the
abundance of his zeal, affirms m the Scriptures are of no more
value than jEfop's Fables, without the authority of the Church ;
and Bailius ", that he Jhould give no more credit to Saint
Matthew, than Livy, unlefs the Church obliged him. Tileta-
nus, bifhop of Ypres, fays, This is the only way of diftinguijh-
ing between Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures . To the
fame purpofe Pighius, Eckius, Bellarmine, and many of their
moft celebrated writers P. By the authority of the Church,
thefe authors plainly mean a power lodged in the Church of
Rome, and her fynods, of determination, what books are the
word of God j than which nothing can be more abfurd, or
contradictory to common fenfe : for if fo, it is poffible, nay it
m Apud Whitaker. Controv. de * Ibid. c. 3. . 3,4, &c. Whita-
Script. Qu_aeft. 3. c. i. et Chemnit. ker. Controv. de Script. Sacr.
Exam. Cone. Trkl. Par. i. p. 85. Quseft. 3. c. i. Amyrald. Thef.
n Rivet. Ifag. ad Script. Sacr. c. de Auaon Script, inter Thef. Sal-
3. .4. &c. murienfes. Calvin. Inltit. Chrift.
Ibid. c. 3. . 3, Rel. ]. i. c.y. . i.
is
46 Various Methods of PART. 1,
is eafy for them, to make a book, which is not divine, to be
fo; and (to make ufe of Hermannus's inftance) it is poflible
./Efop's Fables may in time become as good a part of Scrip*
ture, as Saint Paul's Epiftles: nay, once more, it is very
poflible the books of Celfus, Julian, and Porphyry, were they
extant, might become a part of the New Teftament, though
they were defignedly written againft it. But the folly of the
Popifli arguments in this inftance, has been fo well expofed by
Whitaker, Chemnitius, Rivet, and many others of our Re-
formers, that I think it fufficient to refer the Reader, who has
a mind to know more of this controverfy, to their books
cited in the margin.
2. Others are of opinion, that there are inward, or innate
evidences in the Scriptures, which, applied by the illumination
or tejiimony ef the Holy Spirit, are the only true proofs of their
being Canonical, or the word of God. To avoid the tedious and
prolix difputations, that have been on this head between Papifts
and Proteftants, and even between Proteftants themfelves, I
lhall only give fome account of the fentiments of our Reform-
ers on it, out of their own writings, and then examine how
far they are true.
Among the Proteftants who have declared their opinion
againft the Papifts on this head, I place firft our learned coun-
tryman Whitaker, who, in his controverfy about the Scripture
againft Bellarmine, gives us this account of the reformed doc-
trine in this matter i : The fum, fays he, of our opinion is, that
the Scriptures have all their authority and credit from them-
felves ) that they are to be acknowledged and received, not le-
caufe the Church has appointed or commanded fo, but becaufe
they came from God : but that they came from God, cannot be
certainly known by the Church, but from the Holy Ghojl. So
Calvin r : All muji allow, that there are in the Scriptures mani-
feft evidences of God fpeaking in them. The majeJJy cf God
in them will prefently appear to every impartial examiner,
which will extort our ajjent : fo that they aft prepojleroujly, wht
endeavour by any argument to beget a folid credit to the Scrip-
<J Controv.de Script. Quad*. 3. r Inftit. Chrift. Relig. 1. i.e.
c.i. 7- -4>5-
tures
CHAP. VI. determining the Canon. 47
tares The Word will never meet with credit in men's minds^
till it be fealed by the internal tejlimony of the Spirit, who wrcte
it. Much the fame we meet with in the publick Confeflions
of faith fet forth by the reformed Churches ; for inftance, ia
the Dutch Confeflion, publimed in French in 1566, in the
name of all the Belgian Churches, after having recited a ca-
talogue of the Scriptures, Thefe, fay they, we receive as the only
facred and Canonical books, not becaufe the Church receives
them as fuch, but becaufe the Holy Spirit witnejjeth to our con-
fciences % that they proceeded from God, and themfelves tejlify
their authority 1 .
The Gallican Church, in their Confeffion, go fomewhat
farther u j not only declaring their faith in the Scriptures to
depend upon the teftimony and internal perfuafion of the Spi-
rit, but that hereby they knew the Canonical from Ecclefiaftical:
i. e. Apocryphal books. I fhould proceed no farther in cita-
tions to this purpofe, were it not for the zealous aflertions of
a Divine famous among us in England, whofe own words
are w , 'The Scriptures of the Old and New Tejlament do abun-
dantly and uncontroulably manifejl themfelves to be the word of
the living God',fo that merely on the account of their oivn pro~
pofal to us, in the name and majefty of God asfucb, without the
contribution of help or ajji/lance from tradition, Church, or any
thing elfe without themfelves, we are obliged, upon the penalty of
eternal damnation, to receive them with thatfubjeffion of foul^
which is due to the word of God. The authority of God Jhining
in them, they afford unto us all the divine evidence of themfelves^
which God is willing to grant to us, or can be granted to us, or
is any way needful for us. Such have been the aflertions of the
Reformers, and many great men after them ; which, for my
part, I freely own, feem to be of a very extraordinary na-
ture. For though I would by no means detract, either from
the dignity of the Canon, or from the influences of God's
s Happy men ! who, in fuch w See Dr. Owen's Dlfcourfe con-
numbers, were bleffed with ib fatif- cerning the Divine Original of the
tying an evidence. Scripture, Ch. 2. . 5. and Ch. 4,
' * Confeff. Belgic. Art. 5. 5.
' ConfefT, Gallic, Art. 4.
Holy
48 Various Methods of PART I,
Holy Spirit (to whom we certainly owe more than we com-
monly imagine), yet I can by no means think the do&rine
of our Reformers in this matter to be very evident and clear ;
for neither by the internal evidences of the Scriptures them-
felves, nor the teftimony of the Spirit attending them, do men
generally believe, that the Scriptures of the prefent Canon are
the word of God. To confider each diftin&ly;
I. As to the internal evidences of the Scriptures , I readily
grant, they are fuch as befpealc them plainly to be the moft
excellent books in the world ; but that thefe are fuch as will
prove, or ought to extort our aflent to, their divinity, upon
pain of eternal damnation, without any other arguments,
feems to be a very unguarded and groundlefs pofition. Were
the great number of Apocryphal books and Epiftles, under
the names of the Apoftles, now extant, and had they happened
to have been put in and continued in the Canon till now, is
it likely, is it poffible, that every Chriftian, who now believes
the Scripture to be the word of God, would have diftin-
guifhed between thefe and the books we now receive, by the
divinity and majefty that appear in the one above the other ?
Can it be fuppofed, that out of a hundred books, or, as we
may well fuppofe, out often thoufand (for the argument will
be juft the fame with the largeft afljgnable number) that pri-
vate Chriftians, or even our moft learned Reformers, fliould
by any internal evidence, agree precifely on the number of
twenty-feven, which are now efteemed Canonical, induced
thereto by fome characters thofe books contain, of their being
written by the infpiration of the Holy Ghoft ? Efpecially
when we confider, how various and divided the fentiments of
Chriftians are, who now agree in the fame Canon? If of
thefe books claiming and pretending to infpiration under fuch
names, we are to judge of their inward evidences, without
any external arguments from tradition, it is moft certain each
party would be proportionably fond of any book, as it more
or lefs favoured their particular fcheme of notions ; and thofe
which we now know to be Apocryphal books, muft have
been judged Canonical above others, as they had more evi-
dences of what they reckoned the mind of God, than others.
If
CHAP. VI. determining the Canon. 40
If men therefore are ftript cf all other ways of determining,
to me it feems very clear, that, confidering the zeal of the
contending denominations of Chriftians for their particular
opinions, feveral of the books of the prefent Canon would
have been rejected, and perhaps moft cf them in their turns
by one party or other ; and fo nothing could enfue but per-
petual quarrels and difagreement. This will appear more pro-
bable, becaufe it was really matter of fact:, in a great meafure,
in the firft ages of Chriftianity. It is well known that thehere-
ticks of thofe times, difregarding the true teftimony or tradi-
tion of the Church, and other rational arguments, wonderfully
cried up their fpurious pieces under Apoftles' names, becaufe
they favoured their peculiar fyftems. Thus, for inftance, the
Manichees rejected many of the books of the New Tefta-
ment which we now receive, and fubftituted * others in their
room ; becaufe the former agreed, and the latter difagreed,
with thofe ridiculous ideas they had formed of Chriftianity;
and fo contemned all other proofs, that were brought by good
teftimonies, &c. to evidence that our prefent books were the
only rule of faith. But the folly and madnefs, as St. Auftin,
calls it, of this fort of reafoning, is fo well confuted by that
Father ^ that I need fay no more. Thofe therefore who are
zealous for this fort of proof, would do well to confider, that
this argument alone, without other external ones, does cer-
tainly make the Canon of Scripture uncertain, and lay men
under a neceffity of continual brangles and difputes. St. Paul
tells us, there were in the Church of Corinth falfe Apojlles, de-
ceitful workers^ transforming themfches into the dpojlles of
Cbrijl : and no marvel ; for Satan himjelf is transformed into
an angel of light' 1 ' : fuch who would artfully imitate their doc-
trines. And if fuch as they had publifhed their books under
the Apoftles' names, imitating their ftyle and doctrine, would
it not have been exceeding difficult, yea, almoft impouible,
without fome rational arguments, for the common Chriftians
at Corinth to have fecn the clear evidences of divinity in
* Auguft. cont. Fauft. Manich. c. 6.
1. 32. c. -z. z 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14.
> Ibid. 1. ii. c. 2. et 1. 33.
VOL. I. E the
50 Parlous Methods of PART i.
the one, which were not in the other ? Could they, without
fome other affiftance, have been aflured, that the firft and fe-
cond Epiftles, wrote to them under Paul's name, were his, and
the third was not ? Sure I am, St. Paul did not put the Chrif-
tians, to whom he wrote, upon this method of knowing the
genuinenefs of his Epiftles. Though he knew them to be
from God, though he prcpofed them as fuch, yet he did not
apprehend the evidences of their divinity were fuch, as would
always manifeft them to be fuch, and infallibly direct the
Chriftians to diftinguifh them from all fpurious writings un-
der his name : elfe what need of the caution he gives them
againft counterfeit Epiftles, and a particular mark, which he
made ufe of in all his Epiftles, to diftinguifh his real ones from
all fuppofititious ones a ? This was certainly needlefe and fu-
perfluous, if the books themfelves would extort aflent from
thofe who read them. And if it be, as Calvin fays, prepofte-
rous to endeavour, by any folid arguments, to beget a folid
credit to the Scriptures, diftindT: from their internal evidence ;
then it was certainly prepofterous in St. Paul to add that mark
to his Epiftles, as an evidence they were his. But perhaps
it will be urged, that it is not the inward characters of the
Scriptures alone, but the imvard teftimony of the Spirit along
with them, that manifefts them to be genuine and of divine
authority. Some indeed there are, who join thefe two argu-
ments together as one, but generally they are made diftinct;.
I (hall therefore confider,
2. How far the opinion of cttr Reformers^ and ethers after
them^ concerning the tejlimtmy of the Spirit to the truth of thf
Scriptures^ is to be depended upon. What their opinion is,
may be feen from their own words, produced at large above :
the fubftance is, that we are to have recourfe to fome fecret
illumination or teftimony of the Spirit, by which alone we
can be convinced rightly, what Scriptures are the word of
God. That the influences of the Holy Spirit are neceflary
to produce fuch a faith in divine things, as fhall effectually
transform the heart, and powerfully incline the foul to a due
2 ThefT. ii. ;, &c. HI. 17. See above, p. 24,25.
obedience
CHAP. VI. determining the Canon. 51
obedience to the Gofpel, can be reafonably denied by none,
who own the account the Scripture has given of his offices to
be true. To open our eyes to fee that evidence of Scripture-
verity which is already extant, to remove our blindnefs, and,
by farther fanflifying, to remove our natural enmity to the
truth, &c. is a teftimony of the Spirit, which every good
Chriftian ought to hope and pray for b . Some have thought
this was all our Reformers meant, among whom is Dr. Ca-
lamy, in his excellent Sermons of Infpiration : but the paf-
fages above make it evident, as Mr. Baxter obferves % that it
is another kind of teftimony than this, which many great Di-
vines refolve their faith into ; in fhort, no other than an im-
mediate revelation or infpiration, like that of the Prophets or
Apoftles. But concerning this I obferve,
1. That if any are made happy with this argument to con-
vince them, it can only be an argument to himfelf^ and cannot
be made ufe of to convince another; becaufe he mayjuftly
except either againft the judgment or veracity of him who
pretends to it. This is only an argument (fays Bifhop Burner-')
to him that feels /V, if it be one at all. If therefore we attempt
to reconcile a Heathen, Jew, or unbeliever, as all men once
were, to the belief of the Scriptures, it muft be by fome other
arguments.
2. To affert, the Scriptures only can be proved by the tef-
timony of the Spirit, is very likely to introduce fucb enthujiafin
among Chrijlians^ as will infallibly render the Canon of Scrip-
ture uncertain and precarious. For as every perfon is, and
muft be, judge of this teftimony, it is not ftrange if menfhould
urge it for other books, which are not commonly received :
and if they do fo, how can thefe Divines anfwer them ? Will
they fay, the Spirit never does nor can give his teftimony,
but to books of his own infpiration, and confequently not to
any but the books of our prefent Canon ? This would be
plain trifling, becaufe it fuppofes the thing, which is to be
proved, for granted ; it firft fuppofes the books are infpired,
b Saint's Reft, Par. a. c. ^. . 3. d Ibid.
c Scrm. 2. p. 40. e On Artie. 6. p. 79.
2 and
52 Parlous Methods of PART I.
and then proves that they are fo, becaufe they are fo. And
yet no better anfwer can be given to one, who claims infpi-
ration for an Apocryphal book, by thofe who allow no other
arguments but the teftimony of the Spirit. Upon this prin-
ciple, therefore, men are at their liberty to bring in all the
rhapfodies of the antient hereticks, if they pleafe, and there is
no oppofing them. They pretend the teftimony of the Spirit
for their book, and we can do no more for ours. How un-
certain this leaves the Canon, every one muft fee : befides, to
ufe the words of the ingenious writer juft mentioned, Ifaperfon
fay the is ajfured of the inspiration of the Scriptures now receiv-
ed, by the infpiration of the fame Spirit mho indited them, it is
natural to enquire, what evidence he has, that this inspiration
he pretends to is real, and not imaginary ? that it is from the
Spirit of God, and not from a Spirit of ddufion ? His only an-
fwer, I fuppofe, muft be this : 'That he is fatisjied in the fame
way the facred penmen were at frjl, as to their infpiration. dnd
let this be admitted, and a wide gap is opened to enthufiafm, and
there is no remedy f .
3. 1 argue againft this, as the only right method of proving
the Canon of Scripture/r<wz matter of fa ft, or by appeal to the
confciences of all men. According to this hypothecs, all men,
who believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, muft have
the teftimony of the Spirit. Now I aflc, whether it be not
notorious in facl, that multitudes firmly believe the truth of
the Revelation, who are neither confcious of any infpiration,
nor even defired if, nor even fo much as heard of the neceflity
of it? Did the Spirit ever tell them, or do they fo much as
pretend it told them, they fiiould receive one book, and reject
another? For my part (faid Mr. Baxter 2 ) I confefs, I could
never boaji of any fuch tejlimony or light of the Spirit, nor rea-
fon neither, which, without human tejlimony, would have made
me believe-, that the Book of Canticles is Canonical, and written
by Solomon, and the Book of Wifdom Apocryphal, and written by
Philo, &c. Nor could I have known all, or any hijhrical
books, fuch as 'Jojhua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, CLrcni-
{ Loc. fup. cit. Pref. to Part ?.. of Saint's Reft, . 6.
cles,
CHAP. VI. determining the Canon. 53
cles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c. to be written ly divine infpiration,
but by tradition, (sY. He fpeaks, without doubt, the common
fentiments of moft Chriftians ; and if the matter of facl be
thus, there can be no poffible method of anfwering the argu-
ment, but by faying, the gi eateft part of them who profefs to
believe, do not believe the Scriptures, and that the unregene-
rate cannot believe them to be the Word of God; which
though fome, through a too great fondnefs for their opinion,
have ventured to aflert, is fo very rude and groundlefs a
charge, that it deferves no anfwer. I conclude this head
with the words of a late writer above-cited h ; / cannot fee, htnv
any immediate revelation of the Spirit Jhould be necejfliry to a
rational conviction in this cafe ; or how we can fuppofe the Di-
vine Spirit Jhould whifper it in the ear of every man, that is fa-
tisfied upon this head, that this Book we call the Bible, is of di-
vine infpiration. Thus I have endeavoured to make way for,
and indeed I hope in a great meafure eftablifhed, my firft
Proposition, That tradition, or the teftimony of the antients,
is the principal method of determining the Canon ; a more
direct proof of which fhall be the work of the following
chapter.
CHAP. VII.
TJiat the bejl Method, by which the Canonical Authority of any
Book or Books can be ejlablijhed, is by the Teftimonies of thofe,
who lived nearejl to the Times in which they were written.
HAVING in the preceding chapter largely fhewn, that
neither, i. The authority of the Church; nor, 2. The
innate evidences of the Scripture, with the teftimony of the
Spirit, are the means by which we can eftabliih the Canon of
Scripture, I come now to fhew,
III. That the principal means, whereby we can know whe-
ther any books be Canonical, is by tradition, or the well-approved
" Dr. Calamy, at the place above-cited.
E 3 teflimonies
54. The bsjl Method of PART I.
iefltmoniti of thofe, who lived in or near the time of their being
firjl written.
The queftion concerning the Canon of theNew Teftamenr,
is plainly a queftion concerning certain matters of fa<t, that
were about 1700 years ago, viz. Whether fuch and fuch booh
were written by the perfons under whofe names they go. Whe-
ther they were infpired, or no, is not the bufmefs here to en-
quire; but, JFliether fuch perfons wrote fuch and fuch books.
If then the queftion be about a plain fadl, it is evident, the
way to decide it muft be by the teftimony of fome, who either
themfelves knew the certain truth of the facl, or elfe received
it from others who did fo. Thus, and thus only, we know,
there was fuch a perfcn as Julius Casfar, who did fuch and
fuch things ; thus we know that Ovid, Virgil, or Livy, wrote
the books under their names, &c. and thus we know, the
Difciples of Jefus Chrift wrote the books which go under
their names. And fince (as has been above proved, Prop. II.
Coroll. 2.) the witnefles to be produced, viz. the firft Chrif-
tians, are good and capable witnefles, or judges, of the faft;
it is evident, the principal method of knowing which is a truly
Canonical book, is to fearch into the moft antient and authen-
tic records of the Chriftian Church, which was the thing
to be proved. This was the method the firft Chriftians con-
ftantlymade ufe of, to prove againft the hereticks the truth of
the facred books, viz. by appealing to that certain and un-
doubted tradition, which affured them they were the writings of
the perfons whofa names they bear. Irenaeus ', Tertullian k , Eu-
febius 1 , Cyril" 1 , Auftin n , and others, have frequently made
ufe of this argument to very good purpofe. But there is no
need of producing authorities ; the matter is clear. A fat
muft be proved by the teftimony either of thofe who knew it,
or of thofe who received it by good and credible tradition from
them. I would have the contrary minded (as a noted Writer
well argues ), tell me "How they know, without human tefti-
' Adv. Haeref. 1. 3. c. i, 2. m Catech. IV. . 33. et . 36.
* Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. c. 5. Vid. " Contr. Fauft. Manich. 1. IT.
Pamel. ad loc. c. 2. et 1. 22. c. 79. et 1. 33. c. 6.
k Hift. Eccl. 1.3. c. 3.et 25. Prtf.toSaint'sKett,P3rt2..6.
" mony
CHAP. Vii. determining the Canon. 55
" mony or tradition, that thefe are the fame books, which the
" Prophets and Apoftles wrote ? and wholly the fame ? that
t c they are not depraved, and wilfully corrupted ? that thefe
" are all ? How know you that one of the books of Efther
" is Canonical, and the other Apocryphal ? Where is the
" man that ever knew the Canon from the Apocrypha, before
" it was told him r" &c. I might argue yet farther, and afk,
How, but by tradition, do moft men believe the Scriptures to
be truly tranflated out of their originals ? For, not under-
ftanding them themfelves, they are liable to be irnpofed upon,
and neceffitated to credit the fidelity of thofe, who do under-
irand them. If they do not believe the teftimony and faithful -
nefs of the tranflators, it is impoflible any internal evidence
fhould convince them of the truth of the books tranflated.
But to omit this, it is indeed very obfervable, that the fame
writers, who at fome times have wrote warmly for the tefti-
mony of the Spirit, have at other times, forgetting this, given
tip the whole of the controverfy, by allowing all to the Church
and tradition. Nothing leis than this is certainly implied in
that conceflion of Dr. Whitaker p , That the Church has pow-
er, or it belongs to its office, to judge or determine, what are
true, genuine, and Canonical hocks ; and what are falfe, fpuri-
ous, and Apocryphal. And I cannot but obferve, that Calvin
himfelf, though in the pafiages above-cited, he fays, Men can-
not by any arguments be brought to believe the,Scriptures ; yet, in
the next chapter 1, docs himfelf make ufe of many arguments
taken from tejiimony and tradition for this purpofe ; fuch as,
The providence of God in preserving them under the tyranny of
Antiochus Epiphanes, the Septuagint tranjlat'ion,^3 c. for the Old
Tejlament : the wonderful fucccfs of Ghrijlianity againjl all oppo-
fition, the mighty prevalence of its dcflrims, the death of mar-
tyrs,&c. all which are founded only upon hiftory and tradition.
Others who, unwilling to difpute the fufficiency of the argu-
ment from internal evidences, have attempted a fort of medi-
um, or compounding the matter, by a ftrange fort of mixture
" ContrcvuT. cle Srrlptur. I. i Inftit. Chrift. Rclig. 1. i.e. 8.
Quzft. III. c, 2. juxt. fin. . jo.
4 of
56 The bejl Method of PARTI.
of both. Thus Dr. Cofin % allowing the force of internal
teftimonies to prove the Scriptures, fays, that " notwithftand-
<c ing this, for the particular number of fuch books, whether
" they be more or lefs, we have no better nor other external
" teftuuony, or rule herein to guide us, than the conftant
t{ voice of the Catholic Church, as it hath been delivered to
" us upon record from one generation to another." To mo
(though I freely own, and thank God, I am able to fee an
excellency in the Scriptures far beyond all other books, and
truft to feel more of the efficacy daily upon my own heart, by
the Spirit of God) nothing feems more unreafonable than this
fart of compofition. It is in other words no more than this :
The internal evidences of the Scriptures convince us in ge-
neral they are divine, but not in particular ; they convince
us all the books are, but not fuch and fuch particular ones j
which, I think, is a diredt contradiction. Plaoeus is fome-
what more confiftent with himfelf; though, I believe, his
compounding notion will hardly be approved s ; viz. ct That
" the truly Canonical books have more or fewer, greater or
" fmaller, characters and evidences of their divinity, as they
" are more or lefs neceflary to the Church j and on the con-
" trary, Apocryphal books, as they are more or lefs unfit for
" the Canon, have more or fewer, greater or lefs evidences
<< of human compofure : fo that (fays he) there may be fome
" Canonical books, fuch, for inftance, as the Book of Efther,
" which we fhall hardly be able to prove Canonical ; and
<l fome Apocryphal pieces, fuch as the Prayer of ManalTes'j
<c which we {hall hardly be able to prove Apocryphal, by any
" other arguments, than fuch as are drawn from the language
in which they are written, and the conftant teftimony of
" the antient Church." The plain meaning of which is, That
fome books prove themfelves to be of divine original, others
do not ; the Spirit dictated fome books, which evidence they
are his, others which do not.. Every one can fee, how contrary
this is to the Reformers' doctrine ; and I am unwilling to
r Scholaft. Hift. of the Canon, Thcfl". Salrr.ur.
$.8. J It is txtant among the Apo-
Diflert. de Canon. . 24. inter cryphu of the Old Teftament.
make
CHAP. vir. determining the Canon, 57
make any other inference ; only would hence obferve, what ab-
furdities the greateft men run into, who do not allow them-
felves a juft freedom of thought.
Upon the whole, then, the fubftance of what I contend for is j
The facred books of the New Teftament at their firft wri-
ting, were publifhed abroad in the world, and delivered to the
firft Churches, in diftant countries, for their ufe: they who firft
received them, knew them to be the books of the perfons un-
der whofe names they were publifhed, and could and did tef-
tify to the fucceeding ages, what they thus knew of thefe
facts. This teftimony of the primitive Churches is ftill faith-
fully preferved in the writings of the antient Chriftians, and
is therefore not only a good and fufficient, but the principal
means, by which we know the truth of the fact, viz. that the
books were written by fuch and fuch men. Befide this, the
books themfelves contain in themfelves evidences of their
excellency above all others ; which fiiould be the means to
ftrengthen and confirm our faith : and for our farther help,
we are to hope for the influences of God's Holy Spirit, to
clear our judgments, and free us from thofe prejudices, which
we naturally have againft divine things ; to help us to fee the
former evidences in their due ftrength, and fo to imprefs the
things revealed on our minds, as to produce a fuitable conduct
and behaviour.
There is only one objection, as far as I can fee, left, which
deferves any confideration ; and that is, If it is by tradition,
and fearching the records of the antients, that we are to have
fatisfaction as to the truth of the Scriptures, then the greater
part of ChrijJians^ who are not capable of doing this t mujl be
without fat isf action.
To which I anfwer, That though the bulk of Chriftians
cannot themfelves have recourfe to thcfe original evidences ;
yet there are many, who have with a great deal of diligence
and impartiality made it their bufmefs to do it, whofe tefti-
monies they have, and may fafely depend upon, as they nei-
ther can nor would deceive in a matter of fuch importance.
Nor does it follow from hence, that their faith is ill grounded,
becaufe it relies on the teftimony of fallible men, and fo is
.but
58 . Primitive Catalogues of PART I.
but a human faith ; for this is no more than what equally
follows from their not knowing the original languages, and
fo being in confequence obliged to depend upon the veracity
and judgment of others, for the truth and goodnefs of it u .
If any, after all, oppofe their own experience to what I
above faid; I defire them toconfider, i. That this can be no
argument to prove the Scriptures to another ; and, 2. Whe-
ther the utmoft he can infer from his experience with reafon
be not this, That he has felt the powerful influences of the
Chriftian Religion, revealed in the New Teftament, upon
his heart, without having ever been made to know, at any par-
ticular time, that fuch books and fuch paflages were of divine
original, or to diftinguifh what is genuine in them, from
what is fpurious *?
CHAP. VIII.
A large Account of all the Places in the Chrijlian Writers of
the four firjl Centuries^ where Catalogues are to be found of
the Books of the New Tejlament.
P R O P. IV.
Thofe Books, which are mentioned in the Catalogues made
by the moft antient Chriftian Writers, of the facred and
infpired Books, are to be efteemed Canonical ; and thofe
which are not found in any of thefe Catalogues, muft be
efteemed Apocryphal.
THIS Proportion does necefiarily depend upon, and fol-
low from the foregoing one ; for if the tradition
or teftimony of the moft early writers of Chriftianity be,
as was there proved, the method, by which we are to de-
termine concerning the authority of any book, their evidence
u Saint's Kelt, Partz. c. 4. . 6. nature of the tradition, that efta-
x They are Bifliop Burnefs blifhes the Canon of the New Teft-
words on Art. 6. p. 79. He who ament, may read Mr. Dodwcli's
would ice more of the nectffity and Dilkrt. in Iren. i. . 35, 36, 37.
caa
CHAP. vin. the Canonical Books. 59
can never be more clear or material, than when they purpofely
give us lifts or catalogues of thofe books, which are to be
received as facred and Canonical. All thefe catalogues I
have with much labour endeavoured to collect, and {hall pre-
fently produce ; premifing only, that the omiflion of a book
in fome one or two particular catalogues, cannot with any
reafon be urged againft its Canonical authority, if it be
found in all, or moft of the others ; and any good reafons can
be afligned for the omiflion where it is. Thus, for inftance,
the Revelation is omitted, either becaufe it was not perhaps
known to the author, or its credit not fufficiently eftablifhed
in the country where he lived; or, which perhaps may be as
probable as the other, becaufe it being fo full of myfteries,
few or none were judged proper or able to read it to any pur-
pofe. This was certainly the cafe in England; this book
being, for this reafon, omitted in the public Calendar for
reading the Scriptures, though it be received into the Canon.
If therefore thefe, or any fuch good reafons can be afligned
for the omiflion of a book in a particular catalogue (as, I
hope, will appear in the particular examination of the books),
it will be very unfair to infer, from my Propofition, that fuch
book is Apocryphal, efpecially when it is to be found in many,
or moft other catalogues. This premifed, 1 fhall now pro-
duce the catalogues themfelves, not at length, which would
be a needlefs tranfcribing the fame things many times over }
but only citing the feveral places in the authors where they
are, and noting the leaft difference from our prefent Canon,
and withal adding the year of their writing.
A LIST
Primitive Catalogues of
PART I.
A LIST of all theft Places in the Chrijlian Writers
of tht f:ur firft Centuries^ in which are to be found
Catakgu.es of the Books cf the New tfejlament.
N. B In moft of thefe places the Reader may alfo fee Cata-
logues of the Books of the Old Teftament ; and, for the
benefit of thofe, who may defire to know which thofe Places
are, I have marked them thus *.
The Names of
the Writers.
If
-C "u
The Variation or Agree-
ment of their Catalogue*
with ours now received.
The Places of then
Writings, in which
tiiefe Catalogues
are.
I.
* ORIGEN, a
A.C.
210.
Omits the Epiftles
Comment in
Prefbyter of A-
of James and Jude,
Matth. apud
lexandria, who
employed incre-
though HP owns them
both in other parts
Eufeb. HijL
Eccl. I. 6. c. 25.
dible pains in
of his writings.
Expofit.injoan.
knowing the
L 5. apud Eufeb.
Scriptures.
ibid.
II.
EUSEBIUS
3*5-
His Catalogue is ex-
Hi/I. Eccl. I. 3.
PAMPHJLUS,
ally the fame with
c. 1$. confer e-
whofe writings
the modern one ; on-
jufdemlib. c. 3.
evidence his
ly he fays, the Epif-
zeal about the
tles of James, Jude,
Sacred Writ-
the 2d of Peter, the
ings, and his
2d and 3d of John,
great care to
though they were ge-
be informed,
nerally received, yet
which were
had been by fome
genuine, and
doubted of. As to the
which not.
Revelation, though
he fays fome reject-
ed it, yet he fays o-
thers received itjand
himfelf places it a-
mong thofe, which
are to be received
without difpute.
CHAP. VIII.
the Canonical Booh.
The Names of
the Writers.
ITh;- times in
.vhich they liveJ.
The Variation or Agree-
ment of their Catalogues
with ours now received.
The Places of their
Writings, in which
thefe Catalogues
are.
III. -AC.
* ATHANASI- 315.
The fame perfectly
Fragment. Epijl.
us, Bp. of A-
with ours now re-
Fejlal. et In Sy-
lexandria.
ceived.
ncpf. Scriptur.
Sacr.
IV.
* CYRIL, Bp.
340.
The fame with ours,
Catech.IV .%.$.
of Jerufalem.
only the Revelation
is omitted.
V.
* The Bifhops
364.
The Revelation is o-
Canon. LX.
aflembled in
t
mitted.
M 5. Tk- Canons of
the Council of
this Council were
Laodicea.
not long afterwards
received into the
body of the Canons
of the universal
Church.
VI.
EPIPHANIUS,
37'
The fame with ours
Htsref. 76. c. 5.
Bp. of Salamis
now received.
in Cyprus.
VII.
GREGORY
375
Omits the Revelati-
Carm. de vcris et
NAZIANZEN,
on.
genuin. Scrip-
Bp. of Con-
tur.
ftantinople.
VIII.
PHILASTRIUS,
380.! The fame with ours
Lib. de Htsref.
Bp. of Brixia
now received ; ex-
87.
in Venice.
cept that he men-
tions only thirteen
of St. Paul's Epif-
,
tles (omitting, very
probably, the Epiftle
to the Hebrews), at. d
leaves out the Reve-
lation.
f The Pa^ifts generally place this Council before the Council of Nice.
Primitive Catalogues of
PART I.
The Names of
the Writers.
The Times in
which tluy lived.
The Variation or Agree-
ment of their Catalogues
with curs now received.
The Places of the'r
Writings, in which
thcie Catalogues
are.
IX.
A.C\
* JEROME.
382.;The fame with ours ;
Ep. ad Paulin.
except that he fpeaks
dubioufly of the E-
pift. to the Hebrews ;
dejlud. Script.
Alfo commonly
prefixed to the
though in other parts
of his writings he re-
Latin Vulgate.
ceives it as Canoni-
cal ; as hereafter will
Expof. in Symb.
appear.
Apojlol. . 36.
X.
int. Op. Hie-
*RUFFIN,
Prefbyter of
390.
It perfectly agrees
with ours.
ron. et inter
Op. Cypr.
Aquilegium.
XL
* AUSTIN,
Bp. of Hippo
394-
It perfectly agrees
with ours.
De Doff. Cbrifl.
1. 2. c. 8.
in Africa.
XII.
* The XLIV
St.
It perfectly agrees
Vid. Canon.
Bps. aflembled
Auttia
with ours.
XLVIJ.
in the third
was
tfeicQ
et cap. ult.
Council of
at it.
Carthage.
XIII.
The anony-
390-
It feems perfectly to
Lib. de Hie.
mous author of
agree with ours: for
rarch. Eccl.
the works un-
though he doth not.
'3-
der the name
for good reafons, pro -
of DIONYSIUS
duce the names of
the Areopagite.
the books ; yet (as
the learned Daille
fays, De Script, fup-
pofit. Dionyf. 1. i.
c. 1 6.) he fo clearly
defcribes them, as
that he has left out
no divine book, may
be eafily perceived.
Thefe
CHAP. viii. the Canonical Books. 63
Thefe are the principal catalogues of the books of the
New Teftament, that are to be found before the fifth cen-
tury. Some perhaps have efcaped my knowledge; and fome,
pretending to this age, I have purpofely omitted : as that in
the Conftitutions under the Apoftles' names, and that in the
85" Canon, under the faid name v ; taking it here for grant-
ed, that they are not only fpurious, but of uncertain original ;
and that attributed by Pappus, in his Synodicon, to the Coun-
cil of N ice r , with this relation, That the Biihops there af-
fembled were, by a very extraordinary miracle, convinced
which were infpired, and which were Apocryphal books, after
this manner : Having put all the bsoks^ that laid claim to in-
fpiratioriy under the communion-table in a Church, they prayed
to God) that thofe which were of Divine infpiration might be
found above, or upon, the table^ thofe which were Apocryphal
might be found under ; and accordingly , as they prayed, it came
to pafs. Such accounts are not only very falfe and fabulous,
but plainly ridiculous and incredible.
CHAP. IX.
How we are to judge of the Canonical Authority of any Book^
by its being cited by any Chriftian Writers.
PROP. V.
Thofe Books are juflly efteemed Canonical, which the firft
Writers of Chriftianity have cited in their Writings as
Scripture ; and thofe Apocryphal, which they have not.
THE truth of each part of the Propofition necefiarily
follows from Prop. III. For if we are to receive what
they received as Canonical, we are infallibly fure of this, by
y Conftit. Apoft. c. 57. ^
a otxu ta >E xclru i
obferving
64 Hew to judge cf the PART I.
obferving what books they cited as Scripture in their
and what they did not. An univerfal agreement of writers
in the moft remote countries, in quoting the fame books as
Scripture, and no other as fuch, is, if the fact be true, a very
plain and demonftrative indication of the true Canon. It is
not at all neceflary I fhould here go about to prove the fact,
viz. that the writers of the firft four Centuries have cited
fuch and fuch books, and univerfally omitted others ; this I
hope to make good hereafter. All that I contend for now is,
that if they have done fo, it is a proof to us, that the books
cited are Canonical, and the books not cited are Apocryphal ;
and that will appear thus : Their univerfal agreement to cite
fome books, and omit others, muft neceffarily proceed from
one of thefe two caufes, viz. either,
I . Becauje they bad not yet feen or known any other looks
(/aiming Divine authority ^ befides thofe which they did cite j or,
2. Becaufe if they did know them, they did not ejleem them of
equal authority ivitb thofe which they did cite.
Befides thefe, I cannot conceive any other reafon aflign-
able. Now if the laft be afligned, the matter is given up,
and the Propofition at once eftablifhed ; for what the an-
tients looked upon as Canonical and Apocryphal, we are (by
Prop. III.) to judge fo too. If the firft be faid, viz. That
thefe books are ciied^ and no cther^ because thcje had the gwd
fortune to be knozun^ and the others had not ; this will be no
let's giving up the ciiufe; for their not being known, is to us
(by Prop. III.) th^ fame as not being Canonical; inafmuch
as this their oblcurity proceeded from their wanting that pub-
lic teftimony of their being wrote by the ApoPcles, which
the other books had given them by the Churches. The Pro-
pofition therefore holds good; and I cannot but think it
worth obferving, that Eufebius (to whom, above all befides,
we are indebted for our helps to eftabliih the Canon) makes
frequent ufe of the very fame Propofition, to diftinguifh be-
tween thofe books which are, or are not to be received. So,
for inftance, he proves the firft Epiftle of Peter to be ge-
nuine, becauje the moji antient writers of Chrijiianity before
bis time made continual ufe cf it in their writings^ as an un-
doubted
CHAP-, IX. Canonical Authority of any Esok. 65
doubted book a ; and a little afterwards b , proves the A&s of Pe-
ter, the Gofpel, the Preaching, and the Revelation of Peter,
to be Apocryphal, becavfe none of the writers of the Chrijlian
Church have in their writings taken any teftirnonies out ofthefe
books. And elfewhere % having mentioned feveral fpurious
books under the A potties* names, fuch as the Gofpels of Pe-
ter, Thomas, Matthias, the Acts of Andrew and John, and
others, he rejects them, becaufe no Ecdefiajlical writer hath
made any ufi of them in his writings.
This argument docs fo dire&ly prove andeftablifh our pre-
fent Canon, trnt thofe who attempt to weaken the Canon,
have always made it their main work to fliew, that the firjl
writers were wont indifferently or promifcuoujly to quote the
Scriptures we now receive, and others^ in their works. So Mr.
Dodwell in the famous paflage above cited d ; and Mr. To-
Jand in his Amyntor has done little elfe but paraphrafed upon
this thought, which he borrowed from Mr. Dodwell. I am
forry to fay, that feveral learned men have too unguardedly
dropped expreflions of the like nature; as has been obferved in
the beginning of the DifTertation prefixed to this volume.
In anfwer to this opinion of Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Toland,
feveral things have been well urged by Mr. Nye e , and after
him by Mr. Richardfon f : but it appears to me impoffible to
give a due anfwer to it any other way, than by a particular
furvey of all the places in the Fathers, where they are fuppofed
to have quoted any other books as Scripture, befide thofe now
received ; which is propofed as the work of the fecond part of
this volume. In the mean time, for the better explaining and
eftablifhing my Propofition, I muft obferve three or four
things.
Ot uaXai IlfE0t,Tfc j ac- /AOSTJ tuv KZT&
Tc *S trip at/Tut xa- artx.aj TIJ awp if ft*'^-/; uyctyelr
TcuuXfWTui crv/ffd/jL^oiff-i. Hift. ril-Mo-iv. Hilt. Eccl. 1, 3. c. 25.
Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. d DIlTert. i. in Iren. . 38, 35.
" "Or* fdjTE dp%a'av, p%{t ?u e Defence of the Canon, p. 57,
x9' r,[j.ci<; TK sxJtXj(7ar*xof cvy- ^ c -
y^i ? , T T P l| v ff v Hk fi- Canon Vindicated, p. * 3f & c .
<TTO jixapTt^aif. Ibid.
c T fi <J efatuuj l wyfydn-
VoL.I. F I. That
& Books, read in tie PART I.
1. That the Proportion does not mean a bare citing of a book,
but citing it as Scripture. St. Paul has cited Aratus, Menan-
der, and Epimenides ; the firft Chriftian writers have cited a
thoufand heathen authors, which, I hope, no one would have
made part of the Canon.
2. That the Proportion dues not determine the authority of
any book or books^ upon the credit of any one or two particular
writers^ but the whole body of the writers of the primitive
Church : and therefore if one or two particular perfons (hould
appear to be impofed upon, either in rejecting or receiving
any book, we are not from their fingle teftimony to argue
againft the book ; efpecially,
3. If it appear from other parts of their writings, by the
moft undoubted evidence, that they did not receive the book they
feem to receive^ or rejefl the book they fe em to rejecl^ in this par-
ticular place.
CHAP. X.
Concerning the Reading of the Sacred Books in the Primitive
Churches^ as a Proof of their Canonical Authority.
PROP. VI.
Thofe Books are Canonical, which the Primitive Chriftians
read in their Churches, or publick Aflemblies, as the Scrip-
tures, or Word of God.
THE evidence of this Propofition is the fame as of the two
foregoing, from Prop. III. As it was the conftant prac-
tice of the Jewifh Church in their fynagogues, fo it was of
the Chriftians in their religious meetings, to read the facred
Scriptures. This practice is clearly proved from Col. iv. 16.
where St. Paul mentions the reading publickly in the Church
of the Coloflians and Laodiceans, his Epiftle to the former,
as alfo an Epiftle from the latter in the Church of the former.
This
CHAP. X. Primitive Churches^ Canonical. 67
This we find in the beginning of the fecond century, from
Juftin Martyr z* On the day-) fays he, which is calhd Sunday^
there is a meeting of all [the Chriftians] who live either in cities
or country places, and the memoirs of the dpojlhs^ and turittngs
f>fthe Prophets are read. So Tertullian, giving an account
of the Chriftians' meetings, fays, h They affimbled to read the
Scriptures^ and to offer up prayers. And in another place ',
among the folemn exercifes of the Lord's day, he reckons reading
the Scriptures^ fmging Pfalms, &c. The fame account we
have in Cyprian % the antient book under the name of Dio-
nyfius the Areopagite ! , and feveral other antient writers, cited
by Pamelius in his learned notes on Tertullian's Apology m .
Now, I fay, thefe books are to be received by us as Canoni-
cal, forafmuch as this practice of reading the Scriptures was
fo very early, that it is hardly poflible to fuppofe the Churches
impofed upon by any fpurious or forged pieces. Hence Cyril
of Jerufalem,inftruc~ting his Catechumen concerning the Scrip-
tures, tells him ", to avoid Apocryphal books, andjiudy carefully
thofe Scriptures only, which were publickly read in the Church ;
and a little after, having given him a catalogue of the facred
books, he adds, let all others be rejecJed- y and fuch as are not
read in the Churches, neither do you read in private. Hence,
in the middle of the fourth century, it was decreed by the
Council of Laodicea, in their fifty-ninth Canon, that no private
pfalms Jhould be read in the Church, nor any books without the
n &( n ftypfc f4Jy'- . .' Hierarch. Exxlef. c. 3. juxt.
' c -i * i
m Scil. in Apoloe. c. 79.
8
ft'itW* n &( n ftypfc f4Jy'- . .
Tuv iiri 10 ctvTo trvnfavff^ y'te- '
xv, / 1
Tai, xa* ra u7roMriu.onvu.cn oc. 7u>
* v r '
1) TO, ffVylpOt.u.u.(X.TOt Tut
> , n ,
ctvaywuaxtTcu. Apol. 2.
8 .. .
' h Cogimur ad divinarum litera- ^fl^' **9H**tH> -
r\im commemorationem, Apol. f & faw* watTa, t^a v.ttaSu it
adv. gent. c. 39. SivTspu, xa* o'cra u.\> iv'ExxXqtfifMf
1 Inter Dominica foknnia Scrip- ^ twwytfwctnwt, T?T u.nol r.a.-
turae leguntur, aut Pfalmi canun- T ^ ffetv ^ t yi w . Catech.
tur, aut allocutiones proferxmtur, jy, & 35 ,g,
aut petitiones dekgantur. De Ani-
ma, c, 9.
P 2 Cansn %
68 Socks, read in the PART I.
Canon, but only the Canonical ones of the Old and New Tejla~
tnent.
But notwithftanding this and the fubfequent decree of the
third Council of Carthage, Canon XLVII. it is certain fome
other pieces were read in the Churches, both as of the Old
and New Teftament, befide thofe which we now receive,
long before they were made, as well as about that time.
Thus, for inftance, among the books of the New, Dionyfms,
a bimop of Corinth in the fecond century, in a letter to the
Church of Rome , tells them, they read on the Lord's Day
Clement's Epiftle to them in their affemblies ; and Eufebius P
declares it to have been universally received, and read in mojl
Churches, both in his and former times. The fame he fays of
the Shepherd of Hermas q , that it was read in many Churches ;
which is confirmed by Athanafius r and RufEnus s both con-
cerning this and fome other books.
Befides, the book of the Revelation was not read in the
Churches, according to Cyril ; nor commanded to be read by
the Council of Laodicea : and fo it may be objected, that if the
Proportion we are difcuffing be true, as the former books
which were read (fuch as Clemens, Hermas, &c.) fhould be
received by us into the Canon, as they are by Mr. Whifton ;
fo the Revelation fhould be left out. But, as was faid on a
like account (Prop, ult.), the full anfwer to this cannot be till
the books are particularly examined > neverthelefs, I would
obferve,
Firft, Tljat the Proportion fpeaks only of books that were read
in Churches as Scripture ; and that there is a vaft difference
between being read in a Church, and being of divine infpiration t
For it is certain, there were many books read, which were not
looked upon as infallible and Canonical Scripture, but only
as pious and ufeful books, which might be of fervice to the
common people. Thcfe books, in contradiftinction to the other,
they were wout to call Ecclefiaftical. There are other books y
'A P uJ Eufcb. Hift. Eccl. I. 3. ' Epift. Pafchal.
c. 1 6. Expofit. in Symbol. Apoftol. .
P Id. I. 4. c. 23. 36.
i Id.l. 3. C. 3.
fays
CHAP. x. Primitive Churches, Canonical. 69
fays Ruffin r , which are not called by our anceftors Canonical, but
Eccle/iqftical,among which he reckons the Wifdom of Solomon,
and the Wifdom of the Son of Sirach (which on this very ac-
count had its title of Ecclefiafticus), Tobit, Judith, Maccabees?
the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Judgment of Peter. Accord-
ingly Jerome ", fpeaking of the books of Tobit, Judith, &c.
The Church reads them, fays he, but docs not receive them as
Canonical Scripture it reads them for the edification of tie
common people, not as laving any authority to determine articles
of faith. Juft of the fame value were thcfe books among the
antients, as the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament in the
Church of England, and the Homilies appointed to be read iu
the Churches are now; and therefore the bare reading them,
in the primitive aflemblies, cannot be in itfelf a proof of their
Canonical authority, unlefs they were read as Scripture.
From this obfervation we may, 1 think, give a very eafy
and natural account, how it came to pals, that any books were
of dubious authority among the antients ; viz. being firft read
in the publick aflemblies at the fame time as the facred Scrip-
tures, but only as pious and ufeful books ; thofe who in after
ages were ignorant of this reafon, began to queftion whether
they were not of the fame authority with the facred books
themfelves ; and fo from hence arofe that noted dictinclion in
Eufebius *, of thofe which were,
1. '-OpoXoyityuMt, i. e. fuch as were univerfally received with-
out any controverfy.
2. ' AmTwy^Evot, i. e. fuch whofe authority was doubted of
by fome.
3. NoOoi, i. e. fuch which were rejected by all but here-
ticks.
The fame diflinclion we find in Cyril /, into thofe which
were,
1. n* -so. 'o^oXoyfc'/wa, i. e. fuch as all owned. And,
2. Ta Ufif&tMttuMb i. e. fuch as were doubted of.
* Expofit. in Symbol. Apoftol. * Hlft. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. et 25.
3. ? Cattch. IV. . 33.
u Prsefat. in Libr. Solom.
70 Proportions to diftinguijh tlie PART r.
In like manner St. Auftin z fpeaks of thofe, which were re-
ceived by all Catholick Churches, and thofe which were re-
jected by fome few Churches j he muft needs mean of hereticks >
becaufe they are oppofed to the Catholicks. I own, indeed, the
inftances Eufebius produces of his fecond fort, were not
doubted of by the reafon now afiigned ; but whatever doubt-
ful books the others meant, may be well included in our ac-
count, feeing they fpeak not of any of the books of the prefent
Canon being doubted of, as he does.
Secondly, I obferve, that though Eufebius and RufKn men-
tion fome books as read in the Churches, yet themfelves do ex-
prefsly exclude them from the. Canon ; as Eufebius does the
Shepherd of Hermas, placing it among the fpurious books ;
and Ruffin in fo many words tells us, it was not reputed Ca>-
nonical b .
As to the Revelation being omitted in Cyril's catalogue,
and in the eighty-fifth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, as
not being read in the Churches ; I (hall refer the reader to
the reafons above afligned for its being left out of fome cata-
Jogues, and to the particular enquiry into this book here-
after.
CHAP. XL
Several Prapofitian^ whereby we may dijlinguijh the Spurlouf-
nefs of many Books.
PROF. vrr.
That Book is certainly Apocryphal, in which are found any
Contradictions.
T
WE truth of this is evident : for as both fides of a contra-
dictory Propofition cannot be true, fuch book muft ne-
1 De Deft. Chrift. 1. 2. c. 8. b Expofit. in Symbol. .Apoftol.
a Jiiit. EccU. s.c. 3. . 36.
ceflarily
CHAP. XI. Spurioufnefe of many Books. 7 1
ceflarily contain fomewhat that is falfe, and confequently can-
not have God for its author, nor be to us a rule of doctrine
and manners.
PROP. VIII.
That Book is Apocryphal, which either contains any Hifto-
ries, or propofes any Doctrines, contrary to thofe which are
certainly known to be true.
THIS is evident for the fame reafon as the former ; to im-
pute fuch a book to the Snfpiration of the Holy Ghoft, being,
in other words, to make God the author of a lie, and to take
him for our guide in matters of the laft confequence, whom
we know to be not only fallible, but actually deceived.
Coroll. That therefore is an Apocryphal book, which con-
tains any thing contrary to the known facts, or univerfally
agreed doctrines of the Chriftian Religion. I hope it will not
be thought a defect in ftrict reafoning, that I take it for granted,
that the fubftance of Chriftianity is true ; for this cannot be
denied by any who will believe any matter of fact, of which-
they have not themfelves been eye-witnefles. But if any will
difpute this, and fay, I take for granted what I ought not,
having not proved it ; I refer them to what is faid, Coroll. 2.
Prop. II. where, I think, as much is proved, at leaft is fairly
implied, as I here take for granted.
I purpofely omit here all inftances, referving them for
their proper places ; only would obferve, that Eufebius c
makes ufe of the fame Propofition to difprove the Canonical
authority of many books, that went under the Apoftles' names.
The fentiments, fays he, and doirines y which are delivered in
thofe books, are fo very different from, or contrary to, the true and
orthodox do firing of the Church^ as evidently demonjlrate them to
H rs yiupn y.xi ^ TU it a.v-
Xa.TCtTOtX.TSGt, d)&' <Jj OtTOTTCl ISeirTf)
xai ouffctZri <37a.gouTr l T;oi/. Hilt.
Eccl. 1. 3.0.35.
72 Proportions to dijTinguiJh the PART Iv
be the forgeries of hereticks, and therefore not only to be ranked
among fpunous pieces, but to be utterly rejected as abfurd and im-
pious. Thus alfo Serapio, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and many
others, rejeft the particular Apocryphal pieces they have oc-
cafion in their writings to mention ; and thus, by the way, we
may prove all, or moji of thofe books, which are called the Jpo-
erypha of the Old Teftatnent, to be really fuch.
PROP. IX.
That Book is Apocryphal, in which are contained Things lu-
dicrous or trifling ; fabulous or filly Relations^
THIS will admit no difpute among thofe, who believe God
to be a Being of infinite wifdom and knowledge- For him to
give us fuch books, would argue him guilty either of weak-
nefs and folly, or of impofmg upon his creatures a neceffity of
believing things contrary to their moft improved reafon.
Befides that it can not be fuppofed, that even men of ho-
nefty and wifdom would be the authors of fuch fort of books :
for either thetnfelves believed what they wrote, or they did not ;.
if they did not, they are notorious importers, and confequently
not fit to be infallible guides in matters of fuch confequence
as our everhfting ftates ; if they did, they were evidently per-
fons of fuch fhallow capacities, and foolifh credulity, as to-
deferve rather to be pitied, than made our directors in the moft
important concerns of this and the next life. Whichever
way, therefore, we take it, their writings muft be Apocryphal.
This obfervstion is not only evidently true, but of the greateft
neceffity in the bufmefs we are now about ; for it is certain,
that a very great number of the Apocryphal books of the New
Teftament are filled with the moft idle and trifling ftories, the
moft ridiculous and extravagant fooleries imaginable. The
romantick accounts of the Virgin Mary's Nativity, being bred
by Angeh, and fed by them in her infancy, &C. the childilh re-
lations of our Saviour's infancy and education, his learning the
alphabet, his Jlature, appearing fometimes as a child, fometimes
as a man,fametitms fo tall that his head would reach the clouds,
the
CHAP. XI. Spurioitfnefs of many Books. 73
the length of his hair, beard, &c. the fpirit's taking him up to
Mount Thabor^ by one of his hairs^ &c. the filly miracles at-
tributed to the Apoftles, with all the ridiculous circutnftances
that attended their feveral martyrdoms, &c. are each, with
all other ftories like them, unqueftionable arguments to
prove the books which contain them Apocryphal ; and to be
no other, than either the works of the weakeft of men, who
were fondly credulous of every report, and had not cifcretion
enough to diftinguifh between fenfe and nonfenfe, between
that which was credible, and that which was not fo ; or elfe
the artful contrivance of fome, who were more zealous than
honeft, who thought by thefe ftrange ftories to gain credit to,
their new religion.
PROP. X.
That Book is Apocryphal, in which there are any Sort of
Things mentioned, which were later than the Time in
which the Author, whofe Name it bears, lived.
I NEED fpend no time in the proof of this Propofition ;.
it being impofiible for any perfon to relate hiftories, or
treat concerning cuftoms, which were not till long after his
time; unlefs we fuppofe them either endued with a very ex-
traordinary fpirit of prophecy, that they could foreknow all
the things, perfons, and cuftoms, that would arife in the
world after their death j or elfe, that they wrote their books
from the other world, and conveyed them by Angels to this
world, which, I confefs, fome have fuppofed to be facl, as to-
the Letters fent by Elijah, after he was dead, to Jehoram;
mentioned 2 Chron. xxi. 12. And particularly the learned Je-
fuit Eftius fuppofes not only the matter to be thus, but de-
monftrates from hence the care the Saints have of our affairs,
after they are removed from us to the other world d . But,
I hope, I need not guard againft fuch abfurdities; and
therefore fhall take no more pains to prove the Propofition, but
nly elucidate it in a few inftances ; in which I fhall not con-
* Annct. in loc, difficil. Script, in z Chron. xxi. 12.
fine
74. Propofitlons to dljlinguijh the Spurioufnefs^ &e. PART I.
fine myfelf to the Apocryphal pieces of the New Teftament,
but make ufe of any other that occur.
1. Some books mention fa&s, that happened a long while
after the pretended author's death. Thus, for inftance % the
Conjiitutions of the Apoftles do the controverfy about the Re-
baptization of Hereticks, which arofe not till the third cen-
tury.
2. Some mention perfons, that did not live till a long time
after the pretended author's death. So the book under the
name of Hegefippus, concerning the Deftru&ion of Jerufalem,
mentions Conftantine and Conftantinople ; whereas this could
not be before the fourth century, and Hegefippus lived in the
fecond. And the ^uejllons and Anfwers under Juftin Mar-
tyr's name mention Irenaeus and Origen f , who both lived
after his time.
3. Rites and ceremonies about Baptifm, Penance, Fafting,
Celibacy, Exorcifm, &c. are in the pretended Conjlittitions
of the Apo/ilesy which, it is certain, were not known in their
time, nor till long afterwards.
4. Other books are full of words and phrafes, not known
till long after their fuppofed author's days. Thus the words
Clergy, Laity, Readers, Subdeacons, &c. in the Canons
of the Apoftles, and other pieces called Apoftolical. With
the new opinions and controverfles of later ages, it was
impofiible but many new words fhould be coined, which be-
coming very common, often betray the fpurioufnefs or forgery
of a book.
Lib. 6. c. 15. f Vid. Quzft, ?z, 85. & 115.
CHAP.
75 1
CHAP. XII.
The Style of a Book a proper Method to judge of it :
talogue of the various Sorts of Styles.
PROP. XL
That Book is Spurious and Apocryphal, the Style of which
is different from, or contrary to, the Style of the Author
whofe name it bears, in thofe which are his known and
undoubted Writings.
BY this Proportion the criticks have made very confider-
able difcoveries in later ages, not only among Ecclefiaf-
tical, but prophane authors ; not only detecting the interpo-
lations of the monks, but in fixing true and genuine titles
to thofe pieces, which before went under falfe and feigned
names. Thus Erafmus g , Bellarmine h , Sixtus Senenfis', our
learned countryman Cook", Rivet 1 , Dr. Cave m , and others,
have happily contributed their parts in delivering us from
reading books under borrowed titles j yea, and long before
their time, the antient writers of Chriftianity were fuccefsful
in difcovering forgeries by the fame method. Eufebius's
works will fupply us with many inftances to this purpofe.
He who has an intent to deceive, and publifh a piece of his
own for another's, may eafily counterfeit his name, age,
country, opinions; but will find it almoft impoflible with
any exadtnefs to imitate another's ftyle. For as every man
has his peculiar air in moving, fpeaking, &c. as every man
has a peculiar turn of eye, caft of countenance and complexion,
and many other things by which he is diftinguifhable from all
others ; fo has every man a peculiar way of thinking and ex-
preffing his thoughts, as different from all others as in any
of the other inftances. And though it may be faid, a man
* In many of his editions of the k Ctr.fura quorunda n fcripto-
Fathers. lum.
h De Scriptoribus Ecclefiafticis. * Critic' Sacri fpecimtn.
' Bibliotheca San&a. Hifloria Literaria.
writes
76 The Style of a Book PART r.
writes in a very different ftyle at different times, according to
the different fubje&s he has to manage, his different age, his
larger attainments by ftudy, the different tempers in which
the mind is at the times of writing, &c. yet ftill there will
be more or lefs of the old natural peculiarity vifibly remaining,
by which he will appear to be the fame, and not another who
writes. Juft as a man, though he change his country, become
advanced in years, fometimes fmiles, ibmetimes frowns, 11 ill
has the fame countenance, the fame finile or frown, which
will diftinguifli him from all the reft of mankind. "Jerome^
fays Sixtus ", writes one way in his Epijlles, another way in
his Contrcverfies with Rtiffin, another way in his Commentaries;
one way when he was young, and his mind warm with the ex-
ercifes of rhetor ick ; another way when he was old^ writing on
more feriousfubj efts : yet he always writes fo^ that you may know
him to be the fame Jerome Jllll^ as a man knows his friend
under all the various cafts and turns of his countenance. So
likewife in every writer there will always be a peculiar way
Cf fetting his thoughts together, contexture of the difcourfe,
method of handling his fubje<Sr, and fomething diftinguifhing,
which I Can no more defcribe, than that in a man's face,
which makes him different from all the world. The milJnefs
or haft inefs-of his temper, the ferioufaefs or levity, the dul-
riefs or brifknefs, the length or fhortnefs, or fome marks or
other will ftill appear. This St. Auftin elegantly exprefles of
one of Cyprian's Epiftles, which he proved genuine by it's
ftyle thus, His Jlyle has a certain peculiar face, by which it
may be known .
After all, I confefs, a perfon may be eafily deceived in this
matter ; and therefore there is need of the greateft care, and
long and intimate acquaintance with the authors, of whom we
thus judge : it being certain, that the ftyle will ftill be more
eafily difcerned by us, in proportion as we have read the book.
I have therefore, for the reader's affiftance (if it will be any
to him) collected, according to the beft of my capacity, the
n Biblioth. fanft. 1. 4. in fine. priam faciem, qua poffit agnofci.
Stylus ejus habet quandam pro- Epiit. ad Vincent. .39.
various
CHAP. xir. a proper Method to judge of it. j j
various ftyles that I have obferved in reading, and placed
them in the following catalogue. He who would ftudy the
point farther, may read to good purpofe what Tully and
Quintilian have wrote on this fubject,
A CATALOGUE of the various STYLES of Authors.
THE Plain or Simple Style ; i. e. fuch as is levelled to
the capacity of moft men, having .the thoughts ranged in
fuch order, and exprefled in fuch words, as that moft men
will with eafe underftand them. It may be called the Eafy
or Clear Style^ and is very remarkable in the hiftorical books
of the Old and New Teftament.
2. The Affefled^ or Rhetorical Style^ oppofite to the for-
mer, viz. That which is laboured and abounds with words of
uncommon ufe, and placed differently from the common way
offpeech; what the Latins call Oratio luxuriant^ Faces fo-
nor#, Pompa & Lepor Verborum. This, St. Paul fays, he
avoided, I Cor. ii. I, 4. calling it excellency of fpeech, and
enticing worth of man's wifdom.
3. The Perplexed and Involved Style^ having the thoughts
placed in fo uncommon an order, that it will require confi-
derable pains to connect them ; different from the former, in
that it may be in very common and intelligible words, and
alfo natural without affectation. This was the ftyle of Tacitus
and Tertullian among the antients, and Mr. Selden among
the moderns.
4. The Rii/lick, or Homely Style^ i. e. fuch as is below
the common ftandard of the country, or what we call in
Latin Barbarous. This more refpecls the words than the
thoughts, and is the ftyle of the Latin Vulgate Bible, and
many of the Latin tranflations of the Greek Fathers.
5. The Strong or Nervous Style, i. e. fuch in which there
are the moft juft reafonings expreffed in the moft cogent
words, or fuch words as powerfully and fully convey all the
ideas the author had. Such was certainly the ftyle of St.
Paul and Juftin Martyr among the antients, and Archhifhop
Tillotfon and Mr, Locke among the moderns.
6. The
}5 A Catalogue of the PART I
6. The Languid^ or Weak Style^ the oppoflte of the for-
mer, which does but faintly or in part convey the ideas of the
author, or whofe reafonings are fcarce conclufive. I need not
produce inftances of this fort.
7. The Sublime Style, i. e. fuch as leads the reader into
uncommon fpeculations about divine things. This may
fully coincide with the Simple, as to the expreffion, but muft
in fome meafure differ from it as to the thoughts, being
uncommon, and fuch as will require pains to take in ; fuch
is the ftyle of Ifaiah's Prophecy, in refpe& of the book of
Efther or Ruth.
8. The Myjlical or Typical Style, i. e. fuch as makes ufe of
former events to prove any point. This was the ftyle much
in ufe among the Jews in our Saviour's time, and was a ftyle
much affe&ed and reputed by their learned men, and accord-
ingly taught in their fchools. Hence they had their Doctors,
whom they called nj;zrn and cnTH ^j;2, whofe buflnefs it
was to find out myftical and allegorical fenfes of Scripture ;
and their ama 'TO, i. e. the fchools where this fort of learn-
ing was taught p . Hence perhaps we may account for there
being fo much of this ftyle in St. Paul's writings, he having
had his education in the Jewifli academy at Jerusalem. This
ftyle is principally vifible in his Epiftle to the Hebrews, and
the fourth chapter of his Epiftle to the Galatians ; and it is
remarkable, that thofe two Epiftles, above the reft which he
wrote, concerned the Jewifh converts. This ftyle is alfo
very much ufed in the Talmud, in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
moft of the firft Chriftian writers, efpecially Origen. I wifli
thofe who are fo fond of this ftyle, were able to give as
good reafon for their ufmg it, as St. Paul could.
9. The Parabolical Style, i.e. fuch as abounds with pa-
rables and flmilitudes, as our Saviour's difcourfes in the
Gofpels.
P Vid. Fuller. MifceU. Sacr. 1.3. cited, think St. Paul meant thefe
0.7. goal. Elench. Trihxr. c. n. Doilors by the word Zi&Tr.TK,
Camero in Myrothec. ad i Cor. i. i Cor, i. .
ao. Thofe authorsj in the places
io. Ths
CHAP. xix. various Sorts of Styles. 79
10. The Theatrical Style, i. e. fuch in which there are
frequent interlocutions, or dialogues. Of this there are maoy
examples in St. Paul's writings, and more common and evi-
dent ones in Solomon's, efpecially in his Ecclefiaftes. Under
this may be included the ftyle in which there are many Pro-
fopopceiae ; i. e. when inanimate things are introduced in the
difcourfe, and addrefled to as perfons : This is frequent in
Mofes <?, David r , and the Prophets *.
11. The Humorous Style, i.e. fuch as abounds either with
what they call wit, or what is an affectation of it, though
quite different from it, viz. puns and jingles of words.
Many of our practical writers of divinity in the laft age
dealt much in the latter of thefe, as too many of our beft wri-
ters on the fame fubject have of late in the former : both of
thefe may juftly be faid, ludere cumfacris.
12. The Interrogatory Style, i. e. fuch in which are fre-
quent addrefles in the fecond perfonj of which there are
fome examples in St. Paul's Epiftles r , and many in our
warm writers of practical divinity.
13. The Style in which are many Repetitions: this is
very remarkable in St. John u .
14. The Style in which are many Proverbs Gt Apophthegms
recited. Thofe who are acquainted with the Jewifh books,
will know there is much more of this in our Saviour's ftyle,
than is commonly imagined *.
15. The Style which abounds with Parenthefes, i. e. breaks
off the fentence with the interjection of other things, that do
not properly belong to the argument, for its farther illuftra-
tion : this is very common in St. Paul ^, and among later
writers in Mr. Selden and Dr. Owen.
15. The Concife or Sententious Style j fuch as Solomon's
Proverbs.
** See Deut. iv. 26. xxx. 19. 10. ii. 9, 10, n. and v. 12, 13,
xxxii. i. 14.
r Pfal. xix. i. Ixv. 13. Ixxvii. x See Grotius and Hammond's
16. xcvi. ii, 12. xcviii. 8. cxiv. 3. Annotations, and Mr. Le Cleic's
s Ifai. i. 2. ParaphrafeontheGofpels.
1 See Rom.viii. 31, &c. iCor.ix. >' Eph. ii. i 6.
u Joh, viii. a i, 34.. i Job. i. 8,
1 6. The
So -A Catalogue cf the PART x.
1 6. The Prolix Style, which is too common to need the
producing any inftances. Under this I include, not only
length of periods, but multiplying of words.
17. The Connefiedi or Coherent Styie, which regards the
Senfe, and is commonly the ftyle of mathematicians, and all
good reafoners: 5. e. fuch in which a fentence depends upon
the former, as the links of a chain, and in which nothing can
be left out without fpoiling the whole argument.
1 8. The Connected, or Coherent Style, which refpefls the
Words, and indeed in fome fenfe (though very different from
the former) the Thoughts ; i. e. fuch in which the laft
thought of the preceding fentence gives occafion to the
thoughts of the enfuing fentence, and fo the laft word of the
preceding period is the firft of the next, and fo on. This
ftyle can feldom be ufed in arguing ; it is very evident in the
firft Epiftle of St. Peter, and the firft chapter of St. Paul's
Epiftle to the Coloffians.
19. The Loofe or Rambling Style is too well known.
Left it fhould be thought, that this and the feventeenth coin-
cide with the fifth and fixth, viz. the Nervous and the Lan-
guid', I obferve, that every coherent Style is not nervous,
nor every languid Style incoherent.
20. The Efficacious or Powerful Style, peculiar to the
Scriptures ; i. e. the inward efficacy and power which is in
them to reach and imprefs the confciences of ftupid finners.
By this I mean fomewhat different from any yet mentioned,
and no other than what thefe books claim for themfelves,
and are experienced to have, by thofe who have felt the
power of religion on their hearts. And though I own this
Style is not of itfelf viable till the Spirit and Grace of God
make it fo, and confequently cannot (according to my Pro-
pofition) be made ufe of to determine certainly concerning
any author, as the others may, yet I mention it for the fake
of thofe who allow,
i. That they have a greater aptnefs and tendency to im-
prefs men's minds, according to their intention, than any
other books have.
2. That
CHAP. XII. various Sorts of Styles. 8 1
2. That as David fays 7 , The Law of the Lord is perfetf,
converting the foul^ feV. or, as Paul exprelles it 3 , That the
Word of God is quick and powerful, and /harper than any two-
edged [word ; piercing even to the dividing afunder of foul and
fpirit, ami of the joints and marrow ; and is a difcerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.
CHAP. XIII.
Several Propositions whereby the Spurioufnefs of a Book may be
life
discovered.
PROP. XII.
That Book is Spurious and Apocryphal, whofe Idiom and
Dialect is different from the known Idiom or Dialed of the
Author whofe Name it bears, or the Country where he
lived.
TH E idiom or dialect of a language is fomewhat very
different from the ftyle of a writer, inafmuch as all lan-
guages are fufceptible of all forts of ftyles j the idiom of a lan-
guage being what is common to a whole country, and dif-
fering from others only by fome accidents ; but the ftyle of
a writer is fomewhat that is peculiar to himfelf, arifing only
from the vafl and inexpreflible variety of nature and confti-
tution. Thus this Propofition differs from the foregoing,
but is proved by the fame fort of medium, viz. that as each
particular perfon has one ftyle, which another cannot imitate ;
fo each country, or the language of each country, has its
own idiom or peculiarities, which thofe of another country
can fcarcely imitate to that perfection, but that the difference
will be difcernible. I confefs, indeed, it feems to me a more
eafy matter to imitate a dialect, than a ftyle ; yet notwith-
ftanding this, the criticks in languages know well, there is
2 Pfal. xix. 7, 8. * Heb. iv, 12.
VOL. I. G fomerhing
8l Proportions difcovering the PART r*
fomething in the genius of them, which is inimitable by thofe
of other countries ; fome words, fome phrafes, or difpofition
of words, which are never perfectly learnt. Befides, as a
writer cannot fully imitate the phrafeology of another coun-
try, fo neither can he avoid the peculiarities of his own,
though he be fuppofed to write in another language : thefe
are what he has from his infancy been habituated and accuf-
tomed to, and become almoft as natural to him as his own a'rr
and ftyle. Hence Peter was difcovered to be a Galilean at
Jerufalem (Matt. xxvi. 73.). though the language of the Jews
and Galileans was very little different: juft as an inhabitant
of the Southern parts of England would immediately difcover
one of its Northern inhabitants, not by his words and tone
only, but his dialect. Hence it feems not difficult, for in-
ftance, to diftinguifh between the Latin wrote by an Englifh-
man, and that wrote by a Roman in Auguftus's time. And
it would, 1 believe, be impoiTible for a perfon now in any
nation, to impofe a book of his own writing under the name
of any Roman writer, without being immediately detected.
So certain it is, that each nation has its peculiar idiom and
dialect ; which may be yet farther confirmed by the known re-
mark made by all who are acquainted with languages, viz.
that It Is exceeding hard to do jufiice to an author^ wken he if
tranjlated into another language ; the tranflator finding himfelf
perpetually at a lofs either for words or phrafes, or both, fully
and exactly to exprefs the author's ideas.
The rule therefore laid down, muft be of great fervice to
us, in detecting the fpurioufnefs or forgery of a book, the im-
pofture commonly fhewing itfelf either in feme words or
phrafes not known in the country, where the pretended au-
thor lived, but peculiar to another j or elfe in an unnatural
refemblance and affectation of a dialect he was not fufficiently
acquainted with. Inftances of this we may perhaps meet with
hereafter; yet I cannot but add one remark here concerning
the dialect of moft of the writings of the New Teftament,
bccauie it will be>a very demonflrrative evidence of the mighty
power and force there is in the genius or nature of a language
to ihe itfelf: the remark I mean is concerning the Hebraifms
CHAP. XXII. -Spurioufvefs of a Bosk. 83
of -the New Teftament. It is agreed on all hands, that moft
of thofe books were originally written in Greek ; but no one
can be ignorant, how different the Greek is from that which
was commonly fpoke and wrote in the world at that time;
fo different in its idiom and phrafeology, that it muft needs
have puzzled the moft celebrated linguifts of Athens to have
conftrued the phrafes, if they had understood all the words.
The truth is, the books were written by men who were born
in Judaea, who had converfed in the Jewifh, i. e. the Syriack,
language from their childhood, and fo had the idioms and pe-
culiarities of it become perfectly natural to them ; and hence,
though they made ufe of Greek words, they conceiving after
their former manner, placed their words after their wonted
manner j i. e. in the Hebrew or Syriack dialedt. Such
is the language of moft of the New Teftament, of which,
if it were neceffary, it were eafy to produce an hundred in-
ftances ; which plainly {hews how great the force of a perfon's
natural language is, and how difficult it is to conceal it, even
when he makes ufe of the words of another. And I dare ven-
ture to fay, that the idioms of Latin or Greek would be as
likely to fhew themfelves, as thofe of Hebrew ; or that any
Gentile writers would find it as difficult to avoid the idioms
of their own country language, and imitate thofe of Palseftine,
as the Jews did to avoid theirs, and imitate thofe of other
countries. I conclude therefore, that the idiom of the lan-
guage of any book is a very likely means to judge of its ge-
nuinenefs ; and if it be proved contrary to the known idiom
of the people among whom its pretended author lived, that it
is to be looked upon for that reafon as fpurious and Apo-
cryphal.
PROP. XIII.
That Book is Spurious and Apocryphal, which evidences .
Difpofition or Temper of Mind in its Author, different
from the known Temper and Difpofition of the Author,
whofe Name it bears.
THE truth of this Propofition depends upon thefe two
known obfervations, viz. That there is a great variety in
G 2 the
84 Proportions difcovering the PART f.
the tempers of men's minds, and that it is next to importable
for a perfon fo to conceal and difguife himfelf, but that his na-
tural temper will be more or lefs vifible : the pride or humi-
lity, the warmth or coolnefs, the dullnefs or brifknefs, the
courage or cowardice of the foul, and many other fuch, are
qualities fo natural to it, fo predominant in it, that a man
may as eafily alter the caft of his complexion,' or lhape of his
body, as fo alter them that they ftaall become indifcernible.
l^a\ iJ could not write, but he evidenced his humility: nor
Cicero, but he evidenced his pride. St. Paul could not write
without fhewing the paffionate vigour and warmth of his
natural temper ; nor St. John without fhewing the fedatenefs
and mildnefs of his. I need not produce inftances in a cafe fo
evident; I only would obferve, that of all the tempers of the
mind, none are more predominant, and more likely to fhew
themfelves in writing, than the proud or modeft } the paffion-
ate and warm, or the cold and dull.
PROP. XIV.
That Book is Apocryphal, which for the moft part is tran-
fcribed or ftolen out of another.
NOTHING can be more evident than this. Every book,
which is fuppofed Canonical, is at the fame time fuppofed
infpired, or to be wrote under the conduct and influences of
the Divine Spirit; but to be a plagiary, and under the con-
duft of infpiration, is manifeftly incontinent. To fuppofe the
Holy Spirit to aflift one perfon in firft writing, and then an-
other perfon in tranfcribing or ftealing out of that writing, is
to fuppofe what is apparently abfurd and impious. It is ab-
furd, becaufe it is making infpiration neceflary, where nothing
was lefs fo, every one having natural powers fufficient to
tranfcribe a book, without any extraordinary afliftance ; and
indeed, the little neceflity there is for infpiration in fuch a
cafe, is no weak argument to prove there was no infpiration
at all. Farther, as the fuppofition is abfurd in itfelf, fo it is
impious and prophane, viz. to make the Holy Spirit concur
to
CHAP, xii r. Spurioufnefs of a Book. 85
to the production of a mere cheat and impofture ; for fuch
certainly is every book, that is compofed out of another's
works, without any intimation that it is fo. Nor will the
goodnefs of the plagiary's defign at all alter the cafe ; for
whatever merit men may imagine in fuch pious frauds, I hope
none will think God himfelf fo pleafed with them, as to be
the immediate author of them.
I am very well aware it may be here urged, that two
of the books now received into the Canon^ feern to be taken out of y
or tranfcribed from, two of the others', viz. The Gofpel of
St. Mark out of that of St. Matthew, and the Epiftle of Jude
out of that of St. Peter.
The objection is indeed fpecious ; to which I now anfwer
only, that as to the common opinion of St. Mark's being an
epitome of St. Matthew, I have elfewhere b largely difproved
it, and am fo vain as to think, the arguments I have there
formed againft it may be fufficient to convince any one of the
falfehood of it. As to Jude's Epiftle being an epitome of the
fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, I (hall defer the confideration of
it to a more convenient place hereafter.
CHAP, XIV.
The Syriack Verfwn propofed as a good Means to determine the
Canon of the New Tejiament. An Hijlorical Account of the
Verfion,
PROP. XV.
The Tranflation of the Books of the New Teftament in
Syriack is of very confiderable Service in determining and
fixing the Canon of thofe Books.
THE truth of this Proportion depends upon the antiquity
of the Verfion ; for if the moft antient Chriftians are
to be judges, and their teftimony is to determine in this mat-
b See my Vindication of St. Matthew's Gofpel againft Mr. Whifton,
Chap, vi x.
G 3 te,r
86 77; e Syriack Vtrfion a good Means PART i.
ter (as has been proved, Prop III. ), their judgment can no way
be more evident, than in the collection or choice which they
made of books to be tranflated into their own language } and
if, fuch collection of books was made by the Eaftern churches
in the time, or at leaft near the time of the Apoftles, it muft
confequently be of great weight in deciding this matter. That
therefore which is incumbent on me, in order to eftablifh
this new Proportion, is to mew, that the Syriatk Verfion
of the New Tejlamem was made in or near the Apoftles 1 times.
And in this matter I fhall think it worth while to be fome-
what particular and large, not only becaufe the proof of this
will be of fuch prodigious fervice to our prefent purpofe, and
to many other valuable ends ; but hereby hoping withal to do
fomewhat towards reviving the credit of this moft antient
monument of Chriftianity, and influencing fome at leaft to
learn the language of this Verfion, which is both fo ufeful and
fo eafily learnt.
In my Vindication of St. Matthew's Gofpel, I have at-
tempted fomething of this fame fort ; but as that happened to
be in the laft meet of the book, the inconvenicncy of the
prefs obliged me to contract my thoughts ; for which reafon,
as well as for the fake of thofe who have not feen that book,,
I fhall not judge it amife to make ufe of any thing which 1
have there faid, adding any difcoveries I have fmce made on
the fubjecr.. In managing of which I will produce,
1. All that ishiftorical concerning it.
2. The judgments of learned men about it.
3. Some arguments by which the antiquity of the Verfion
will be eitablilhed.
I. As to tbe hi/lory of this Verfion. It is a conftantand an-
tient tradition among the Syrians, that it was made by Saint
Mark. This account we have from Poftellus, who tra-
velled into the Eaftern parts of the world, in order to inform
himfelf of all that he could among them, who declares, that
the Syrians delivered it to him as an antient tradition, that
SV. Mark translated his own Gofpel^ and the re/I of the books
cf the New Tejlament^ into his own country's [i, e. the Galilean-
CHAP. Xiv. to determine the Canon. %j
sr Syriack'] language*. The firft time the Europeans became
acquainted with this Verfion, was in the year of Chrift 1 562,
on this occafion : Ignatius, a Patriarch of Antioch, hearing
of the advantages of printing, fent a certain prieft of Mefopo-
tamia, called Mofes Meridinaeus, into Europe with a copy
of the Syriack Teftament, to be printed for the benefit of the
Chriftians in thofe Eaftern parts of the world ; who, failing
in the execution of his defign both at Rome and at Venice, at
length fortunately met with Albertus Widmanftadius in Ger-
many, who with the encouragement and affiftance of the then.
Emperor Ferdinand, caufed it to be printed in Syriack cha-
racters d . In this edition were wanting, the ficond Epi/lle of
Peter, the fecond and third Epiflles of John, the Epi/lle of
Jude, and the Revelation. After this edition of Widmanfta-
dius at Vienna, feveral others were foon publifhed by Tre-
mellius, Guido Fabritius (who had the advantage of an antient
manufcript, which the aforementioned Poftellus procured in
his travels in the Levant country), Troftius, and others. All
thefe were publiihed without the four mentioned Catholick
Epiftles, and the Revelation ; though thefe have been fincc
added in the later editions of the French and Englifh Poly-
glotts, and thofe of Gutbirius and Schaaf, for which the
world is obliged to Mr. Pocock of Oxford, and the learned
De Dieu; the former of which firft publifhed the four Epiftles
out of an antient manufcript, that lay concealed in the Bodleian
at Oxford, and thr; latter the Revelation, out of a manufcript
of Scaliger's in the library at Leyden. This is all I know re-
lating to the hiftory of this Verfion ; except that I have
fomewhere read, that fome of the Syrians afcribe this Verfion
to Thaddasus, one of the Apoftles, as its author, who com-
pofed it for Abgarus, king of EdefTa; and that there are fe-
veral manufcriptsofthe whole, or fome parts of the tranflation
now in Europe ; viz. two in the Duke of Florence's library,
one of which is above a thoufand years old, the other not
much lefs ; three in the French King's not very old, one of
e Guid.Fabrit. Prxfat. in Syr. d See the Prefaces of the feveral
Teft. editions, efpecially thatot Schaaf s.
G 4 which
88 The Syriack Verfion a good Means PART I,
which Gutbirius had from Conftantine 1'Empereur, that of
Poftellus, and thofe above-mentioned e .
2. I propofed in the next place to fhew, what the judgment
and opinion of learned men concerning the antiquity of this Ver-
fan has been. And though I never thought numbers any
evidence of truth, yet they certainly are of appearance of
truth ; and it muft needs be very unreafonable to fuppofe a
great number of difmterefted perfons of fenfe and learning
would receive that for truth, which at leaft had not fome
plaufible reafons to fupport it ; fuch certainly is the cafe in
refpect of this tranflation.
The firft I produce is Tremellius, who published it and
tranflated it into Latin. " By whom," fays he, " or by what
u authors, or what time the Syriaclc Verfion was made out
" of its original Greek, we are not yet able pofitively to de-
" termine, any more than concerning the authors who made
" the Greek Verfion of the Old Teftament, and the old Latin
*' Vulgate; But it feems every way probable, that it was made
" in the very infancy of the Church of Chrift^ either by the
" Apoflles themfelves or their difciples ; unlefs we will imagine
<< them in their writings to have had a concern only for the
" Churches of foreign nations, and none for thofe of their
" own country f ."
Our learned Mr. Fuller g calls it, mojl antient^ a very excel-
lent and truly divine monument of Chrijlianity.
Alfted h , " The Syriack Verfion of the New Tejiamer.t is to
" be attributed to the Church of Antioch, while yet in its in-
" fancy , and to thofe in that city who were firft called Chrijiians- t
" and though the author of it be not certainly known, yet it
" is very likely it was made either by fome Jpojtles, or their
difciples.
Jacobus Martini, in his Preface to Troftius's edition \
11 It is a Verfion, but the firjl and mojl antient of all it is a
" Verfion preferable to all other s- t it is a Verfion made either
e Simon. Critic. Hift. of the New h Praecognit. Theolog. lib. ^. c.
Teft. Par. 2. c. 14. 113.
f Praefat. in Verf. Syr. ' See more of this in that Preface,
e Mifcel. Sacr. lib. 3. c. 20.
CHAP. xiv. to determine the Canon, 89
" by one of the Evangelifts, or by fame of the Chrift ans at
" Antiocb^ who had the opportunity of confulting with the
<< Apoftles there."
Frederick Spanheim the father k had the fame opinon of its
antiquity.
Bifhop Walton has attempted to prove it was made in the
Apoftles' time '.
Frederick Spanheim the fon m , in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory,
plans this Verfion in thefecond century after Chrift ; aflenting
to the agreed opinion of learned men, that it was made very
near the Apoftles' time.
Father Simon no where contradicts the above-mentioned
opinions, but allows its claim to the greateft antiquity juft;
and well obferves, that it preceded all thofe fchifms, which af-
terwards divided the Eajlern nations into different fefts: and
this, he adds, is the caufe why they all equally ejleem it n .
Such have been the received fentiments of the learned con-
cerning this Verfion, though I confefs none of thefe, or any
other I have met with, feem to have treated the fubjedl with
that accuracy, or in that full manner its importance requires.
I (hall therefore make it the bufmefs of the following chapter,
tp evince its true antiquity in the cleareft and beft method
I am able.
k Dub. Evang.Par. i. Dub. 23. m Hiftor. Chrift. Saecul. 2. c. 7.
. 4. & Par. 2. Dub. 5. . 4.. Critic. Hiftor. of the N. Tell.
1 Prolegom. in Polyglott. 13. ^. Par. a. c. 13.
CHAP.
qo The Syriack Verfan made FART r.
CHAP. XV.
An Attempt towards proving, that the Syriack Verfion was
made in the A^oftles 1 Times : a particular Account of the
Syriack Language ; its Rife, Nature, and life among the
Jews in our Saviour's Time.
HAVING given the hiftory and judgments of others
about the Syriack Verfion, I am now to endeavour,
3. To eftallijh its antiquity. And here I find it neceflary
to premife, that fuch proof is not to be expected here, as
of fome other fads near the Apoftles' times, becaufe we have
now extant fcarce any Chriftian writings of thofe times, by
men who underftood this language, except the Apoftles them-
felves. Notwithstanding, I hope the following Obfervations
will make it fomething more than probable, that the Syriack
Verfion was made in or near the Apoftles' times.
Obf. i. The Chriftian Religion was firjl publijhed and re-
ceived in Syria. I need not particularly enter into the geo-
graphy of this country ; it is certain the limits of it have been
varioufly defcribed by the antients : it is enough for me to
obferve, that in the time, to which my fubjetl relates, under
the name Syria was included all that part of Afia, which was
bounded on the North by mount Amanus, which feparated it
from Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Armenia; on the Eaft by the
river Euphrates, which feparated it from Mesopotamia j on
the South by Arabia ; on the Weft by that which is called
the Syrian Sea, or the end of the Mediterranean, and part of
Egypt . In thefe confines Chriftianity had its birth, and
here it firft fpread. This is evident to thofe, who are ac-
quainted with the hi {lory of the Gofpels, and the Acts of
the Apoftles, and confider, that in this country was Judaea,
Samaria, Phoenicia, &c. and that in it were Jerufalem, the
towns of Galilee, Damafcus, Amioch, Catfarea, Seleucia,
and others, which we read of fo often in the forementioned
Vide Cluvsr. Gtogr. 1. 5. c. 10.
hiftory,
CHAP. xv. in the Apojlle;? Times. 91
hiftory, where the firft Churches of Chriftians were planted.
In this country our Saviour lived and preached : in this
country the Apoftles firft travelled and fpread the Gofpel j here
they made immediately innumerable converts, and formed
them into Churches profeffing the Religion of Chrift. At Je-
rufalem many (^doi-,) ten thoufands foon embraced Chrifti-
anityP. The city and country of Samaria was converted by
Philip's preaching, and confirmed in their faith by Peter and
John <J. Philip publiflied the Gofpel all the way from thence
to Caefarea r . St. Paul's defign to perfecute at Damafcus, is
a proof there were great numbers of Chriftians there s , which
himfelf afterwards confirmed and increafed'. Peter by his
miracles and preaching mightily augmented the number of
Chriftians at Joppa u , and was fuccefsful in making profelytes
at Caefarea x . The Apoftles, who were difperfed upon the
perfecution of Stephen, baptized many to the Chriftian faith
in Phoenicia and Antioch^, where Barnabas being fent, made
large additions of converts 2 , and afterwards together with
Paul preached among them for a whole year*. Thus was
this large country of Syria, with its principal cities and
towns converted to Chriftianity, by the preaching of the
Apoftles, within the fpace of ten or twelve years.
Obf. 2. The language of all thefe converts was Syriack^ or
the fame with that tranjlation we are now difcujjtng. I mean,
not fo exactly the fame, as that there were no various dialects;
it is plain there were by the inftance of Peter, \vhofe dialect
proved him to be a Galilean b ; but that they were alfo intel-
ligible to one another, plainly appears by the fame inftance ;
the difference in the way of fpeaking in one part of this coun-
try from another, feeming to have been no more, than in one
part of England from another. The language is indeed fome-
times called Chaldee, fometimes Syriack, fometimes Syro-
Chaldaick j but moft commonly by the writers of the New.
p Afts xxi. 20. x Chap. x.
i Afts viii. 5, i+, 25. y Afts xi. 19, &c.
r Ib. ver. 40. - Ib. ^^.
8 Aftsix. i, 2, 10. Ib.i6.
* Ib. 20, xi. fc Matt. xxvi. 73.
u Ib. 4.2.
Teftament>
3 2 An Account of the TART I*
Teftament, and firft Chriftrian writers, it is called Hebrew,
I need not now enter into any critical enquiries concerning
the language ; only for the fake of thofe who are unacquaint-
ed with thefe things, I (hall lay clown the following remarks,
which, if it were neceffary, it would be no difficult matter to
confirm.
1. The original or primeval language of the world was
Hebrew c .
2. TZ>;V continued univerfal till the Flood^ and fo on till the
attempt of building of the tower of Babel ; for then the whole
earth was of one language, and of one fpeech ', about feven-
tecn hundred and fifty years after the Creation.
3. At that time there was a confufion of languages ; and men
being fcattered into different parts of the earth, and not con-
verfing with each other, formed different dialects of fpeech e .
4. Thefe feern to have been no other than the various dialers
of the old Hebrew ; as Chaldee, Syriack, Arabick, and the
other languages of that Eaftern part of the world are : juft as
from the Latin we fee the Italian, French, and Spanifti had
their original f .
5. The Qjaldee or Syriack dialeft was the language of Syria
(tnd Mesopotamia, and the adjacent country. This is evident
from the title Laban the Syrian put upon his monument, viz.
Nrrnnt^ IJS which are plain Syriack or Chaldee words S; and
from Rabfhakeh's fpeech to the Jews, which is exprefsly faid
to be delivered mm, i. e. in Syriack h .
6. The family of Abraham, through all their various ages^
retained their old Hebrew language pure and uncorrupt till the
Babyloni/h Captivity. This is evident, becaufe all the books
of the Old Teftament wrote before that time are in that lan-
guage j and in the laft-cited place, the Jewifh officers defired
to communicate with Rabfhakeh in Syriack, and not in He-
brew, that fo the common people in Jerufalem might not
underftand them.
c Bochart. Phalcg, 1. i. c. 15. Heb. praefrc. Comment, in Penta-
d Gen.xi. i. tench.
' Ib.ver. 9. e Q en> xxx ;. 47-
*' Vid, Le Clerc Diflcrt. deLingu. h z King, xviii. a5.
7. After
CHAP. XV. Syriack Language. ^J
7. After the Captivity they forgot their own Hebrew, and
learnt the language of the Chaldeans or Syrians^ or rather mix-
ed it with their own. This appears, in that a great part of
the books of Ezra and Daniel, which were wrote after the
Captivity, are wrote in this language ; and they had need of
interpreters to tranflate the other books, when they were
read in the fynagogues in Hebrew, which they did not under-
ftand, into Chaldee which they did \ f
8. This Chaldean or Syriack language^ or, as feme call //,
Syro-Chaldaick dialefl, was the language of Jerufalem and
Galilee^ and all the country about, in our Saviour 's time.
There needs no other proof of this, than the great number of
Syriack words, which are now remaining in the Greek Tefta.
ment ; fueh as Talitha Kumi *, Ephphatha ', Eloi, Eloi,
Lama fabachthani m ; Bethcfda ", Golgotha , Gabbatha P,
Raca % Cephas 1 ", Aceldama 5 , Boanerges', Maran-atha",
Bar-Jona x , Abba r, &c. Thefe are all evidently Syriack
words (as they know, who are the leaft acquainted with the
language), and fuch as were in common ufe among the Jews,
in our Saviour's time. I would only obferve farther concern-
ing one of thefe Syriack words, viz. Aceldama, that it is
faid to be I* T? i'J oiXs*Ti> WT*T, i. e. in their own dialect,
which they then fyake.
Thofe who are not acquainted with thefe ftudies will be
very likely to object here, that we read nothing of the Syriack
in the New Tejiament^ but that the words above are comtnonh
called Hebrew ; which is indeed true, as alfo that the firft
Chriftian writers commonly call the language of the Jews at
this time Hebrew. But it is eafy to anfwer, that Hebrew
being the old language, and the other derived from it, and
not very different, it is no wonder the Jews were fond of the
old name, and always retained it. And as to the Fathers, it
Lightfoot, Harm. NewTeft. .
Mark v. 41.
Ib. vii. 34.
Ib. xv. 34.
Johnv. 2.
Matt, xxvii. 33.
Matt. v. 22.
John i. 42.
Ats i. 19.
Markiii. 17.
i Cor. xvi. 22.
Matt. xvi. 17.
Markxiv. 36.
Johuxix, 13.
cannot
94 -An Account of the PART, i*
cannot be ftrange, they fhould call it as the Jews did, they
generally being ignorant of either language j though Juftin
Martyr, who lived in Syria, fpeaks of Hebrew and Syriack,
as of one and the lame language, Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud*
p. 331. " And the moft learned of the Fathers, Jerome,
who underflood both, perpetually obferves the difference ; and
Nonnius, who lived in the fourth century, in his Paraphrafe
on St. John's Gofpel in Greek verfe, for Hebrew puts Sy-
riack. So on John xix. 13.
And verfe 17. of the fame chapter,
r&A>-cSa TO* x*Ai<7x. "Zv^a-j ro/*a, &C.
And verfe 20. concerning the infcription on the crofs,
It is plain then, that Syriack was the language of Judea irt
our Saviour's time, that in which himfelf and his Apoftles con-
Terfed and preached. Mr. Voffius is the only one I know of
a contrary opinion ; he thinks the common language of Je-
rufalem and that country was Greek 3 ; but it is plain from
A6ls xxi. 37. the common Jews did not underftand that lan-
guage j and Jofephus exprefsly tells us % that it was ajlrange
language to him and bis countrymen. If any one has a mind to
fee more of this controverfy, he may fee it warmly managed
between Father Simon b and Voffius c , in the books cited in
the margin. All that I (hall farther add, is, that inafmuch as
I have promifcuoufly above ufed the words Chaldee and Sy-
riack, the reafon thereof is, becaufe thofe two dialects are fo
very much alike, and indeed almoft the fame, as every one
knows, who is acquainted with the very rudiments of them, and
may be very eafily perceived by thofe, who have not learnt the
languages, if they will but caft their eye upon Buxtorf 's Chaldee
and Syriack Grammar ; or perhaps more clearly, if they confult
that incomparable Harmonical Grammar of the Orientals com-
piled by Erneftus Gerhardus, founded upon Schickard's He-
1 VoflT. Refponf. ad iterat. P. SI- b Critical Hiftory of the N.Teft.
num. Objeft. . Par. i. c. 6.
3 Prsefat. in Antlq. Jud. & Proe- f Lib. jam. cit.
fat. in Bell. Judaic.
brew
CHAP. XV. ' Syriack Language. 95
brew Rules. The truth is, there is fcarce any difference at
all between them, fave only in a few words, and the pun&u-
ation. There would be but little difference vlfible between
Chaldee and Syriack (fays the learned critick in thefe lan-
guage, Lud. de Dieu d ), ifthofewho affixed the points to them
bad thought it Jit. I di/iinguijh them, (ays he, becaufe others
do ; and feme little difference there is in forming the words j
elfe for my part I own them to be one and the fame language e .
So Amira f , and to the fame purpofe our celebrated country-
man Fuller g ; the Chaldee and Syriack dialefis are not fo pro-
perly (aid to be alike^ as to be almojl the fame. And in another
place h accounts for it by a learned proof, that the Syrians
and Chaldeans were one and the fame people* And I cannot
but obferve here, that what the prophet Daniel in one place
calls CD*TkO nii6, i. e. the language of the Chaldeans \ in the
next chapter is called JTD")N, i. e. Syriack k .
CHAP. XVI.
Several Observations^ which prove the Syriack Verfion made
in or near the Apojlles* Times.
Obf. 3. TT was abfolutely needful, that a Verfion Jhould be
-* made ; and therefore very probable^ a Verfien was
made of the books of the New Tejlament into the Syriack lan-
guage^ in or near the Apojlles' times.
This Obfervation naturally arifes and follows from the
two foregoing; for if, as has been proved, an innumerable
multitude of perfons were converted to Chriftianity in Jeru-
falem and Galilee, in Caefarea, Damafcus, Samaria, Joppa,
Lydda, Antioch, and all over Syria ; if the language of all
d See his Preface to his Syriack Mifcell. Sacr. 1. i. c. r.
and Chaldee Grammar. h Lib. 3. c. 20.
e Ibid. ' Dan. i. 4.
f Prxlud. in Gram. Syr. feu * Ib. ii. 4,
Chald.
this
9& Tf->e Syriack Verfion made in PART I.
this country was Syriack, there can be nothing more unrea-
fonable than to fuppofe, they were for any long time deftitute
of thofc infpired books, which contained the foundations of
their new Religion. To fuppofe this, would argue them ei-
ther to have very little knowledge of, or very little zeal for,
their profeiiion; neither of which was the cafe we are fure.
Nothing can be more reafonably concluded, than that upon
the foregoing hypothefis, either the Apoftles or themfelves
would take care to have a good Verfion as foon as might be.
1. It may with a great deal of reafon be fuppofed^ that feme
one or ether of the Apojlle* would take care to have the f acred
looks cf ChrijTianity publijhed among the Churches of Syria in
their own language. This would be the beft and moft likely
means of preferving and propagating thofe doctrines and that
faith, which they had declared among them. Without this,
I cannot fee, how they could expect any other than the fpeedy
decay of the Chriftian Religion after their time, even when it
made the moft flourifhing figure in their time. On the other
hand, a Verfion (made by themfelves, or a perfon of their ap-
pointment) of their writings into the language of the country,
would be a very probable method of advancing the work they
had been fo long labouring in, of keeping up thofe truths,
which elfemufl have been forgot, and of preventing thofe errors
and herefies, which they faw fpringing up in the Church, &c.
2. If we fuppofe the Apoftles thus negligent of the interefts
of Chriftianity, it will be very abfurd to imagine the faithful
Chr.ijlians themfelves to be negligent in a matter of fuch im~
portance^ in which they could not but fee themfelves fo nearly
concerned. The zeal for the Chriftian Religion, which they
evidenced in forfaking all on its account, and expofmg them-
felves to the rage and malice of the world, would fure make
them folicitous to have the genuine and authentick memoirs
of it in their own language. For inftance, the converts at
Jerufalem, in whom there muff needs be by education the
greatcil efteem for ail thofe books, which they believed did
come from God ; can it be thought, they would not endea-
vour to have the Hiftory of the Life and Doctrines of Chrift,
as well as the Old Teftament tranflated into their known
language,
CHAP. xvi. or near the Apojlles* Times. 97
language, efpecially when they certainly believed the infpira-
tioa of the one as well as the other ? I might farther argue
this from the character of Ignatius, Bifhop of Antioch, and
other Bimops of Syria, who muft needs be very defective in
their duty to the Churches over which they were fet, if they
did not take care they fhould be fupplied with the infpired
volumes, which themfelves valued fo much. I conclude there-
fore, that as a Verfion into Syriack was neceflary to be made
in or near the Apoftles' time, fo it is probable one was then
made.
Obf. 4. The Cbriftians of Syria were wont to read the fa-
cred Scriptures of the New Tejiament in their Churches and
publick ajjemblies very foon after the Apojiles* time \ and there-
fore a tranjlation of them was then made into the Syriack lan-
guage.
Although I might confirm this Obfervation by many in-
ftances, yet the inftance which I fliall produce being fo de-
monftrative of the fadi, I {hall content myfelf with producing
only that. The pafTage I refer to is that of Juftin Martyr,
who lived in the beginning of the fecond century, and plainly
fpeaks of himfelf as being a difciple of the Apojlles, 'A?TOS-OA&.'
7ssy. pst$nlin '. He tells us, that in their religious aflTem-
blies every Sunday the writings of the Apoftles and Prophets
were read m . Now Juftin was a native, as he himfelf fays n ,
of Palseftine in Syria, viz. Neapolis in Samaria, in which
country, as has been proved, Syriack was the language.
Now unlefs a Verfion was made of the Apoftles' writings into
this language, it had been very prepofterous for them, to
have read them in their Churches ; unlefs we fuppofe them like
the later Papifts, who will neither fuffer tranflations of the
Scriptures to be made into other languages, nor any other to
be read in the Churches, but fuch as the people do not under-
ftand. This argument I look upon as conclufive, and there-
fore mail anticipate an objection or two, which fome perhaps
may be apt to raife againft it. As,
J Epift. ad Dicgnet. p. 501. " Pnef. in Apol. 2. p. 53. -
111 Apol. a. pro Chrift. p. 98.
VOL. I. H !. rhat
98 The Syr tack Verfion made in PART I.
I. That yujiin dwelt at Rome, and not in Syria, where he
was born. To which I anfwer, that though it be certain
Juftin was at Rome , yet the accounts we have of him feem
to intimate, that he went there only with a view of presenting
bis memorials for the Cbrijlian Religion to the Emperor and Se-
nate, and that he was not a refident of Rome ; and therefore
when this was done, he returned again to Afia, and at Ephefus
he had that famous difpute with Trypho the Jew, which is
ftill extant P. This feems not unlikely to have been either as
he was going to Rome from Syria, or returning to Syria
from Rome ; becaufe in the end of the difpute ' he tells us,
they prayed for his fafety in the voyage he was then going to
make. It is true indeed, the words in Eufebius r , '* T??
'Pwp;? T? &Tgt? tTronuTo, are commonly tranflated s as though
they exprefled his fixed habitation at Rome j but the words
imply no fuch thing, but more properly are fignificative of
fuch a continuance, as is made by a traveller on a journey ;
and fo we find the word $iot:%u is continually made ufe of in
die New Teftament, to denote the continuance of our Saviour
and his Apoftles for a few days in a place, till they removed to
another 1 . Befides, there is another fenfe, which may be given
to Eufebius's words, much better than that of his tranflators,
viz. if we take oi!^V >aaw to fignify his having public^ con-
ferences, and making public difcourfes. This feems moft
agreeable to the context of Eufebius ; and is moft evident in
that Jerome u and Photius % fpeaking of Juftin's being at
Rome, inftead of 3Wips sTroisPro have 3Wlpa,- i<yt, which can
be taken in no other than the fenfe laft given ; efpecially if
we confider, that Photius adds the word qn*o?oQuv, which,
though it be not placed fo as to be connected with <5taTpV, yet
evidently ought to be, and the firft Latin tranflator read it
Vide Euli-b. Hift. Eccl. I. 4. 8 Vid. Verf. Chriftophorfon. &r.
c. 1 6. Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. Valef.
in Juitln. Phot. Bibliothec. Cod. ' John iii. 22. xi. 54. Afts xii.
cxxv. 19- *""' 3. ** xv. 35. xvi. 12.
P Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1.4.0.18. xx. 6. and feveral other places.
1 Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. in u Catal. Script. Eccl. mjuftin.
fine. * Phot. Biblioth. cxxv.
r Hilt. Eccl. 1. 4. c. ii. in fine.
fo.
CHAP. XVI. or near the Apo/lle? Times. 99
fo y. I conclude therefore, that Juftin's abode at Rome was
only as a ftranger or traveller, and that Syria, his native coun-
try, was ftill his home; and confequently, when he declares to
the Emperor the cuftoms of the Chriftian aflemblies, he
means the Churches in Syria ; and fo that a Verfion was made
in the Syriack language, becaufe the writings of the New
Teftament were read in them.
2. It may be farther objected, that Juftin could not fpeak
of the books of the New Teftament being read in the Syrian
Churches, and that he himfelf did not refide in Syria, becaufe
be was unacquainted with the Hebrew or Syriack language^ as
feems to be evident from his works. Dr. Cave produces a
very remarkable inftance of it z , viz. his deriving the word
Satanafrom Sata^ which > fays he, in the language of the Jews
and Syrians fignijies an Apoftate^ and Nas (on which account
he is called a Serpent) and denotes the fame as Sat a in their
language*.
To which I anfwer, that though the derivation be, as Dr.
Cave fays, very childifh and ridiculous, becaufe every one
who knows any thing of Hebrew now is fure it is derived from
the verb piiS which fignifies to hate with malice, yet I think
it cannot hence be concluded, that Juftin did not live in Syria :
for,
(l.) The verb ]i> was net 'in the Syr Jack language^ but
another always made ttfe of in/lead of it. As there are in the
Syriack abundance of words, which are not in the old Hebrew,
fo abundance in Hebrew, which were not in Syriack. As the
language altered, many words were both brought in and left
out, among which this was one : this I conclude, becaufe an-
other verb is always made ufe of in the Syriack Verfion of the
New Teftament to denote the idea, and never this ; fo that
a native of Syria could not give a juft etymology of this word,
without being acquainted with the old Hebrew, which at that
time, it is certain, was known but to very few, efpecially out
of Jerufalem.
y Vid. Verf. Lat. hujus loci Phot. z Hiftor. Liter, in Juftin.
prefix. Opn. Jnftm. Mart. viz. Phi- * Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. p.
lofophicas ibidem Diatribas babuit. 331.
H 2 (2.)
100 Tlie Syriack Verfion made in PART r.
(2.) Suppofe the verb flTtr bad been common In Syriack^ it
will be a mighty Jlrange consequence to infer, that Jujlin was
not an inhabitant of Syria^ becaufe he thought another verb or
noun in the fame language^ and not that^ was the root of any
particular word. Were I to make ufe of the fame argument
in refpedr. of an European language, and to conclude, for in-
ftance, a perfon was not an inhabitant of England, becaufe he
could not tell, or fhould miflake the Latin or Saxon original
of any Englifh word ; the reafoning would be apparently very
weak, and the confequence would be, that but a very few in-
inhabitants would be left in England. The cafe is exactly the
fame.
(3.) This verb was not common in the Hebrew itfelf^ not
being above once or twice to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
(4.) Jujlin, though a Samaritan or native of Paleejline,
was born of Gentile parents \ as appears by the names of his
father and grandfather, which, he fays b , were Prifcus and
Bacchius ; was educated in the philofophy and learning of
Greece, as is evident from the accounts of Eufebius, Jerome,
and Photius c ; and therefore, though he might underftand
his own country language, it is not at all ftrange he was no
critick in it. But,
(5.) For proof that Juftin underftood Syriack, I think we
need go no farther than this very place which is objected. If
he had not, how did he know the word Satana was of Hebrew
fir Syr lack original^ and apply to that language for its ctymola-
gy? Why did he not, as other Fathers unacquainted with this
Janguage are often ridiculoufly wont ', apply to the Greek
for its original : This evidently proves he knew die language.
Befides, to put the matter paft all controverfy, I obferve,
upon a clofe and critical enquiry, the two words (viz. Sato.
h Prvf. in Apol. 2. Jcrou'r in- ckn, the PC (fiver, from the Greek
deed frems to take them as one -a^/u tofuffer, becaufe Chriit liif-
name of hi* father, but is miltaken. fered at the Paflbver, or beeanfe
Vid. VaK-f. ad Euieb. Hift. Eccl. that was typical of drift. Others
1.4. C. I*. derive the name Jelus from l^ fj)
Locis fupra citatis. r a!!0f &c . which etymologies every
* Thus Laaantms Divm. Inltit. body knows are tiiilincr.
1.4. c. 16. and others, derive Paf-
ind
CHAP. XVI. or near the Apojlle? Times. 101
and Nasj from which he derives Satanas] are purely and pro-
perly Syr lack words^ which denote very exactly the nature of
Satan, or the Devil, as it is reprefented in Scripture. This
difcovery I take to be of fome confequence, and therefore
{hall endeavour to fhew it more clearly.
I.) The firjl word is Sata\ this., fays Juftm, fignifies an
Apoftate, in the language of the "Jews and Syrians ; and fo, I
obferve, it does. The 1 original Hebrew verb is niD which
fignifies to feduce, or deceive^ or draw afide, and is the very
word made ufe of to exprefs Satan's feducing David to num-
ber the people e . Hence came the verb NIDP very common
in Chaldee, to draw afide, or go af.de^ and the Syriack }-A-Q
fignifying the very fame ; and fo the participle Peal of this
verb in Syriack will denote one that goes afide^ or an Apof-
tate and deceiver of other j, and that participle is j ^-0
Sate^ or Sata^ the very word that Juftin produces. This
verb is very common in this fenfe in the Syriack tranflation of
the New Teftament ; and Gal. iii. 19. the noun derived from
it fignifies Apojlacy. The reader learned in thefe things
may fee the inftances in Dr. Caftell's Polyglot Lexicon, and
Schaaf's and Troftius's Syriack Lexicons.
2.) The other word is Nas. Thls^ fays Juftin, fignifies the
fame as Sata in Hebrew or Syriack^ and denotes that, on the
account of which Satan is called Serpent. Nothing can be
more juft than this. The word is apparently Syriack, derived
from the known Hebrew root rtP3, which in Piel fignifies to
te?npt y and is ufed of God's tempting Abraham f . In the
Syriack it is often ufed in the fame fenfe ; and the noun form-
ed from it denotes frequently the Tempter %, on which account
Satan is called Serpent. So that nothing can be more evi-
dent, than that Juftin underftood the Syriack language ; and
confequently his want of knowledge of it can be no ob-
jection to his living in Syria. I conclude therefore, that if
e a Sam.xxiv. i. The word Sa- i Chron. xxi. i. where it is. Vid.
tan is not indeed in our prelent co- Cleric. Comm. in loc.
pies in that place; but either it by * Gen. xxii. i.
fome means dropt out of" the text, E See the Lexicons cited above,
or at leaft rmift be fupplied from
H ? the
102 The Syr lack Verfion made in PART I.
the writings of the New Teftament were read in the Churches,
where Juftin Martyr lived, they were read in Syria ; and if
they were read in Syria, they were read in the Syriack lan-
guage, becaufe no other was there underftood, and confe-
quently a translation of the New Teftament into Syriack was
made out of Greek in Juftin Martyr's time, i. e. within a
few years of the Apoftles' time.
It cannot be improper here to add, that in the book which
goes under Juftin Martyr's name, called ^ueefl. & Refponf.
ad Orthodox. I find mention of a Syriack tranflation of the
Old Teftament, as there is alfo in St. Auftin's famous book
De Chit, Dei, 1. 15. c. 13. I might argue from hence the
great probability of a Verfion being made of the New alfo into
the fame tongue ; but, I confefs, I queftion the genuinenefs
of that book, there being fomething in it certainly later than
Juftin j and yet I cannot but think the learned Dr. Cave's
conjecture h concerning it deferves confidering, that perhaps
it may be that piece of Juftin's, which Photius calls Solutiones
Summaries Dubltationum adverfus Religionem^ only much in-
terpolated. This conjecture feems probable, which, though the
learned Dodtor propofes as his own ', was made long before
him by Andr. Rivet k , from whom it is evident he borrowed
it, though he mentions not his name. This is the more ob-
fervable, becaufe that learned writer in the page before treats
Sandius very roughly, for propofing an opinion of Rivet's
in the fame place as his own, without mentioning Rivet's
11 Hift. Liter, in Juitin. Martyr. preted the Syriack word Ofanna by
Loc. cit. ij^ya^uffvvrit vwtHtiUWj when it
. i j
k Critic. Sacr. lib. 2. c. 5. . 3. j s evidently of another fignification.
1 That opinion is, that this book Vid. Quslt. & Refponf. ad Orthod.
cannot be Juftin's, becaufe he, being Qugeft. 50.
a. Samaritan, would never have inter-
CHAP.
CHAP. xvii. or near the Apoftle;? Times. 103
CHAP. XVII.
The Syriack Verfion proved to be made in or near the Apo-
ftle? Times from fame internal Evidences.
Obf. 5. CT^H E Syriack Verfion of the New Tejlament now ex-
tant is very probably the fame^ which was made in
or near the Apoftle? time.
1. This is conjtantly aj/erted by the Syrian Churches from
whom we had it. See the Hiftory of it above.
2. Tliere was no more probability of the Syrian Churches
lofmg their tranjlation, than of the Weftern Churches lofmg their
Greek copies. For the fame reafon as the Greek copies did
multiply, the Syriack ones would multiply too; and for the
fame reafon that care would be taken to preferve the one, care
would be taken to preferve the other. They were both
efteemed the "W^rd of God, though in different languages ;
and in the nature of things it feems morally impoflible, that
the Churches of Antioch, Jerufalem, &c. could ever lofe a
treafure of fo much value, and which they fo much efteemed,
as they did thefe facred writings. Add to this, that the
Jewifti Targums made about this time were fafely preferved ;
and the Chriftians cannot, with any reafon, be fuppofed lefs
careful of their facred books than the Jews.
3. There are internal charatlers in the tranflation itfelf^
which evidence its very great antiquity^ or its being made
near that period which I have afligned it : for inftance,
I. The firft inftance in the Syriack verfion which I propofe
as proving that antiquity of it, which I contend for, is the
tranjlation of the name Ptolemais, as it is in our Greek copies ,
Aft xxi. 7. by the name O^ \ Acu y or Aco\ for it may as
juftly, or "indeed more juftly, be pointed with the vowel
Dfekopho, than Ezozo.
Now to make out what I defign, I obferve the moft antient
name of this place amone; the Ifraelites was Dp Aco, or Acco,
H 4 Judg.
IC4 'The Syriack Verfion made In PART i.
Judg. i. 31. This name undoubtedly continued long in ufe,
and afterwards changed into Ptolemais ; though at what time,
or on what occafion, I cannot certainly tell. Mr. Reiland" 1 ,
and after him Dean Prideaux n , fay it was repaired by Pto-
lemy Philadelphus, and from him had its new name Ptolemais.
This was about 250 years before Chrift ; and feems a very
probable account ; I fay probable only, becaufe I know not
what antient author relates it. However this be, it is cer-
tain, the former name was antiquated and out of ufe among
the Romans, and they called it Ptolemais. So we find by
Pliny , Ptolemais Ciaudii C&faris colonia quts quondam Ace\
and StephanuS lief t TC-O? iu> : IlTo>.u/.aVj, >.? 4>o>ixr,;, sxaAer-ro oi
ly^ortfot ' 'AKV p : Ptolemais was formerly called Ace. How the
termination o fliould change into <?, is very eafily accounted
for; fuch changes being common, when a word is taken out
of one language into another q .
Now why the Syriack interpreter (hould tranflate it Aco,
and not retain Ptolemais, can be accounted for no other way,
but by fuppofing the perfons, for whom his Verfion was made,
were more acquainted with one name than the other. Upon
any other fuppofition, it would have been abfurd for him to
have changed it. I argue then hence, that this Verfion rnuft
be made either before, or very foon after the deftruclion of Je-
rufalem; becaufe till that time one may fuppofe a people (viz.
the Jews) to retain the old name Aco ftill, out of a fondnefs,
very predominant in that people, for its antiquity: but how
they, or indeed any other part of Syria, could after the Roman
conqueft call it by a name different from the Romans, feems
to me impoffible to conceive. Befides, it ww, as Pliny fays,
a Roman colony^ even in Claudius's reign, and therefore very
remarkable; and fo in confequence muft in thirty or forty
years more (in which time the conqueft alfo was) be much
more known by the name Ptolemais, by which the Romans
called it. To fuppofe therefore that this tranilatioa, in which
"' Palaeftin. Illuftrat. 1. 2. c. 7. Natur. Hiftor. 1. 5. c. 19.
n Conneft. of Hift. of the Old r Apud Fuller. Mifcell. Sacr.
asid New Tdtaro. Par. 2. Book 2. 1. 4. c. 15.
p. 61. i Vid. Fuller, 1.4. c. 2.
we
CHAP. xvii. or near the dpo/iles' Times. 105
we meet with this old name inftead of the new one, was made
at any great diftance of time after the deftruclion of Jerufa-
lem, is to fuppofe the tranflator ailing quite contrary to the
defign of his tranflation; and, inftead of a name well known to
all, to fubftitute an antiquated name, which could be known
but to few. On the other hand, fuppofmg it made about
the period I aflign, it was a very proper tranflation, being
made for thofe, who were wont to call this place by this
name, as indeed it appears out of the Talmud in many places
the Jews in our Saviour's time were wont to do r . I only
add farther, that Jofephus, though a Jew, both in his Hiftory
and Antiquities of the Jewifh War, whenever his occafion
led him to mention this place, calls it as St. Luke does in the
place above-cited in the A&s, Ptolemais, and never Ace,
nor Aco s : unlefs perhaps where he is relating the hiftory of
the Ifraelites' firft entrance into this country c ; there indeed,
as it was proper, in tranfcribing the hiftory of the Ifraelites'
pofieflions in Canaan, he mentions this city under the name
of 'Afxr, which undoubtedly ought to be read ' 'A*-);,* as one of
the beft of Englifh criticks, Mr. Fuller u , has conjectured and
proved ; though Bochart thinks the letter ? ought not to be
caft away, and oppofes Mr. Fuller herein x .
II. The next argument for that antiquity of the Syriack
Verfion, which I have alfigned, I colle&from its tranJJation of
the Greek words "E**v> t "E$>n, 'E9?, and their adverbial deri-
vatives 'E^Xr.nrl and '$(*?. After a careful examination of
all thofe places in the original Greek, where either of thefe
words occur, and a comparifon of them with the feveral tranf-
lations of them in the Syriack Verfion, there feems to me the
moft juft reafon to conclude,
1. That the author of this Verfion was one, who had been
formerly a Jew.
2. That he lived either before, or not long after the de-
ftru&ion of Jerufalem by Titus, and the difperfion of the Jews.
r See Dr. Lightfoot's Centur. he particularly defcribes the place.
Chorograph. c. 64. ' Antiq. JuJ. 1. 5. c. i.
;
inc.
Now
- . . . . . . .
Antiq. Jud. 1. 13. c. ao, u. ' : Mifcel/Saci. 1. 4.. c. 15.
& de Bell. Judaic. 1. z. c. 9. where x Canaan. 1. a. c. 17. in fine.
jc6 TZe Siriack Verjlon made in PART I.
Now before thefel muft prcmife a few remarks concerning
the meaning of thofe Greek words in the writings of the New
Teftament.
( I . ) Ti)e wsrtl "Exxr, in the New Tejlament is made ufe of
by the writers of it to denote all the world befides the Jeius.
The word properly fignified a Greek ; but ever fmce the
Grecian conquefts by Alexander, the Greeks became the
moft noted people, and the Jews, who had but very little ac-
quaintance with the world, called all nations by their name.
Hence we find frequently the diftinction of all mankind
into 'lotS'aldf x "Ew.rwtf v , into JMUS and Greeks^ or (as our
tranflators, regarding the fenfe more than the words, do well
enough render it) Jews and Gentiles : juft as the antient
Greeks divided all mankind into'Ex^a,- and Rxfi^wi z . But
this remark is fo obvious and well known, that I fhall infift
no farther on it.
(2.) The word "E$m in the New Tejlament denotes in a pecu-
liar fe^e all nations befides the Jews. Thus the old Hebrews
in their language diftinguifhed themfelves from all others, by
calling them C3"U~T and CU^yr, i. e. the nations. It would
be fuperfluous to produce inftances of this, there being fcarce
a page in the New Teftament, where there are net one or
more inftances.
(3.) In the ideas of loth thefe words the Jews implied f&me-
thing that was bad\ or, which is the feme thing, they looked
upon all the world as profane, finners, unclean, &c. They
efteemed themfelves as a peculiar people, privileged above all
the world, only in covenant with God, and fo only in hope of
his favour ; no names therefore were thought bad enough for
the people of other countries ; uncircumcifed and reprobate of
God were with them fynonymous terms j and they could fay
nothing of a perfon among themfelves that would found worfe,
than to liken him to a man of another nation. This is fuffici-
ently evident out of the New Teftament ; for inftance, when
our Saviour fpeaks of a reprobate abandoned perfon, unfit for
7 Rom. i. 16. ii. 9. iii. 9. Act. r Thucycl. 1. i. . 3. Not. 5. in
xlx. 10, 17. i Cor. i. 22. x. 32. Scholiis. Strah. 1. 14.. p. 977. Vid.
Gal. iii. 20. and many other places. et Rom. i. 14.
any
CHAP, xvii. or near the Apojlles' Times. 107
any communion, he fays a , Let him be to you as an Heathen ; i. e.
efteem him as vile as you do thofe of other nations, for fo the
word 'E$uy.oc muft fignify ; and he makes it more than once
an argument to reftrain his difciples from a fmful practice,
becaufe the *$, the nations, i. e. the Heathens did fo \
But to fay nothing more of a thing fo well known, it is eafy
to fee what notions the Jews had of all people befides thern-
felves, as impure and unfit for converfation, from the hiftory
of St. Peter's Vifion, Adls x. For nothing lefs than a mi-
racle would convince him of the lawfulnefs of his having
any converfation with thofe, whom they called the "EXA^*?
or ''&!, i. e. of any other country befides his own c . He held
it, as he fays, an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew
to keep company, or to come unto one born in another
country; the reafon of which was, becaufe they judged them
unclean, and were afraid of being polluted by them.
Now this premifed concerning the ufe and meaning of
thefe words in the New Teftament, I come to confider, how
our Syriack translator has rendered them.
I.) Tlie word "E>Mr, by which the Jews denoted all the
world befides themfelves, the Syriack interpreter very often
tranjlates by |V \ > i. e. a profane, impious, finful perfon.
See Johnvii. 35. Acts xviii. 4, 17. Mar. vii. 26. In other
places he tranflates it J-*^O^ i. e. a Syrian, Aramceus. So
AcSts xvi. i, 3. xix. 10, 17. xx. 21. Rom. i. 16. ii. q, 10.
I Cor. i. 22, &c. x. 32. xii. i 3. Gal. ii. 3, 14. iii. 28. Col.
iii. 1 1. In other places j.^Q^Q-^ i. e. Gentiles. John xii. 2?.
A&s xxi. 28. Rom. iii. 9.
2.) The word '.$Wo f , i.e. a man of another nation, he
tranflates ^^L v /. e. profane or impious. Matth. vi. 7.
xviii. 17. 'E9mw--, (which we tranflate after the manner of
Gentiles) Gal. ii. 14. he tranflates JS^jpbjJ i. e. after the
manner of the Syrians ; and fo "E$cr, i. e. Gentiles, he renders
commonly ^.NCNQ .\ but very often \.\ I .* i. e. profa
So Matt. x. 5. i Cor. v. i. x. 20. xii. 2. I Pet. iv.
ane.
Matt, xviii. 17. { Aft.x. 28.
Matt. vi. 7, and 32.
Now
lo8 Tlie Syriack Verfion made in PART I.
Now from thefe tranflations I argue,
I. "That the tranjlator was one of the Jewijh nation ; elfe
it would have been impoflible for him fo exactly to have
formed his Verfion to the Jevvifh notions. Who elfe would
have taken every opportunity to have reprefented all the na-
tions of the earth in fuch a manner ? Nay, indeed, who be-
iides could have thought of it, and fo naturally formed himfelf
into the Jewifli way of fpeaking ? Is it likely any one but a
Jew would call all the world profane ? or can it be thought,
that a man, not accuftomed to give thefe characters, could have
fo readily on all occafions have done it? But to put the matter
out of doubt, I will fingle out one of his words, viz. J~x^Cj^
Armojo, which he moll commonly ufcs for "E>.\r lt , as may be
feen above. The word is the very fame with the old He-
brew ZZDiK, which fignified a Syrian, or native of Syria.
Now to underftand the reafon of this appellation, viz. why
Gentile and Syrian, or profane, were among the Jews fyno-
nymous terms ; we muft obferve, that though they were a
part of Syria, as the word is generally ufed by geographers,
yet they did not look upon themfelves as fuch, but always
had a very contemptible opinion of the Syrians, as being idola-
aters. So we find in Onkelos's Chaldee Verfion b^y and
W2~i^, i. e. uncircumcifed and Syrian, are ufed promifcuoufly
to denote any foreigner or profane perfon, Lev. xxv. 47. be-
caufe they were their neareft neighbours and idolaters j and
the firft idolaters mentioned in Scripture were Syrians, viz.
Thare, Nachor, and Laban d ; perhaps alfo becaufe when the
Ifraelites were taught to humble themfelves before God, in
their form of confeflion, were thefe words, Our father was
a Syrian ready toperijb'. Thus it came to pa's, that the
word Syrian among the Jews denoted a profane perfon, or an
idolater, as the word "EX^V did, when they wrote in Greek ;
and accordingly in the New Teftament f the Syrian woman
is called 'EM^K. Now the Syriack interpreter ufmg the word
Syrian for a Gentile or profane perfon, evidences that him-
d Bcchart. Phaleg. 1. 2. c. 5. Canv^:o Mvio:li;c. ad Matth, xviii.
e Deut. xxvi. 5. 17.
1 Markvu.26.Vid. omninyf' an.
felf
CHAP. xvir. or near the Apvjlh? Times. 1:9
felf was certainly a Jew; for to no other nation could thofe
words, Greek and Syrian^ be fynonymoufly.and promifcuoufiy
ufed for Idolaters or Heathens.
2. rfs this tranjlator ^<;as a Jew, fo from the translation of
thefe words it feems evident^ that he lived either before^ or not
long after the conquejl of 'Jerusalem. For when the Jews were
(battered abroad in the world, they who were become Chrif-
tians, fuch as this interpreter muft neceflarily be fuppofed to
be, could not but learn, that thefe diftindYions were now to
ceafe, and as the Apoftles taught them, it was neither Jew
nor Gentile , circumcifed nor uncircumcifed^ but the new creature
only, that was acceptable to God. While their temple ftood,
and they continued together as a people, one may well fuppofe,
that even a Chriftianized Jew would retain his former notions
of all the reft of the world being profane ; and indeed this
was really fa&, as to a great part of the convert Jews, and
the beft reafon that can be affigned for the Syriack tranflation
of the forementioned words. But afterv/ards they could not
but fee, I mean thofe of them who embraced Chriftianity,
that, as Chrift had foretold, their former differences were to be
laid afide, no perfons to be reckoned common and unclean,
all fmcere perfons, of whatever country, were equally accept-
able to God, &c. and in confequence of this, their old deno-
minations muft ceafe ; and fo this Verfion be made either
before, or foon after their difperfion.
Nor can it be objected, that the Syriack interpreter knew
no other words, whereby to tranflate the abovementioned
Greek ones ; for, it is certain, that he not only knew others,
but with a great deal of accuracy and juftjce has made ufe of
them. Thus when the word ' E?,?,^ in the New Teftament
is put to denote thofe, who were properly Grecians, or inhabi-
tants of Greece, he makes ufe of the word j-kJQ_ i. e. 'iWr,
or 'iMxf, a Greek, properly fo called. So when Paul, ac-
cording to the forementioned diftindlion of the Greeks,
divides all mankind into 'E?,;>.^a? and Bo^'ps?, he ufes the
word j-j-JG-j Rom. 5. 14.. and in another place, where he
thought the fame diftin&ion was made, viz. Col. iii. II. he
ufes
lie the Syr lack Verfion made in PART i.
ufes the i'ame word. So when he means the proper natives
of Greece, he calls them ) i in A&s xiv. I. xvii. 4, 12,
&c. and the Greek language he always ftyles s~J-JC~
as Luke xxiii. 38. Johuxix. 20. A<5ts ix. 29. xxi. 37. This
is a moft convincing argument, that where he tranflates the
word "AAr, profane^ he fpake according to the notions and
language of the Jews ; and therefore that he lived in the time
above-mentioned.
CHAP. XVIII.
The Syriack Tranjlation is of the greatejl Antiquity^ becaufe
there is a tnoft remarkable Agreement between it and our moft
ant tent Greek Manuscripts of the New Tejiament.
IH AV E in the foregoing chapter produced two feveral
inftances, or arguments, out of the Syriack Verfion, which
evidence its antiquity. The only one I fliall mention farther
is,
III. Its agreement with the bejl and nwjl antient copies of the
New Teftament. This, though perhaps it will not prove it
to be of that age I contend for, will at leaft prove it of very
great antiquity. He who will read Beza's larger Annotations
on the New Teftament, will frequently obferve, that the
Syriack tranflation and his famous manufcript, undoubtedly
the oldeft now in the world (which he gave to the Univerfity
of Cambridge', do in many things agree, where they both
differ from others. The fame maybe faid of feveral other
antient copies. I (hall omit inftances, which any one may
eafily collect, and only eftablifti farther its antiquity, by con-
fidering the omiflion of fome things, which are found in all
our printed copies ; firft premifmg, that I do not here deter-
mine any tiling concerning thofe paflages, the Syriack Verfion
being liable to the fame corruptions as the Greek copies.
This premiled, I obferve,
j. That
CHAP, xviii. or near the Apojlle? Tima. Ill
1. That our prefent Syriack Perfion has not the hijlcry cf the
adulterous %voman, John viii. It is indeed inferted in our
Englifh Polyglots, out of a manufcript of Archbifhop Ufher'sj
and afterwards by Schaaf from thence put into his late edition
in Holland, but was wanting in the old Syriack copy. And
fo we find in many of the moft antient Greek manufcripts,
and not mentioned by many of the olcleft Chriftian writers.
Moft of Beza's manufcripts indeed had its j but of a great
number which Maldonatc confulted b , but one had it. Eraf-
mus fays 5 , it was wanting in moft of the Greek copies, but
inferted at the end of fome of them. In the Greek Catena of
twenty three antient Fathers on John, not one had it k . Nei-
ther Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chryfoftom, Nonnus
(who wrote a Paraphrafe on John), nor TheophylacT:, &c.
make any mention of it ! . Father Simon faw many old manu-
fcripts in France, which had it not, only fome of them at the
end m . I need cite no more ; it is plain, it was formerly
wanting in many copies, which, with what has been faid
above, feems to be a good argument of the antiquity of the
Syriack Verfion.
2. The Verfion has not the famous controverted Text^ I John
v. 7. The late Dutch editor has unfairly inferted it in the
text, though he knew it was in no manufcript, and that what
he inferted was only Tremellius's tranflation out of Greek".
As the former verfes, fo this alfo is wanting in almoft all the
antient manufcripts, and is not cited by any of the antient
writers againft the Arians in the fourth century, nor even in
the Council of Nice j though fome fuppofe it v/as made ufe
of by Cyprian before that time . But this is a well-known
fubjecl. I only infer, that the want of this Text in the very
oldeft manufcripts, proves the great antiquity of the Syriack
Verfion.
8 Annot. in Joan. vii. 53. ' Bez. loc. cit.
h Comment, in Joan. viii. apud m Simon, loc. cit.
Simon. Critic. Hift. of the N. TelL n Var. Left, ad Calc. Teit. Sy-
Par. i. c. 13. riac.
' Annot. in loc. Father Simon's Critic. Hift. of
k Vid. Simon, loc. cit. the New Tcft. Par. i.-c. 18.
?. The
112 The Syriack Verfion made^ &c. PART 1.
3. The eld Syriack Verfion has not In It the four Cathollck
EpiftleS) (viz. the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of
John, and the Epiftle of Jude) nor the Revelation. It is true,
thefe are added in the laft printed editions, as I have obferved
above, but were wanting in the old manufcripts, which I take
to be a very confiderable proof of the antiquity of the Verfion ;
for their being wanting muft neceflarily proceed from one of
thefe three caufes, viz. either,
i.) Becaufe they were not written, when this Verfion was
made j or,
2.) Becaufe the knowledge of them was not yet come to
the Syrian Churches, for whom this translation was made ;
or,
3.) Becaufe they were riot yet univerfally received into the
number of Canonical books.
Now whichfoever of thefe be faid, the antiquity of the
Verfion will be fumciently eftablifhed. But the firft of thefe
feems moft probable ; becaufe, as I (hall hereafter fhew, the
Churches of Syria did both know and receive feveral of thefe
books at leaft as Canonical in the fecond century, as it is cer-
tain they do now p , though it feems they are not ordinarily
bound with the others in the fame volume, and read in their
Churches ; a very probable reafon of which the reader may fee
in Mr. Richardfon's Anfwer to Toland's Amyntor^. Until
therefore any thing more probable can be faid on the contrary,
which I dare fay has not yet been done, I think it fair to
conclude, that the four Canonical Epiftles abovementioned
not being in the old Syriack copies of the New Teftament,
evidences this Verfion was made before they were written.
This argument was thought fo conclufive by Xremellius r ,
:ind our learned Biftiop Walton % that from it they were per-
fuaded to believe this Verfion was made in the Apoflles' time.
Thus have I largely endeavoured to evince the antiquity
of the Syriack Verfion; from which how evidently the truth
P So Guiclo Fabritius a flu res us, r Piref. in Nov. Teft. Syr.
:n Vtri: Lat. Syr. Telt. Proleg. in Bib, Polyglott. xiii.
$ '5-
of
CHAP. xix. Objections again/} the Antiquity &c. 113
of my Propofition follows, every one muft fee at once : viz.
how much it confirms the Canonical authority of any book,
that it is found there, and how much it contributes towards
fettling the true number of Canonical books.
CHAP. XIX.
Some Objections againft the Antiquity of the Syriack Tranjlation
anfwered.
IT may perhaps be judged neceflary, that, before I leave
this fubje&, I fhould give the reader fome account of what
has been faid contrary to my hypothecs of the age of this Ver-
fion ; though I proteft ferioufly, I know not myfelf, nor have
yet met with any thing, that can with any force be obje&ed.
But to omit nothing in a matter of fuch confequence, I will
propofe all that I know has been, or can be objected.
I . Mr, Walter, a learned Bijhop in Germany c , though he
allow this Verfion (what he calls omnem laudem antiquitatis)
the greatejl antiquity^ is afraid to fuppofe it made either by the
Apoftles, or in their tirne^ or even in the times immediately fuc-
ceeding them ; becaufe, fays he, then it would be of divine
authority.
But nothing can be more weak than this ; for,
(i.) It does not at allfollow y that it mujl be of divine autho-
rity^ becaufe it was made by fome honejl Chriftian in their time ;
unlefs we fuppofe every writer of their time under the conduct
of infpiration : much lefs does it follow, that it muft be di-
vine, becaufe it was wrote by a perfon immediately after their
time ; for if fo, then the writings of Papias, one of the weakeft
of authors, the writings attributed to Ignatius, Clemens, or
any one, who had the good fortune to be born then, muft
have been divine. But,
* Officin. Bibl. . 345.
VOL. I. I ( 2 .) If
114 Objeftlons again/I the Antiquity PARTI.
(2.) If there were arguments fufficient to prove it made by
the Apoftles, which is fuppofed in his reafoning,, I cannot fee
this Jhould be any reafon for our not believing it to be fo ; viz.
becaufe then it would have divine authority ; for by the fame
reafon we may reject any one of thofe books, which are cer-
tainly known to be theirs.
2. He farther urges , that it is not mentioned by Clemens
Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, dthanajius, TJjeophilus, Epi-
phanius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, t2c. who wrote in Syria
or Egypt. To which it will be fufficient to anfwer, that
moft of them, if not all, were ignorant of the language, and
fo could not cite it, or had no occafion to cite it ; which I
may fafely aflert, till it is proved that they had. But, if my
memory do not fail me, Bifhop Walton, in his XIII. Prole-
gom. before the Polyglot, fhews, that Chryfoftom did cite it
in his Homily on Heb. xiii.
3. Mr. Du Pinfuppofes it made in the fifth or fexth century*
becaufe of the addition to the Lord's Prayer, viz. the Doxolo-
gy, and the -word Eucharijl is put there in/had of Bread, -which,
fays he, does not favour much of antiquity ". The firft of thefe
fhall be confidered prefently ; the laft of thefe objections, viz.
about the word Euchariji, is founded upon a very great mif-
take, which one would wonder fo great a mafter of antiquity
fhould be found guilty of; for, to mention no others, I have
obferved the word Ei^a^a feveral times in this fenfe in no
later a writer than Juftin Martyr % who, as has been proved,
lived very near the Apoftles' time. Nor indeed is it at all
ftrange the word fhould have been thus early ufed, when we
confider, that the original of it was the Apoftles' ufmg the
verb Evx<zfn-iu to denote our Lord's aition in celebrating this
ordinance y .
4. Grotius z (as well as Du Pin) imagines this Verfion
made after the ufe of Liturgies came into the Church ; becaufe
u Hift. of the Canon of the New 16 1 .
Teft. c. 4.. f. 2. J See Matt. xxvi. zj. Luk.xxii.
1 Apol. z. pr Chrift. p. 97*98. 19.
& Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. p. 260, * Annot. in Matt. vi. 1 3.
CHAP. xix. of the Syriack Verfion anfwered. 115
in it, at the end of the Lord's Prayer, we read the Doxology*,
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever; which, not being to be found in the mojl antient Greek
copies, they conclude was put into them after the ufe of Litur-
gies, and this Verfion made out offuch a copy.
This obje&ion, I confefs, appears very plaufiblej but
the force of it will be eafily taken away, if it appear,
(i.) That the Doxology is as old as the Prayer itfelf.
(2.) If we confider, that we may as eafily fuppofe this paf-
fage, if it be at all an interpolation, inferred into the Syriack
Verfion, as into the Greek copies.
f I.) The Doxology feetns to be as old as the Prayer itfelf :
for,
I.) // is certainly in the be/I, moji antient, and almojl all the
Greek manufcripts in the world. Erafmus, though he difputes
againft the paflage b , acknowledges he found it in all the
Greek copies : and Brugenfis aflures us, it was extant in all,
except one manufcript at Paris c .
2. ) Chryfojlom, Euthymius, TheophylacJ, and others of the
Greek Fathers, read the paJJage A .
3.) It appears manifejlly cited by Clemens Romanus twice, in
the end of his firjl Epi/lle to the Corinthians c .
4.) The genuinenefs of the pajjage feems to me fully demon-
Jlrated by that excellent observation of the mojl ingenious and
truly learned Mr. Gregory f , out of Lucian's Phi/opatris.
That merry writer having been ridiculing, according to his
cuftom, the Chriftian Religion and do&rines (particularly
the doctrine of the Trinity, that three Jhould be one, and one
three, &c.) in the end of the dialogue has thefe words: Say
no moreofthofe people, but begin your prayer with [the word]
Father, and end it with the famous Hymn *. By this it is evi-
a Matt. vi. 13. aux Corinthiens. Le Cltrc in N.
b Annot. in loc. Teft. Gallic, ad loc.
c Apud Gla(T..Philol.Sacr. 1. i. f See his Works, c. 38.
Tract. 2. .2. B "flf- e ictyoii TyT<?c, T^X tv%r,y
" Glair - loc ' cit ' aVo nTgi f agdptw K xl TV, vo-
e Onvoit de femblables Doxolo- tomvpuuu&i tit rfaosiir&ift. Lu-
gies dans TEpltre dc Saint Clement cian . Philopatr. juxt. finem.
I 2 dent
Il6 Qbjeflions again/I the Antiquity PAB.T I.
dent he muft intend what we call the Lord's Prayer ; and if
fo, then the ts^vliv^ uar> can mean nothing but the Doxo-
logy, and if fo, the teftimony is beyond exception, that the
claufe was annexed to the Prayer in Trajan's, or at leaft
Marcus Antoninus's time.
5.) It is farther urged by the fame incomparable Mr. Gre-
gory, that our Lord gathered bis Form of Prayer out of tbt
tradition of the Elders, i. e. the Jewijh prayers, and that
this Doxology was among them. This he proves, by producing
the Jewifli prayers at length out of their books, which is
more fully done by Dr. Lightfoot h , Drufius 1 , and Capellus k .
Now hence it follows, the Doxology muft be as old as the
Prayer ; though I muft own, I am apt to fufpect, that though
the words of our Lord's Prayer are in the Jewifli Euchologies,
yet that thefe were taken from the Chriftians, rather than the
contrary. Neverthelefs, they are of antiquity fufEcient to
prove the point in hand.
I cannot therefore but blame the rafhnefs of Erafmus *,
Beza "/and others, who have upon flight grounds juftled this
pafiage out of Scripture, and reckoned it a trifling addition to
the text, as Erafmus in fo many words calls it. All that I
know can be objected is, that /'/ is not at the end of this Prayer
in Luke, nor in the oldeft Latin copies, nor cited by the Latin
Fathers ; for anfwer to which I fhall only refer the reader to
what is above faid, to GlaiHus's Diflertation on this fubje& n ,
and Dr. Whitby's Examen of Dr. Mills' Various Letions.
I conclude then, that this Doxology being as old as the
Prayer itfelf, can be no argument againft the antiquity of the
Syriack Verfion. But,
(2.) Suppofe the Doxology really an interpolation into the
Greek copies', and not originally a part of the Prayer itfelf>
the antiquity of the Syriack Verfion will not be at all hurt hereby.
It is true, the Liturgies and Forms of prayer, as this ob-
jection of Grotius, Du Pin, and, as I find fmce, of Dr. Mills,
h Hor. Heb. in Matt. vi. 7 13. ra Loc. jaracit.
' Preterit, in loc. u Philol. Sacr.
k Spicileg. in loc. Lib. a. cap. i. . i.
1 Amiot. in loc.
fuppofes,
CHAP. xrx. cfthe Syriack Verfion anjwered. 117
fuppofes, were of late ufe in the Church ; and if the Syriack
tranflation was made after thefe, I am ready to grant, what
thefe gentlemen contend for, that it was not made near the
Apoftles' time. But let the ufe of Liturgies be as late as they
pleafe, and the interpolation of the Doxology even after them;
yet, I fay, it does not follow, that the Syriack Verfion was
made after, becaitfe ^ve may as well fuppofe an interpolation of
the Syriack, as the Greek text. I have the pleafure in this
thought to join with Father Simon p , who well argues thus :
No argument, fays he, can be weaker than this is again/} the
antiquity of the Syriack Verfion. If this addition was inserted
into the Greek copies, why may not the fame thing be affirmed
of the Syriack Verfeon, which might be revised or altered in that
place conformable to the Greek copies -, cfpecially fence the Syrian
Churches had their Liturgies from the Greeks ?
Thus does not this objection anyway detract from the an-
tiquity of the Syriack Verfion, nor contradict the truth of
my hypothecs, that it was made in or near the Apoftles'
time ; of which I (hall fay now no more, but leave the fubjedt
with one or two, which fecm to me important. Corollaries.
Coroll. I, The antiquity of the Syriack Verfion wonderfully
confirms the purity and incorruption of the printed copies of the
New TeJIament. The connection of this is the agreement
there is between them both ; and this is not only very great,
but even furprifmg to one who confiders, that our prefent
Greek was compiled according to the judgment and difcre-
tion of one fingle perfon, out of a great number of differing
manufcripts. That there is fuch an agreement, I aver upon
a long and clofe obfervation. Now that this agreement
fhould be, and the places in which they agree be corrupted, is
the moft abfurd fuppofition imaginable. Each muft prove
the other to be genuine ; unlefs we can fuppofe a combination
in the Churches of the Eaft and Weft to corrupt their copies
in the fame places, without any reafon in the world.
' Critic. Hift. N.Teft. Par. I. c. 13.
I 3 Coroll.
1 i 8 Objections againjl the Antiquity &c . PART I.
Coroll. II. The Syriack Verfion is of very great feruice in
explaining many pajjages in the New Teftament. He who will
confider, that this was the language, which our Saviour and
his Apoftles fpake to each other, the idiom of which is pre-
ferved in the (acred writings ; he who believes this interpre-
ter to have lived among thofe who fpake this language, and
to have known htmfelf the cuftoms referred to in our Saviour's
and his Apoftles' difcourfes, muft needs conclude him a very
good guide in the explication of them. 1 will not produce
any inftances here, it being not directly to my purpofe; but
do venture to fay, that very many of the moft obfcure places
in the New Teftament are in this Verfion, by the fkill of the
tranflator, and the idiom of the language, happily explained ;
and fo explained, as perhaps there was no other way of com-
ing at the true meaning of the text. This is commonly ob-
ferved, and many inftances of it are produced by Martini and
others ; and many more may be found in the writings of Ca-
faubon, Fuller, Spanheim the elder, De Dieu, and others.
I wifh this may be thought by any one an argument to incite
him to the ftudy of this language, and the New Teftament
in it.
CHAP.
f "9 1
CHAP. XX.
An Alphabetical Table of all the Apocryphal Pieces not extant.
HAVING above produced the names of all the books,
that may feem to lay any claim to Canonical authority,
and which are now not extant, I fhall finifli this part with an
alphabetical table of the fame, with the feveral places where
they are mentioned, that fo the reader may at one view, and
with more eafe, fee how great their number is, and how fre-
quently they are mentioned by the antient writers of Chrifti-
anity.
A.
1. The Acts of Andrew. Eufeb. H'tfl. EccL I, 3. c. 25.
Philajir. Haref. 87. Epiphan. Hceref. 47. . I. Haref. 6 1.
. I. fcf Haref. 63. . 2. Gelaf. in Decret. *
2. Books under the name of Andrew. Augujt. contr. Ad-
verfar. Leg. & Prophet. /. i . c. 20. et Innocent. I. Epijt. 3.
ad Exuper. Tholof. Epifc. . 7.
3. The Gofpel of Andrew. Gelaf. in Decret.
A Gofpel under the name of Apelles. Hieron. Prtsfat. in
Comment, in Matth.
The Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles. Origen.
Homil. in Lite. i. i. Ambrof. Comment, in Luc. i. i. et Hieron.
Prcefat. in Comment, in Matth.
B.
The Gofpel of Barnabas. Gelaf. in Decret.
1. The Writings of Bartholomew the Apoftle. Dionyf.
Areopagit. de Theol. Myjl. c. I.
2. The Gofpel of Bartholomew. Hieron. Catal. Script.
Ecclef. in Pant an. & Prof at. in Comm. in Matth. Gelaf, in
Decret.
The Gofpel of Bafilides. Orig. in Luc. i. i. Ambrof. in
Luc. \. i. Hieron. Prafat. in Comm. in Matth.
* Apud Concil. Sanft. Tom. 4. p. 1260.
I 4 2. Th
120 An Alphabetical Table of PART. I.
C.
1. The Gofpel of Cerinthus. Epiphan. Haref. 51. . 7.
2. The Revelation of Cerinthus. Caius Prejb. Rom. lib.
Difput. apud Eufeb. Hijl. Eccl L 3. c. 28.
1. An Epiftle of Chrift to Peter and Paul. Augujl. de
Confenf. Evang. /. i. c. 9, IO.
2. Some other Books under the name of Chrift. Ibid. c. 3.
3. An Epiftle of Chrift, produced by the Manichecs.
Augujl. contr. Fauf. I. 28. c. 4.
4. A Hymn, which Chrift taught his Difciples. EpiJ?.
ad Ceret. Epifc.
E.
The Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Clem. Alex.
Strom. I. 3. p. 452, 465. Origen. in Luc. i. I. Hieron.
Prof, in Comm. in Matth. Epipban. Haref. 62. . 2.
The Ads of the Apoftles, made ufe of by the Ebionites.
Epiphan. Haref. 30. . 1 6.
The Gofpel of the Ebionites. Epiphan. Haref. 30. . 13.
The Gofpel of the Encratites. Epiphan. Haref. 46. . I.
The Gofpel of Eve. Epiphan. Haref. 26. . 2.
H.
The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Hegeftpp. lib.
Comment, apud Eufeb. Hijt. Eccl. I. 4. c. 22. Clem. Alex.
Strom. 1. 2, p. 380. Origen. Tracl. 8. in Matth. xix. 19.
& lib. 2. in Joan. p. 58. Eufeb. Hi/I. Eccl. I. 3. c. 25, 27,
et 39. Jerome in many places, as above.
The Book of the Helkcfaites. Eufeb. Hi/1. Eccl. I. 6.
c. 38.
The falfe Gofpels of Hefychius. Hieron. Prafat. in
Evang. ad Damaf. Gelaf. in Decret.
J.
1. The Book of James. Origen. Comm. in Mattb.x\\\+
55> 56-
2. Books forged and publifhed under the name of James.
Epiphan. Haref. 30. . 23. Innocent. I. Epijt.^. ad Exuper.
Tholof. Epifc. . 7.
i. The
CHAP. xx. ^pocryphai. Pieces not extant. 121
1. The Aas of John. Eufeb. Hijl. Eccl. I. 3. c. 25.
Athanaf. in Synopf. . 76. Philajlr. Heeref. 87. Epiphan.
H(sref. 47. . i. Augujl. contr. Adverf. Leg. I. \. c. 20.
2. Books under the name of John. Epiphan. Hceref. 30.
. 23. et Innocent. I. ibid.
A Gofpel under the name of Jude. Epiphan. Haref. 38.
5.1.
A Gofpel under the name of Judas Ifcariot. Iren. adverf.
Hteref. I. i. c. 35.
L.
The A&s of the Apoftles by Leucius. Augujl. lib. de
Fide contr. Manich. c. 38.
The A&s of the Apoftles by Lentitius. Auguft. de Aft.
cum Fcelic. Manich* /. 2. c. 6.
The A6ls under the Apoftles' name by JLeontius. Augujl.
de Fide contr. Manich. c. 5.
The A6ts of the Apoftles by Leuthon. Hieron. Epijl. ad
Chromat. & Heliodor.
The Books of Lentitius. Gelaf. in Decret.
The falfe Gofpels, publifhed by Lucianus. Hieron,
Prafat. in Evang. ad Damaf.
M
Books under the name of Matthew. Epiphan. Haref. 30.
.23-
1. The Gofpel of Matthias. Grig. Comm. in Luc. i. r.
Eufeb. Hi/t. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25. Ambrof. in Luc. i. i. Hieron.
Prafat. in Comment, in Matth.
2. The Traditions of Matthias. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 2.
p. 380. /. 3. p. 436. fcf /. 7. p. 748.
3- A Book under the name of Matthias. Innocent I. ibid.,
The Aas of the Apoftles ufed by the Manichees. Augufl.
lib. cant. Adimant. Manich. c. 17.
The Gofpel of Marcion. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. 4,
c . 2. &f 4. Epiphan. Hesref. 42. Procem.
The Gofpel of Merinthus. Epiphan. Haref. 51. . 7.
The
122 An Alphabetical Table of PART r.
N.
The Gofpel according to the Nazarenes. See above con-
cerning the Gofpel according to the Hebrews.
'P.
The Gofpel of Perfeaion. Epipban. Haref. 26. . 2.
1. The A#s of Paul and Thecla. Tertull. de Baptifm.
c. 17. Huron. Catal. Script. Eccl. in Luc. Gelaf. in Decret.
2. The Aas of Paul. Orig. de Princip. /. i. c. 2. &
lib. 21. in Joan. Tom. 2. p. 298. Eufeb. HiJ}. Eccl. I. 3. c. 3.
fcf 25. Pkilajlr. Haref. 87.
3. The Preaching of Paul (and Peter.) LaHant. de Ver.
Sap. 7.4. c. 21. Script, anonym, ad calcem Opp. Cypr. and,
according to fome, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 6. p. 636.
4. A Book under the name of Paul. Cyprian. Epijl. 27.
5. The Revelation of Paul. Epipban. Heeref. 38. . 2.
Augufl. Traft. 98. in Joann. in fin. Gelaf. in Decret.
1. The Aa's of Peter. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. I. 3. c. 3.
Atbanaf. in Synopf. S. Scriptur. . -6. Philajlr. Haref. 87.
Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. in Petr. Epiphan. Haref. 30.
.15-
2. The Doarine of Peter. Orig. Procem. in libr. de
Princip.
3. The Gofpel of Peter. Serap. lib. de Evang. Petri
apud Eufeb. Hi/}. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 12. Tertull adv. Marc. 1. 4.
c. 5. Orig. Comment, in Matt. xiii. 55, 56. Tom. I. p. 223.
Eufeb. Hi/?. Eccl. /. 3. c. 3. csf 25. Hieron. Catal. Script.
Ecclef. in Petr.
4. The Judgment of Peter. Ruffin. Expofit. in Symbol.
Apojlol. . 36. Hieron. Catal. Script. Ecclef. in Petr.
5. The Preaching of Peter. Heracl. apud Orig. I. 14.
in yoan. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. i. p. 357. /. 2. p. 390. /. 6.
p. 635, 636, (if 678. Theodot. Byzant. in Excerpt, p. 809.
ad calc. Opp. Clem. Alex. Laftant. de Ver. Sap. I. 4. c. 21.
Eufeb. Hi/I. Ecclef. I. 3. c. 3. et Hieron. Catal. Script.
Ecclef. in Petr.
6. The Revelation of Peter. Clem. Alex. lib. Hypotypof.
apud Eufeb. Hi/}. Eccl. I. 6. f. 14. Theodot. Byzant. in
Excerpt*
CHAP. xx. Apocryphal Pieces not extant. 123
Excerpt, p. 806, 807. ad cole. Opp. Clem. Alex. Eufeb. Hi/I.
Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. fcf 25. /f/Vnw. CataL Script. Eccl. in Petr.
7. Books under the name of Peter. Innocent. I. Epi/l. 3.
ad Exiiper. Tholof. Epifc. .7.
1. The Ads of Philip. Gelaf. in Decret.
2. The Gofpel of Philip. Epiphan. Haref. 26. . 13.
S.
The Gofpel of Scythianus. Cyrill. Catech. VL . 22.
& Epiphan. Hceref. 66. . 2.
The Aas of the Apoftles by Seleucus. Hieron. Epijl. ad
Ckromat. & Heliodor.
The Revelation of Stephen. Gelaf. in Decret.
T.
The Gofpel of Tatian. Eufeb. Hijl. Eccl I 4. c. 29.'
The Gofpel of Thaddams. Gelaf. in Decret.
The Catholiclc Epiftle of Themifon. Apollon. lib. cont.
Cataphryg. apud Eufeb. Hiji. Eccl I 5. c. 18.
The Gofpel of Truth. Iren. adv. Haref. /. 3. c. II.
1. The A6ls of Thomas. Epiphan. Hairef. 47. . i. &
6 1. . I. Athanaf. in Synopf. S. Script. . 76. &? Gelaf. in
Decret.
2. The Gofpel of Thomas. Orig. in Luc. i. i. Eufeb.
Hift. Eccl. I 3. c. 25. Cyrill. Catech. IV. . 36. et Catech.
VI. .31- Atnbrof. in Luc. i. i. At ban. in Synopf. S. Script.
. 76. Hieron. Pr<zf. in Comment, in Matth. Gelaf. in
Decret.
3. The Revelation of Thomas. Gelaf. in Decret.
4. Books under the name of Thomas. Innocent. I. Epift. 3.
*d Exuper. Tholof. Epifc. . 7.
V.
The Gofpel of Valentinus. Tertull. de Prafcript. adv.
Hceret. c. 49.
A METHOD
A
METHOD
FOR
SETTLING THE CANON
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
PART II.
CHAP. I.
Tht Defign of the Second Part. Some general Obfervation*
premifed. That feveral Titles were given formerly to one
Book. That feveral of the Apocryphal Books were made out
of our prefent Canonical Books. That no Apocryphal Books
have been ever appealed to by the Chriftians as of Authority,
HAVING, in the preceding Part of this volume, endea-
voured to make a complete enumeration of ail the lojl
Apocryphal books of the New Tejlament, and laid down feveral
Proportions^ by which they may be diftinguiftied from thofe,
which are truly Canonical-, I proceed in this Part to make a
particular and critical enquiry into each of thefe books, and, by
an application of the abovementioned rules, to demonftrate,
that no one of them tver waf, or ought to be y reputed of the
Canon 5
Il6 The Defign of this Boot. PART n.
Canon ; withal producing every fragment, and every thing elfe
that is/aid concerning them by any Chrijlian writer, or writers
of the fir jl four centuries after Chrijl.
But, before I enter upon this work, I think it neceflary to
premife a few Obfervations, which may be ferviceable to give
light to the whole ; viz.
O B S E R V. I.
Thatfeveral of the different Titles in the preceding Catalogue of
lofl Books, belonged to one and the fame Book.
So it frequently happened, that many of thofe pieces which
appear either to have been entirely the fame, or very little dif-
ferent, patted under two, or three, or more different denomi-
nations. Thus the Gojpel according to the Hebrews, the Gof-
pel according to the Nazarenes, the Gofpel of the Ebionites, the
Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles, the Gofpel of Cerinthus,
the Gofpel of Bartholomew, feem to have been the different
names of the fame Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, in fome
places perhaps altered and interpolated. So alfo the Afls under
the titles of Leucius, Lentitius, Leontius, Leuthon, Seleucus,
the Atts of the Apojlles made ufe of by the Manichees, and
feveral other titles, denoted only one fpurious book, which was
the forgery of Leucius Charinus. In like manner, the Re-
velation and Anabaticon of Paul were one book ; the Preach-
ing of Peter and Paul one book, and the fame with the Doc-
trine of Peter and feveral others.
Nor can it be thought ftrauge, that this variety of denomi-
nations fhould have happened to thofe books ; fmce we find
the very fame thing to have happened to fome of thofe books,
which are now received into the Canon of the New Tefta-
ment. The Gofpel, for inftance, which now goes under the
name of Mark, was formerly afcribed to Peter, and called his,
as we are informed both by Tertullian * and Jerome b . And
* Evangelium quod Marcus edi- qui auditor Petri et interpres fuit,
dit,Petri affirmatur. Adv.Marcion. bujusdicitur. Catal. Script. Ecclel'.
1. 4.. c. 5. in Petr. See below, chap. xxxi.
b Evangtliurn juxta Marcum, N. L.
tht
CHAP. i. Various Titles to one Book. 127
the Gofpel which we now call St. Luke's^ formerly went under
tht name of St. Paul^ as we are exprefsly aflured by the for-
mer of thofe antient writers c , infomuch that it was a prevail-
ing opinion among the primitive Chriftians, that when St.
Paul in his Epiftles exprefles himfelf thus, According to my
Gofpel^ which he feveral times doth d , he meant the Gofpel of
St. Luke. So Eufebius c , Jerome f , and others.
If it be enquired, whence this variety of denominations pro-
ceeded, I aflign the following reafons j viz.
1. The uncertainty perfons were under as to the author of the
book. This feems to have been the cafe in refpeft of the va-
rious titles of Luke and iMark's Gofpels.
2. The various denominations of the heretics^ who made ufe
of the fame book, occafioned its having a different title. For
inftance, hence it came to pafs that the Hebrew Gofpel was
fometimes called the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ and fometimes
the Gofpel of the Ebionites : And,
3. Becaufe it was not cujlomary for the authors of thofe times
to affix titles to their works j and fo their works being dif-
perfed into different countries, fome made ufe of one denomi-
nation, which they thought moft fuitable to the defign of the
book, others of another. Thus, for inftance, the book which
was by fome called the Preaching^ i. e. Sermons^ of Peter t
was by others called the Doclrine of Peter,
O B S E R V. II.
Several of the Books of the Catalogue were compiled out of thofe
Books which are now received into the Canon of the New Tef-
tament.
IT appeared to the heretics of thofe times a very probable,
as indeed in the event it proved a very fuccefsful, method,
c Tertull. loc. jam cit. to iv^y^ov uov. Hilt. Eccl. 1. 3-
Rom. ii. 16. xvi. 25. See 0.4.
alfo Gal. i. 8. t Theff.Ji. 14. , 'Qnidam fufpicantur quotief-
<J>ao-t 2t us ufat T xa$' etCrcr cunque in epiftolis fuis Paulus dicit,
(Lucam) ^ay/jXy (4.r,iMivei o juxta puangelium meutn. de Lucje
l l$iov fignificare volumine. Catal. Script.
T, V Eccld "- in Luc "
to
jjg Several Apocryphal Books PART n.
to propagate their favourite notions under the name of fome
Apoftle } this, they faw, would procure them much greater
regard and efteem, and this gave birth to moft of thefe Apo-
cryphal compofures. But though fome of them boldly ven-
tured to prefix the Apoftles' names to that which was entirely
their own compofure, others more artfully mixed their own and
fome Apojlle's writings together^ retaining only fo much of his
writing, as would enable them with the greater confidence to
impofe their fpurious piece upon the world, as really bis,
Thus did the Nazarenes, Marcion, Hefychius, Lucianus, and
others.
O B S E R V. III.
JV0 Chri/lian Writer hath appealed to, or madt u/e of any $f
the Books of the preceding Catalogue (i. e. of the lojl Apecry-
phal Books of the New Teftament) as of any Authority.
ALTHOUGH the proof of this Propofition be the
main bufmefs of the fubfequcnt Part of this volume, yet
I thought it neceflary to premife fome general account of this
matter here, becaufe the main of the controverfy about the
Canon of the New Teftament does certainly depend upon
this queftion, viz. What thofe books are, which the primitive
writers of Chriftianity appealed to, as facred, in their writings,
or after what manner they appealed to them ? Mr. Dodwell,
Mr. Toland, and others, who have attempted to make the
Canon of Scripture precarious and uncertain, principally in-
fift upon this, That the prefent books of the Canon and others
are indifferently and promifcuoujly cited and appealed to in
the moft ancient records of the Chri/lian Religion. And inaf-
much as feveral learned men have too unguardedly dropt ex-
preflions of the like nature, I thought it not improper to give
the reader here the following general account of the manner^
in which thefe books are cited. I aflert then,
I . That, for the mojl part, the Apocryphal books abovemen-
ticned are exprefsly, and in fo many words, rejefled by thofe who
have mentioned them, as the forgeries of heretics y and Jo as
fpurious
CHAP, it made out of the Canonical. 129
fpurious and Apocryphal, This I aflert (upon the clofeft and
moft impartial enquiry into all the places of their writings,
where any of them are named) to be true as to almoft every
individual book.
2. When any book is cited, or feems to be appealed to by
any Chriftian writer, which is not exprefsly and in fo many
words rejected by him, there are other fujfi dent arguments to
prove that he did not ejleem it to be Canonical. Thus, for in-
ftance, though Origen in one or two places takes a paflage
out of the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, yet in another
place he rejects it under the name of the Gofpel of the Twelve
Apoftles, as a book of the hereticks, and declares, the Church
received only four Gofpels g .
3. Sometimes the Fathers made ufe of the Apocryphal
books to Jhew their learning^ or that the hereticks might not
charge them with partiality and ignorance^ as being acquainted
only with their own books. Remarkable to this purpofe are
thofe words of Origen h , the Church receives only four Gofpels ,
the hereticks have many, fuck as that of the Egyptians,
'Thomas^ &c. Tbefe we read^ that we may not be ejleemed igno-
rant , and by reafon of thofe who imagine they know fomething
extraordinary^ if they know the things contained in thefe books.
To the fame purpofe fays Ambrofe l ; having mentioned feve-
ral of the Apocryphal books, he adds, we read tbefe, that
they may not be read (by others); we read them, that we may not
feem ignorant ; we read them^ not that we may receive thern^ but
rejecJ them, and may know what thofe things are of which they
(hereticks) make fuch boajling.
4. Sometimes perhaps thefe books may be cited by the Fa-
thers, becaufe the perfons againjl whom they were writing did
receive them^ being willing to difpute with them upon principles
out of their own books ; though 1 believe there are no inftances
of this within my time.
B See below in this Part, Chap. ' Legirr.us, ne legantur; legi-
8. mns, ne ignoremus; le?imus lion
h Legimus, ne quid ignorare vi- ut teneamus, fed ut repuditmus, &
deremur, propter eos qui fe putant ut fciamus qualia lint in quibus
aliquid fcire, fi ifta cognoverint. magnifici ifti cor exultant fuura.
Homil. in Luc. i. i. Comment, in Lxic. i. i.
VOL. I. K 5. It
130 'The Reafon of citing tie dpccrypha. PART IT.
5. It may perhaps be true, that one or two writers have
cited a few paflages out of thefe books, becaufe the faft they
cited was not to be found in any other. St. John tells us,
chap. xxi. 25. that our Lord did many other things^ befides
thofe which he had recorded; the which ^ fays he, if they Jhould
be written every one, I fappofe the world itfelf could not contain
the books which Jhould be written. Some accounts of thefe
actions and difcourfes of Chrift were unqueftionably preferved,
and handed down to the fecond century, or farther, by tradi-
tion, which though inferted afterwards into the books of the
hereticks, may be eafily fuppofed to have been cited by fome
later writers, though at the fame time they efteemed the books
which contained them uninfpired, and not of the Canon. This
w,as the cafe as to Jerome's citing the Hebrew Gofpel, which
he certainly looked upon as fpurious and Apocryphal, as I
fhall hereafter prove.
C H A P. II.
A general Proof that no Book, once Canonical^ is lojl, from the
ordinary Conducl of Providence , the Zeal of the Gbri/i'ians,
and the early Difperfeon of the Sacred Books into mojl remote
Countries. A conjiderable Objeftion anfwered.
O B S E R V. IV.
>
No Book, which was once made or efteemed to be Part of the
Canon, is loft.
BEFORE I enter upon the particular examination of
the abovementioned Apocryphal books now loft, it may
be neceflary to premife fome general proof of this matter.
Every one who is acquainted with the writings of our firft
Reformers, muft often have obferved, that it was a queftion
very warmly difputed between them and the advocates of the
Reman Church, whether any infpired book? once received by the-
Church
CHAP. II. No Canonical Book loft. 131
Church as a part of the Canon, is by any accident or injury of
time loft and perijhed? The Papifts, contending always for
the insufficiency of our prefent revelation, thereby the better
to fupport their ridiculous fentiments of the neceflity of their
pretended traditions, have generally determined in the af-
firmative, and would perfuade us, that many of the mojl valu-
able parts of Scripture, both of the Old and New Teftament, are
now quite loft. Thus Bellarmine a , Pineda b , and many of the
beft writers among the Jefuits. This opinion of the Papifts,
as it appears evidently calculated to ferve a purpofe, would
be therefore lefs confiderable, if many other learned men had
not too unwarily efpoufed it, for the fake of avoiding fome
difficulties which they could not fo eafily folve without it.
Hence we meet with it in the writings of Chryfoftom c , Theo-
phylaft d , Calvin e ; and even our learned Whitaicer himfelf,
on this very queftion, allows f , that fome of thofe books are
now wanting, which were once conftituent parts of the Ca-
non of Scripture. This indeed is generally meant of fome
books of the Old Teftament, though the Papifts alfa aflert
it of the New e : I fhall therefore, without entering largely
into the controverfy, or fearching the commonplaces of the
perfection of the Scriptures^ offer only two or three reafons, by
which it will appear at leaft probable } that no facred and in-
fpirtd book is now wanting ; adding only fome few remarks
on what has been faid, which is moft confiderable, on the
other fide of the queftion.
I. It feems very dif agreeable to the ordinary conduft of divine
Providence^ to faffer a book wrote under the influences of the
holy Spirit to be loft. It feems to be no fmall reflection on the
wifdom of the divine Being, to fay he firft influenced the
writing of a fet of books (i. e. by his own extraordinary im-
preffions on men's minds caufed them to be written), and af-
terwards permitted them by chance, or the negligence of men,
De verb. Dei, 1. 4. c. 4.. Matth. iu 23.
DerebusSalom.l. i. c. I* .8. '" Controverf. I. de Scriptur.
Homil. 9. in Matth. ii. Quaeft. VI. c. 9.
In Matth. ii. in fine. 6 Vid. Turretin. Inftits Theol.
Vid. Calvin. Harm. Evang, in Loc. z. Quaeit. 7. . 3.
K 2 to
132 No Canonical Book loft. PART It.
to be irrecoverably loft. If they were not ferviceable to in-
ftru6l and direct mankind in the methods of attaining the great
ends of being, why were they at firft given ? If they were,
it feems hard to imagine, the fame kind Providence that gave
them, would again take them away. How high fuch a charge
as this doth rife, both againft the wifdom and goodnefs of di-
vine Providence, may eafily be perceived by every one who
will think impartially on the matter.
This arguing may be very much ftrengthened, by confi-
dering the great care which the divine Being in all ages took
to preferve thofe books^ which are novj received into the Canon
of the Old Teflament^ even when the perfons with whom they
were entrufted were under circumftances, in which, without
the influence of Heaven, it would have been almoft impoflible
for them to have preferved them. To inftance only that one
time when the Jews were under the tyranny of Antiochus
Epiphanes h , when although that monfter of iniquity laid their
temple and their city wafte, deftroycd all the facred books
he could meet wkh, and at length publiftied a decree, that
all thofe fhould fuffer immediate death, who did' not refign
their copies ; yet was the facred volume fafely preferved, and
taken care of by its author.
2. The zeal of the faithful at all times for their facred looks
was fuchy as would be a very effectual means to fecure them
from periflring. This is well known both of the Jews and
Chriftians ; and indeed no lefs can be reafonably imagined of
thofe, who looked upon thefe books as difcovering the me-
thods of obtaining eternal life, and that religion, for which
they willingly facrificed both themfelves and all they had.
Hence as under the barbarous perfecution of the Jews by An-
tiochus juft mentioned, fo under the Chriftian perfecution no
endeavours were wanting to extirpate and abolifh the Scrip-
tures. It is evident, the w?.rm zeal and diligent care of the
faithful preferved them ; and although the Emperor Dioclefian
in his imperial edidi, among other cruelties, enacted, that
h 'Hp*lrro & if era fl&loe *OTO. Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. lib.i z.
svp&ttt) p, noucf, > irotf oTf c. 7. Seealfo i Maccab. i. 56, 57.
NgOTfWj KJ srot XK<H, xaxw; UTTU-
all
CHAP. n. No Canonical Book loft. j 33
all the facred books fhould be burnt wherever they were
found ' ; yet as the courage and refolution of the Chriftians
baffled and fruftrated the defigns of his rage in all other in-
ftances, fo very remarkably in this. Nor indeed could it wel^
be otherwife, when we confider,
3. That the Canonical books were, not long after their publi-
cation^ difperfed into the moft diftant countries^ and in the pof-
fej/ion of innumerable p^rfons. The truth of this fadt has been
in fome meafure demonftrated in the former Part of this work
(Prop. II.) and the oppofite opinion of Mr. Dodwell refuted
(Corol. I. Prop. II.) I fhall therefore take the fa<3 now for
granted, and only hence infer, how improbable it is, nay,
almoft impoilible, that any book, fo efteemed as the Chrifti-
ans muft be fuppofed to efteem thofe books, which they ima-
gined to be di&ated by the Holy Ghoft, fo diffufed into the
moft remote countries, the copies of which would alfo be
continually multiplying and increafing, could by any accident
or chance, by any human force or power, or much lefs by
any carelefs neglect, be loft and irrecoverably perifh.
The moft confiderable, and indeed almoft all the proof that
has been attempted againft this opinion is, that there are fome
looks mentioned^ and others referred to both in the Old and New
leftamenty which feem to fyave been compofed by prophets and in-
fpired authors , andfo of conference Canonical^ which are now
entirely and irrecoverably loft. Among thefe are reckoned,
The book of the Wars of the Lord k , The book of Jafher ',
The book of Nathan and Gad m , The book of Shemaiah and
Iddo", the Prophets referred to by Matthew, chap. ii. 23.
The book of Enoch cited by Jude, ver. 14.
Thefe are the inftances generally produced by the Popifti
writers, to prove the imperfection of the Canon, as to fome
of its moft valuable parts ; which though I fhall not here par-
ticularly confider, having only concern with the New Tefta-
ment Canon, yet fhall make a few fuch remarks concerning
them, as may ferve to overthrow the objection, as far as it
1 Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 8. c. a. m i Chron. xxlx. 29.
k Num.xxi. 14. n z Chron. xii. 15.
1 Jolh. x. 13.
K 3 relates
134 4 noted Objsftion an fiver ed. PARTII.
relates to my Propofition of all truly Canonical books being
fill extant. I obferve then,
1. As to feveral of the books mentioned in the Old Tefta-
ment, which are fuppofed to be loft, perhaps they are the very
fame with fame of the now-reputed Canonical Scriptures, only un-
der different names. Thus the book of the Wars of the Lord
(if indeed it meant any book, which may be well queftioned)
was probably no other than the book of Numbers , or fame other
part of Mcfes's hiftorical writings. The books of Nathan
and Gad, Shemaiah and Iddo, were perhaps the fame with the
books of Samuel and Kings, 6fr .
2. If we fuppofe them diftinct from any now received, and
the genuine writings of men who were fometimes infpired, it
does not at all fellow, that thefe books were infpired, and fo re-
ceived as Canonical ; unlefs we will fuppofe, the fame perfons,
who were once under the conduft of inspiration, mttjl necejjarily
be always fo. This thought is fo well managed by St. AXiftin,
that I (nail give it the reader in his own words . " In the
" hiftories of the kings of Judah and Ifrael, feveral things are
" mentioned, which are not there explained, and are referred
u to as contained in other books which the prophets wrote ;
" and fometimes the names of thefe prophets are mentioned ;
" and yet thefe writings are not extant in the Canon which
" the Church of God receives. The reafon of which I can
c< account for no other way, than by fuppofmg, that thofe
" very perlbns to whom the holy Spirit revealed thofe things
" which are of the higheft authority in religion, fometimes
" wrote only as faithful hiftorians, and at other times as pro-
" phets under the influences of divine infpiration ; and that
" thefe writings are fo different from each other, that the one
" fort are to be imputed to themfclves as the authors, the
< other to God as fpeaking by them ; the former are of fer-
" vice to increale our knowledge, the other of authority in
" religion, and Canonical." So far he. To fapport which
fentiment, I will only add the inftance of Solomon's writings,
who, though undoubtedly infpired in fome of his writings,
DeCivit. Dei, lib, iS.c. 38.
yet
GHAP. II. Infpired Writers quote other Books. 135
yet can by none be fuppofed to be fo in all, as when he wrote
his Herbal^ his Five Thoufand Songs, his Differtations in
Natural Philofophy, about birds, infefls, fijhes, &V. P and, if
we will credit Jofephus,feme booh of Magic k and Conjuration,
in which were described effectual methods of cajling out devils,
and curing dijlempers by enchantment, with forms of excrcifing
evil fpirits, fo that they Jhould never return : an art, fays that
hiftorian, which our countrymen to this day retain from So-
lomon q . Such books (notwithftanding the famous hiftorian
pretends, that the arts which they contain were given him by
infpiration) I hope the moft bigotted advocate for tradition
would be unwilling to admit into his Canon, if they fhould
be ever found.
3. The bare citation of any book in an allowedly facred writ-
ing is not fuffcient to prove that book ever to have been Canoni-
cal. If it does, we muft then receive as the word of God the
Greek poems of Aratus, Menander, and Epirrienides; for
paflages are taken out of each of thefe by St. Paul r . And yet
this is all, which the Church of Rome can fay for feveral of
thofe books which they fuppofe are now wanting in the Canon.
But he who has a mind to read more of this controverfy may
fee it well managed by Whi taker s , Rivet 1 , Spanheim , and
Turretin *, in the places referred to at the bottom of the
page, as far as it concerns any books fuppofed to have been
once received by the old Jewifh Church, but now loft.
* See i Kings iv. 32, &c. Strom, lib. i. p. 314., 315. & lib.
q nf'x o' ctv-ru [j.aQ^ 9 too 5- P- 597- where there are more of
* TV X*TO. rZt A*utfw> T^W *K the fame P oet ' s verl ' es with this>
^x $ v a ' * >V- ' c %' xv ' 3 ^: the verfe> * fi "~
* 4K *l; f^ " r ' 9 '" "f S 8 ?J*^ al Jf a ff is
, / taken out or Menaiid. mThaid.
ra, x* TfOTTt? ^. .
7v/ Tit. i. 12. the ver/e,
.
, . , n ~. feUt X.&KCC. Vr.:tz, ynnfes apyat
T Mi f ^x,r E^aXSn, is taken out of Epimenicies.
feAMHWk Antiq. Jucl. 1. 8. c. 2. Conlroverf. I. deScnpt.Qnxit.
r Aratus is cited Aft. xvii. 28. VI. c. 9.
for thofe words, ra yap -/wo? ltrp.er. J liagog. ad Script. Sacr. c. 6.
He was a poet of Cilicia, where St. u Dub. Evang. Par. z. Dub.
Paul was horn. The words are in 8S, 89.
the beginning of his poem called * Inftit. Thcol. Lcc. 2. Quaeft.y.
thcenomena. .See Clem. Alex.
K 4 CHAP.
136 Whether St. Paul wrote more PART n
CHAP. III.
The Opinion of the mojl learned Men, grounded on I Cor. v. o
that St. Paul wrote another Epijlle to the Corinthians be-
f,des the two now extant, examined and confuted, by a criti-
cal DifcuJJion of the Place, and the Tcjiimony of Clemens
Romanus.
HAVING in the foregoing chapter attempted fome ge-
neral proof, that no truly Canonical book is now want-
ing, I apprehend I (hall not do juftice to that fubjecSt, if I do
not farther obferve, that many learned men, not only of the
Romifh, but reformed Church, have been perfuaded, that
St. Paul wrote feveral other Epijlles to the converted Churches,
bejides thofe which we now have. This Calvin, Beza, Grotius,
Cap^Hus, and many others have aflerted : Drufius has car-
ried the matter fomewhat farther 2 , and tells us, if thefe
pieces were now extant, they ought to be ejieemed as much Ca-
nonical as any others of his ivriting. The only foundation of
this hypothecs is, that St. Paulfeems to refer to a former Epi-
jlle of his, i Cor. v. 9. whence, fay thefe learned men, it is
probable he wrote another Epiftle to the Church of Corinth, be-
JidiS the two which are extant, and feveral other Epijiles now
quite perijhed. Mr. Le Clerc is fo very fanguine on this
head, as to fuppofe there might be good reafonsfor tearing and
burning them after they were read, and that we Jhould not have
been at all the lefs difciples of Chrift, if feveral of thofe Epijiles,
which we now have, had been loft*. But as this opinion ex-
ceedingly lefTens the authority of the Canon, I fhall here
briefly difcufs it, and critically enquire into that text, which
is the principal and indeed only foundation of it. But before
I come more particularly to make any enquiry, or examine
into this matter, I defire it may be carefully obferved, that
the examination I here propofe does no way interfere with the
enquiry I propofe to make into the books of the catalogue
Preterit. 1. 6. in loc. and the Vindication of Dr. Ham
Supplement to Dr. Hammond, mend, p. 53,54.
above ;
CHAP. in. than two Epijlles to the Corinthians. 137
above ; the queftion in that cafe being concerning books,
which, for the moft part, were certainly once really extant,
but are to be proved fpurious and Apocryphal : but the quef-
tion here is, whether fuch and fuch pieces ever were in being
at all ; which are fuppofed to have been really wrote by the
Apoftles. Inafmuch then as all that has been urged on the
affirmative fide of the queftion, is gathered from that one
text aforementioned, I apprehend, all that is neceflary will be
a particular difcuffion of that. In order to which I obferve,
That it has been thought by many, that St. Paul wrote an
Epljlle to the Corinthians, before either ofthofe of his Epijlles to
that Church, which are now extant. This hypothecs is founded
on thofe words of St. Paul, I Cor. v. 9. I wrote to you in an
Epijlle, not to company with fornicators : which Epiftle, they
fuppofe, muft neceflarily have been one preceding this. This
has been generally the opinion, not only of the writers of the
Romifh. Church, but alfo of many of the moft celebrated Pro-
teftants ; fuch as Calvin c , Beza d , Drufius e , Pareus f , Gro-
tius*, Mr. Le Clerc h , Dr. Collins 1 , Capellus, Dr. Mill k ,
and others, who make no doubt to affirm, that St. Paul did
not only, befedes the Epijlles, which we now have under his
name, write this former Epiftle to the Chriftians at Corinth,
but fever al others, now loji as this is ; and that we have very
great reafon with gratitude to acknowledge the kind providence
of God, which has preferred to us fo many cf the Apojlle^s writ-
ings. In anfwer to this opinion I would obferve,
I. That it is very improbable, becaufe, not one of the an-
tient Chriftian writers have ever mentioned any fuch Epiftle;
nor is there to be found, in all antiquity, any citation out of it,
or fo much as the mojl diftant reference to it: it being a thing
never thought of by any of the Fathers, that St. Paul wrote
more than the fourteen Epiftles we now have. Hence the
moft early writers of Chriftianity, who are fuppofed to have
c Comment, in loc. h Annot. in loc.
d Annot. in loc. s See his Englifh Annotations on
e Praeterit. lib.6. inlqc, this Epift'.e.
f Annot. in loc. * See Dr. Mill's Piolegom. . 8,
* Annot. in loc.
been
Ij3 A Pajjage of Clemens Romanus. PART ii
been contemporary with St. Paul himfelf, fuch as Clemens
Romanus, Polycarp, &c. though they feveral times takepaf-
fages out of his Epiftles, and even out of thofe two, which
are now extant, to the Church at Corinth, have not the leaft
obfcure intimation of any 6ther.
2. "Tliere are very many circumftances^ both relating to the
time and occafwn of that^ which we now call the firft Epiftle of
Paul to the Corinthians^ which will evidently prove^ that it
was the firft he ever wrote to that Church. For the proof of
this, I muft refer the reader to what is hereafter faid in the
particular differtation on this Epiftle.'
3. I offer it as a conjecture to the learned in Chriftian
antiquities, whether the following paffage in Clemens Romanus
do not prove the Epiftle now called the firft to the Corinthians^
to be the firft which St. Paul wrote to that Church. The words
of Clemens are ', " Take again the Epiftle of the blefied
** Apoftle Paul into your hands. What was it that he firft
** wrote to you in the beginning of his Epiftle ? He did truly
by the Spirit write to you concerning himfelf, and Cephas,
" and Apollos, becaufe even at that time you were formed
* into divifions or parties." The pafiage he refers to of St.
Paul is plainly that in the firft chapter of the prefent firft Epif-
tle, v. 1 2. No^u this I fay-, that every one of you faith^ I am of
Paul^ and I of Apollos^ and I of Cephas^ &c. Now, fays
Clemens, this is what St. Paul firft of all wrote to you y or
what he wrote the firft time of his writing; than which I can-
not fee what elfe it was poflible for Clemens to mean by the
words ^TO TypavJ/w. Now hence I argue, that ifClemens, who
is fuppofed contemporary with St. Paul, and to have wrote
this Epiftle to the Church of Corinth, not long after St. Paul,
did imagine that Apoftle had wrote no Epiftle to that Church
before that which he there cites, and which is now called the
TB T Kr)(p,
a tort fyfoa-
iip.ci; 7iwo^ff'Sai. Epilt.
Kj iir V,vtij wf^aTxaf i. ad Corinth, p. 106.
tHAp.iii. i Con v. 9. difcufled. 139
frj} y we have the faireft reafon to conclude, there was no one
written fooner.
The only objection which I can think of, that can be
made againft this, is, that what Clemens calls Paul's Gofpel
[ESay/Jxitf] I tranflate his Epiftle. To which it is eafy to an-
fwer, that befides that the words, which he cites, are in the
forementioned place of his Epiftle, it has been often obferved
by Clement's commentators" 1 , that the word Gofpel is ufed
frequently for any of the facred books of the New Teftament,
as the word Law is frequently put for all the books of the
Old".
4. It being thus probable, that St. Paul did not write a
former Epiftle to the Corinthians, we have juft ground to In-
terpret the contefted pajjage in a different fenfe from that com-
monly received; and this, I think, may be very eafily done,
without any violence done to the expreffion, of this fame
Epijlle^ and what he had before wrote to them in it. "Ey^
IIMV E rrj InriroArf, / have wrote to you in the Epijlle, or this
Epijlle i i. e. I have told you in the foregoing part of my letter.
So he had indeed feveral times in the preceding part of the
chapter, ver. 2, 5, 6. that they fhould have no converfation
with the inceftuous perfon. I know it is commonly objected,
that this fenfe cannot be juft, becaufe of the words ver. n.
But now / have written to you ; which, fay Beza, Pareus, and
Le Clerc, mujl needs be meant of another dijlintt time of writ-
ing, and not the fame \ and this indeed is the main ftrength of
their opinion. But a clofe confideration of the context will
make it very clear, that no fuch inference can be juftly drawn
from the words, Nt> ^\ ty^a^a. /*!>, but now I have written to
you. In the beginning of the chapter he had declared to them,
it was their duty to avoid the fociety of fornicators, and fuch
fort of perfons. -It is plain from ver. 10. he apprehended they
were in danger of miftaking his meaning, by extending the
prohibition fo far, as not to have any converfe at all with the
world; i. e. with the Gentiles, who were generally guilty of
m SeePatr. Junius ?ind Dr. Fell * John x. 34.. xv. 25. & i Cor.
in loc. xlv. -2.1.
thefc
140 i Cor. v. 9. dlfcuffed. PART 11.
thefe crimes. The Apoftle found it necefiary to prevent their
miftake, and therefore repeats what he had before wrote,
and tells them how they fhould underftand it, viz. only with
relation to the profej/ors of Cbriflianity, who were guilty of
thefe execrable vices. This occafioned the words, Nf <&
'iy^^a, vpiv, which will be more clear from the following pa-
raphrafe of ver. 9, 10, II.
Verfe 9. " I wrote to you a little above, in my letter,
<c that you fhould feparate from thofe who were fornicators,
" (ver. 2.) and becaufe you maybe in danger of being defiled
41 by them, that you purge them as old leaven, (ver. 5,. 6.)
Verfe 10. " But fearing left you fhould miftake me, I do
" not mean thofe who are heathens, and thofe who are forni-
" cators, covetous, extortioners, or idolaters among them ;
" it being impoffible for you, living in the world, to avoid
*' commerce with them :
Verfe n. " But this I mean, and is what I now write
" to you, that you do not freely convcrfe with, nor admit to
" eat the Lord's Supper with you, thofe who are charged
" with the forementioned crimes, and yet make a profeifion
" of Chriftianity."
This feems a very natural account of the Apoftle's reafon-
ing , and will appear the more probable if we confider,
1. That he ufes the fame verb ffi-^yx^ywa-^ in ver. 11*
which he does ver. 9.
2. That the particle w often is ufed in Greek, not as a
note of time, but in an adverfative fenfe, the fame as fed and
nunc vero in Latin, and the word now very often in Englifh P.
3. The article feems to refer only to this fame Epiftle, and
not another, and to denote the fame with raVr, as it often
does i j fo we find it with the very fame fubftantive, I ThefT.
v. 27. viz. TJjvMns-oX^, to exprefs the very fame Epiftle which
he was then writing..
The fame almoft may be feen z-o. and wt very often., e. vii. 14.
in Sixtus S.nenfis Biblioth. Sanct. xii. 20'. Vide Grot, in loc. et
1. 2. in Paul, and Dr. Hammond on GlafT. Gram. Sacr. lib. 3. Traft.
i Cor. v. 9. 5 . Canon. 13.
P So vwl is ufed more than once in 1 See GhfT. Gram. Sacr. lib. 3.
this fame Epiftle. See c. xii. 18. xv. Tract. 2.
4, The
CHAP. ill. Other Interpretations of the Words. 141
4. The old Syriack translator, who lived, as has been
proved, near St. Paul's time, well knowing there was no for-
mer Epiftle of his to the Church at Corinth, paraphrafes the
paffage, ver. 1 1 . in the fame manner as above, in thefe words,
yCLQ.^ As^&O ^jl f }O) i. e. This is what I have
wrote to you, or the meaning of ivhat I have wrote to you ;
by which it is plain he did not imagine the Apoftle writing a
new Epiftle, but explaining fomewhat he had before written
in this.
Thus it feems manifeft, that St. Paul's words do not inti-
mate his having wrote a former Epiftle to the Corinthians./
There is indeed a different interpretation from that above put
upon the words by fome learned men, who tranflate fy>a4'
VIMV iv T>5 In-troxjj, / wrote, or had written, or was about to write
in this Epiftle, that you fhould not company with fornicators,
&c. but now hearing this high offence, I (happen my ftyle,
and forbid not only aflbciating with fuch, but even common
fellowfhip. This is Dr. Lightfoot's conjecture r , and efpoufed
by Dr. Whitby 8 , but feems very precarious and groundlefs.
1. Becaufe itfuppofes the Apojlle to have bad different fenti-
ments as to what he was to write, which indeed Dr. Whitby
is not afraid in fo many words to aver j feme things, fays he, in
this Epijlle, were changed by him before he fent it to them.
But how apparently abfurd is this, to imagine this great
Apoftle under the conduct of infpiration, firft to write one
thing and then another? If the infpired penmen of Scripture
could thus alter their fentiments, and make changes in what
they wrote, what muft we think of the infallibility of that
Spirit who dictated to them ? But as I verily believe Dr.
Lightfoot thought not at all of this confequence of his opinion;
fo I am perfuaded, Dr. Whitby, who is fo zealous an advo-
cate for infpiration, would have been far from efpoufing it,
had he thought more of it.
2. The paraphrafe of the text, according to this interpre-
tation, is very different from the Apoftle's meaning, as ap-
pears from what is already faid.
r Harmon^ of the N. Teft, in loc. * Arnot. in loc.
Dr.
142 Other Interpretations vf the Words. PART II,
Dr. Lightfoot, in another part of his works f , has a quite
different conjecture concerning the paflage of St. Paul under
debate, which though perhaps it be entirely groundlefs, may
not be unworthy of the learned reader's notice. It is, in fhort,
a fort of co npounding the matter between thofe, who ima-
gine a former Epiftle to the Corinthians now loft, and thofe
who think the contrary. I {hall think it fufficient, having
having faid fo much on this head already, to give the reader a
tranflation of the Doctor's own words : " The Apoftle," fays
he, " had fent Timothy to the Corinthians, before he wrote
" this Epiftle to them (chap. iv. 17.) and it is probable he
" had fent fome Epiftle by him, in which he had written
" thus (viz. the words of verfe the ninth ; that they Jhould
*' not keep company with fornlcators. ) But when Stephen,
" Fortunatus and Achaicus came, and laid before him the
*' ftate of the Church at Corinth, and gave him both letters
<c and certain queftions from that Church, inafmuch as
*' they knew Timothy was not yet arrived at Corinth, he
<e comprehends and fuperfedes (or fupprefles) that former
<e Epiftle in this. So that in fome fenfe you may truly fay
ct that Epiftle is loft, inafmuch as an exact copy of it is not
* now extant ; but in another fenfe you cannot truly fay fo,
becaufe all things which were contained in that Epiftle, we
" have in that which is now extant, and many other things
befides."
1 Hor. Hebr. in i Cor. v. 9.
CHAP.
CHAP. IV.
An Epiftle^ under St. Paul's Name^ to the Corinthian^ and of
the Corinthians to St. Paul^ now extant in an Armenian
Manuscript) tranjlated out of Mr. La Croze's Latin into
Englijh, with fome Remarks.
TH E preceding pages being taken up with an enquiry in-
to that important queftion, whether St. Paul wrote any
Epiftle to the Church of Corinth, before either of thofe which
are now extant ; it will not be foreign to the fame purpofe to
obferve, that there are nolv extant in the world an Epiftle under
the name of St. Paul to the Corinthians (different from the re-
ceived ones) and an Epiftle under the name of the Church of
Corinth to St. Paul. It is not indeed properly my bufmefs
here to make any enquiry into Apocryphal pieces now extant ;
that being left for the third Part of this work, and the loft
books only propofed to come under confideration here. But
inafmuch as thefe two Epiftles will not in any other part of
this work come within my propofal to be difcufied, defigning
only to enquire into thofe pieces which are mentioned by fome
writer of the firft four centuries, whereas thefe are not by any,
I hope it will not be unacceptable, if I digrefs a little here :
and, fmce I have been difcourfing fo much on a loft Epiftle of
St. Paul's to the Corinthians, prefent the reader with thefe
two antient pieces, which I believe have not yet appeared in
our language, nor till lately in Europe, adding fome fhort
reflections on them.
The firft account, as far as I know, of them in print, is
that of the learned Dr. Gregory in the Preface to his notes en
fome paffages of Scripture : I have feen," fays he, " the third
" Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians in the Armenian
" tongue, beginning, Paul a fervant of Jefus Chrift, &c.
" and an Epiftle of the Corinthians to St. Paul in the fame
** tongue, beginning, Stephen^ &c, to our Brother Paul greet-
" ing." In a Latin marginal note, he adds, that the manu-
fcript
144 Account of an Epijile^ &c. PART il.
fcript with an Italian verfion was in the library of Sir Gilbert
North. The famous Archbiftiop Ufher faw the fame manu-
fcript in the fame learned gentleman's cuftody, and only in-
forms us farther, that it was wrote at Smyrna 3 , taking a
fmall fentence out of the Epiftle of the Corinthians to Paul.
In the year 1715, Mr. David Wilkins tranflated both Epiftles
out of the Armenian tongue into Latin, from a manufcript in
the library of Mr. Maflbn at Utrecht, which are fince printed
by Fabritius, with another Latin verfion made by Mr. La
Croze, library keeper to the King of Pruffia, in the year iji6 b y
from which, as being the laft, and, as he fays, a more literal
and exa& verfion than the former c , I have made the following
one in Englifh.
The EPISTLE of the CORINTHIANS to
ST. PAUL.
JV. B. I place this firft, becaufe the other is evidently
defigned as an Anfwer to this.
STEPHEN, and the prefbyters who are with him, Neme-
nus, Eubulus, Theophilus, and Nomefon, to our Brother
Paul, greeting. Certain men, whofe names are Simon and
Clobeus, are come to Corinth, who by their artful and delu-
five fpeeches have very much (hocked the faith of fome, to
which it is incumbent on you to make anfwer yourfelf ; for
we have neither heard from you, or any other Apoftle, fuch
doctrines. But this one thing we know, that we faithfully
retain forobferve) whatever we learnt from you, or the other
(Apojlles. ) We efteem it a very great inftance of divine com-
panion to us, that you are ftill in the body with us, and that
we may again hear you, (or from you.) As foon therefore as
may be, either write to us what we muft ftedfaftly hold (as
truth), or elfe, let it not be long before you vifit us in perfon,
a Vid. Not. in Epift. Ignat. ad c See his Remarks upon theft
Trail. . 84. Armenian Epiftles, in Fabrit. Cod.
b Fabrit. Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. Apoc. Nov. Teft. Par. 3. p. 680.
Par. 3. p. 667. &p. 683.
We
CHAP. IV. The Epijlle of Paul 'to the Carinthians. 145
We believe in the Lord, and that he (hewed himfelf in a ma-
nifeft manner, and has delivered us from the hands of the
evil one. But their words are erroneous ; for they fay, there
is no neceffity of reading the Prophets ; That God is not
Almighty 3 That there will be no refurredtion of the dead;
That flefli is not by any means made by God ; That the
body of Jefus Chrift was not born of the virgin Mary; and
laftly, That the world was not made by God, but by fome
angel. Endeavour therefore, Brother, to come fpeedily to
us, that the city of Corinth may continue without offences*
and the folly (or ignorance) of thofe men may be brought to a
juft contempt before all. Farewell in the Lord.
The EPISTLE of PAUL to the CORINTHIANS.
PA U L, a prifoner of Jefus Chrift, to the Brethren at
Corinth, harafled with various trials, greeting. I do
not at all wonder, that ye are fo foon accofted with fuch, who
would draw you afide to impiety. For as our Lord Jefus is
about foon to haften (or perfect) his coming, there are (or ra-
ther will be) thofe, who both change and defpife his com-
mandments. But I from the beginning did teach you the
very fame things, which I received from the former Apoftles,
who had conftant converfation with our Lord. I fay then,
that our Lord Jefus was born of the virgin Mary, of the feed
of David, according to that which the Holy Spirit fent into
her by the Father from heaven declared, namely, that Jefus
fJhould appear in the world, and by his flefh fhould work de-
liverance for all flefli, and raife us again from the dead ; of
which refurre&ion he gave us a plain inftance in himfelf.
Farther, it is manifeft, that man was created by the Father,
and therefore not fo abandoned to mifery, but that he fhould
be again fought after with care ; for he was fo fought after,
as that by a filial adoption he might obtain life. For God,
who is the Lord of all, and the Father of our Lord Jefus
Chrift, firft fent Prophets to the Jews, to difluade them from
their fins, and incite them to righteoufnefs : for when he in-
tended the falvation of the houfe of Ifrael, he beftowed his
VOL. I. L Holy
146 Remarks on the Epijlles^ tsc. PART n'. 1
Holy Spirit, and fent him into the Prophets, who preached
the worfhip of God not liable to error, and the birth (ofCbrifl}
for a very long time.
I (hall not here enter into any particular criticifm on thefe
two letters, no mention being made of them within my pre-
(bribed time ; only offer to the reader, who is curious in thefc
things, a few curfory remarks I have made in reading them.
As,
Firft, That if we fuppofe St. Paul did really write an Epif-
tle to the Church of Corinth before either of thofe now re-
ceived, and which he refers to in the words above cited,
I Cor. v. Cj. this Epi/lle here translated cannot be zV, becaufe
there is in this no prohibition of officiating with fornicators,
which is fuppofed to have been in the other, and certainly was
in it, if he ever wrote any. Hence it appears either to have
been too great a compliment or overfight in Mr. Wilkins,
the tranflator of thefe Epiftles, in his dedication of them to
Mr. La Croze, to defire his opinion, whether St. Paul did
not refer to this Epiftle of his in the forementioned place.
2dly. This Epiftle under the name of St. Paul to the Co-
rinthians, is certainly fpurious; becaufe,
1. It is not mentioned by any one writer of the primitive-
Church in the firft four centuries, nor indeed by any Chriftian
author in any age till the la/1. It is neither quoted, nor placed
in any of their catalogues, nor read in any of their Churches j
and therefore, by Prop. Ill, IV, V, VI, muft be judged Apo-
cryphal ; as alfo becaufe it is not in the Syriack copies of the
NewTeftament, Prop. XV.
2. // contains things contrary to thofe which are certainly
known to be true, and therefore Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.
Such is that intimation of the fecond coming of Chrift being
very near, in the beginning of the Epiftle ; a notion which
was very much efpoufed by fome of the antient hereticks.
See Dr. Hammond on 2 Theft', ii. 2.
3. // contains jeveral things very unlike to, and different
from St. Paul's known way of writing \ and therefore fpudous
by Prop. XI. Such for inftance,
i.) I*
CHAP. iv. Remarks on the Epi/lles^ &c: 147
I.) Is the falutation in the beginning j Paul a prifoner .
to the Brethren at Corinth greeting; a phrafeology not
known in his, or any of the firft Chriftian falutations in their
Epiftles.
2.) The author's declaring that he received what he taught
them from the former Apojlles^ ivho converfed ivith Chrijl ;
whereas St. Paul very frequently afTures the Churches to
whom he wrote, and particularly this Church of Corinthj
that w bat be preached among them^ he received not from men y
but by Immediate revelation from the Lord. See i Cor. xi. 23.
and Gal. i. 12. Eph. iii. 2, 3.
Thus much may fuffice concerning the fpurioufnefs of this
Epiftle under St. Paul's name. There is no need of any fuch
remarks on the Corinthians Epiftle to Paul ; fince, if it were
real and genuine, I know no claim it could make to Canoni-
cal authority. Only one thing I cannot forbear obferving,
which is a very clear detection of the forgery. They defire
Paul to be very fpeedy in vifiting them at Corinth ; whereas
St. Paul was at that time, as he exprefsly calls himfelf, a pri-
foner. This does not feem very confiftent ; for fuch a defire
fuppofes Paul to have been at his own liberty. I fhall only
add, that Mr. La Croze fuppofes thefe Epiftles forged either
in the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh
century.
CHAP. V.
T7je Acts fff Andrew received by the Encratites, Manichees^
Apoftolicks) or Apotafticks and Origenians^ difcujjed^ and
Droved Apocryphal.
A.
PROCEED now to the particular examination of the
loft Apocryphal books, according to the order in which
they are placed in the alphabetical table at the end of the firft:
L 2 Parti
I
A
14 .g TJje Arts of Andrew Apocryphal PART I?,
Part; and fo ftiall begin with that anticnt book which was
called,
The ACTS of the Apoftle ANDREW.
TldV CtiPETlX
- cJ? 'Aj/t
TUV Y.ZTZ,
TIC
A T . 5.TN confidermg this, as all the other Apocryphal
JL books, the method I purpofe to obferve is, firft to
produce ail and every thing that is laid of them by the antient
writers, and then to make the moft fuitable reflections I can.
This Book is mentioned firft by Eufebius a .
Books publifhed under the-
name of the Apoftles by here-
ticks fuch as the Acls of
Andrew which are never
thought worthy to be cited in
the works of any ecclefiafti-
cal v/riter who taught in the
Church. Moreover, the
phrafeology and manner of
writing, and the doctrines
therein delivered being very
oppofite to the orthodox faith,
evidently demonftrate it to
have been the forgery of here-
ticks ; and fo not only to be
looked upon as fpurious, but
to.be utterly rejected as im-
pious and abfurd.
2. By Philaftrius, in his Account of the Herefy which he
ilyles Apocrypha h .
*) tti TZ% y.
Trot-oy, TO
xa
TS-Asrrov .ocv T
S'oJ'o^/aj aVa^tra,
cJomxccv cii/Sguv
jyp^avw, G~a,<pus
oc-
Manichsei Apocrypha beati
Andreae Apoftoli, i. e. Aclus
quos fecit vcnicns de Ponto
The Manichees make ufe of
the A&s of St. Andrew, i. e.
thofe Acts which he made (or
liilt. Ec,l.l. 3 ..c. 25.
CHAP. V. The Afts of Andrew Apocryphal. 149
in Grseciam, quos confcrip- did) in his journey from Pon-
ferunt tune fequentes Apofto- tus to Greece, and -which
lum ; unde & habent Mani- thofe Difciples, which follow-
chaei, & alii tales, Andreze ed him, wrote ; from whence
beati & Joannis Aclus Evan- the Manichees, and other fuch
geliftae, beati & Petri fimiliter fort of people, have the Ac"ls
Apoftoli, & Pauii pariter A- of St. Andrew, St. John the
poftoli : in quibus, quia figna Evangelift, as alfo the A&s
fecerunt magna, ut & canes of St. Peter and St. Paul the
& beftiae loquerentur, etiam Apoftles : in which, becaufe
& animas hominum tales velut they wrought great miracles,
canum & pecudum, fimiles fuch as to make dogs and
imputavenmt efle haeretici hearts to fpeak, thefe wretched
perditi. hereticks imagined the fouls
of men to be like the fouls of
dogs and beafts.
3. By Epiphanius, difcourfing of the Hereticks called En-
cratites c .
y^aqsctii; arc wl o- They principally made ufe of
thofe Scriptures, which are
called the Adls of Andrew
and John, and Thomas, and
fome other Apocryphal books,
*"?'<"* and only what they thought
fit of the books of the Old
Teftament.
4. By -the fame, fpeakmg of the Herefy of the Apoftolicks *.
Oyroi $i Ta^f Xjyc^Evai? xdcc'r They chiefly depended upon
,^<rtv 'Ay^ -re xu\ up* TO thofe Scriptures, which are
called the A<3:s of Andrew
and of Thomas, being alto-
gether different from the Ca-
non of the Church.
Hsref. 47. . i. d Hsref. 61. . i.
^3 5- By
150 Tlie dfls of Andrew Apocryphal.
5. By the fame, concerning the vile Herefy of the Orige-
nians e .
They make ufe of feveral A-
pocryphal books, but princi-
P all y thofe which are called
the Ads of Andrew, and
r
fome others.
6. By Pope Gelafius f .
Aclus nomine Andreae Apof- The Acts under the name of
toli Apocryphi. Andrew the Apoftle are A-
pocryphal.
Thefe are all the places where exprefs mention is made of
thefe Acts of Andre wj from whence it is eafy, by the rules
' above laid down, to prove they were fpurious and Apocryphal,
as being not found in any of the antient catalogues of the fa-
cred books, (Prop. IV.) nor appealed to by any Chriftian
writer, (Prop.V.) nor read in any of their aflembliesj (Prop.
VJ.) but on the contrary exprefsly condemned as an impious
forgery, by every one that has mentioned them. There are
not indeed any fragments of this book now remaining j yet
it feems not difficult to guefs at fome things contained therein
by the agreement of the abovementionedhereticks in receiving and
' ejleemlng it above all other Scriptures. This cannot be fuppofed
to have happened by mere chance, nor by any other means
more probable, than that this book contained fome doctrines
or principles which were very conformable to the fentiments
of thofe differing feels. What their opinions were, I need
not here lay down ; a bare cafting the eye upon the accounts,
which Epiphanius, in the places cited, and Auftin, in his little
book of herefies, gives of them, would be almoft fufficient of
itfelf to make one queftion the authority of any book which
e Hseref. 63. . 2. Gratian. Diftinft. 15. et apud
5 Pecret. de Apocryph. apud Concil. Sauft. Tom. 4-. p. 1260.
they
CJHAP. V. The Agreement of the Manichees^ &c. 151
they had a more than ordinary efteem for. I fhall only offer
to the reader the obfervations I have made concerning the
agreement between thefe differing fects, and then leave it to
his own judgment to determine, whether it be not probable
the Ails of Andrew contained fome doctrines which were fa-
vourable to them all. The fefts I am fpeaking of are thofe
above mentioned, the Manichees, Encratites, Apotaclicks, or
Apoftolicks, and Origenians, who all, as has been proved,
efteemed this Apocryphal piece of Andrew above other Scrip-
tures ; and the obfervations I have made, for greater clearnefs,
I have placed in the following table.
TbeManichees
ajftrted^
T/ie Encraiites af-
ferted,
The Apofto-
licks, or Apo-
tafticksy af-
ferted.
TJie On-
genians
afferted,
I. Two eter-
i. Two princi-
nal principles
ples ; one of the
of all things,
Devil, oppofite to
oppofite to
the works of
each other,
God, and not
viz. God and
fubjedt, but fu-
the Devil.
perior to him.
2.Theunlaw-
2. That marriage
2. The unlaw-
2. That no
fulnefs of
was of the Devil ;
fulnefs of all
perfon
marriage,
reckoned all mar-
marriages ;
fhould
and efteemed
ried perfons a.s
excluded
marry ;
it as bad as
fornicators, and
theircommu-
and that
fornication.
admitted no mar-
nion all who
they only
ried perfons to
did marry.
were vir-
their commu-
tuous,
nion.
who, like
3. That no
3. That no perfon
Elijah,
perfon fhould
fhould eat flefh.
Elifha,
at any time
and John,
eat flefh.
did never
4. That no
4. The Line.
marry.
wine fhould
be drank.
More of this fort may be feen in Epiphanius, Haeref. 47,
61,63, and 66; and in Auftin, de Hasrefib. ad Quodvult.
c. 25, 40, 42, and 46.
L 4 Let
152 Other Books of Andrew Apocryphal PART n. ;
Let now any impartial perfon judge, whether it be not
probable, that the reafon why thefe feveral parties and fe&s did fo
mightily efteem the Acts of Andrew, was, becaufe they found
fome of their peculiar and favourite notions therein ; and, if
fo, then we have another argument, whereby to conclude it
Apocryphal, viz. that it contained aflertions contrary to thofe
which are certainly known to be true by Prop. VIII.
CHAP. VI.
Other Books under the J$ame of Andrew confidered : they were
the fame with the Atis of Leucius. The Gofpel of Andretu.
The Decret of Pope Gelafius, relating to Apocryphal Books^
produced^ with its various LecJions : the Antiquity of this
Decree. *
Numb. II. Some other Apocryphal Books under the Name
of the Apoftle ANDREW.
I ENTITLE them other^ although, perhaps, they may
appear to have been the fame with the former, becaufe
they are not mentioned exprefsly as the A&s of Andrew.
Thefe are recorded,
j. By Auftin, confuting the anonymous Author, whom he
flyles Adverfarius Legis & Prophetarum *.
Sanede Apocryphis rite pofuit He hath made ufe of teftimo-
teftimonia, quag fub nomini- nies out of fome Apocryphal
bus Apoftolorum, Andreae, pieces, which were written
Johannifque confcripta funt ; under the names of the Apof-
quae, ft illorum eflent, recepta ties, Andrew and John ;
client ab Ecclefia, quae ab il- which, if they were truly
Coptra Adverfar. Leg. & Prophet, lib. j, c. 20.
lorum
CHAP. VI. *rhe Gofpel of dndreiu, 15 j
lorum temporibus, per Epif- theirs, would have been re-
coporum fuccelfiones certifii- ceived by the Church, which
mas ufque ad noftra tempera has continued under an unin-
perfeverat. terrupted fucceffion of Bi-
ihops from their time to ours.
2. By Pope Innocent I b .
Caetera autem, quas fub no- But the reft [of the books]
mine Matthise vel fub no- which are written under the
mine Andreae, qua? a Nexo- name of Matthias or un-
charide & Leonide philofophis der the name of Andrew,
Jfcripta funt non folum which were written by Nex-
repudianda, verum etiam no- ocharides and Leonides the
yeris efTe damnanda. philofophers, are not only to
be rejected, but condemned*
Whatever the fubjecl of thefe books was, they appear
plainly to have been fpurious by the exprefs teftimony of both
thofe who mention them. Prop. Ill, IV, V. I have only to
add, that perhaps thefe books, as alfo the former, viz. the
A6h of Andrew, were either wholly, or in part, the fame
with the Acl:s of the Apoftles under the name of Leucius,
which I fhall particularly confider in its proper place, under
the Letter L. As alfo who the philofophers Leonides and
Nexocharides (mentioned in this Decree of Pope Innocent, as
the authors of this book) were.
Numb. III. The Gofpel of A N D R E W the Apoftle.
THIS book is not mentioned by any, but by Gelafius
in his Decree c :
His Words are,
Evangelium nomine Andr*eae The Gofpel under the name
Apoftoli Apocryphum. of Andrew the Apoftle is A-
pocryphal.
h Decret. Innocent. I. Epift. 3. c Loc. citat.
xd Exuper. Tholof, Epifcop. 0.7.
As
154. The Decree of Pope Gelafius. PART II.
As there are not any fragments of this Gofpel extant, nor
any other teftimonies concerning it, it is impoflible for us
now to form any particular idea of it, either as to its real au-
thor or contents. It is probable, it was firft forged and ufed
by the fame Hereticks, as the other books under that Apoflle's
name ; however, it is eafy to prove, it never was reputed to
be a Canonical book, by Prop. IV, V, VI. I have only far-
ther to obferve, after Mr. Fabritius d , that in fome copies of
this famous Decree of Gelafius, there is no mention made of
this Gofpel under Andrew's name ; and if thefe fhould happen
to be the beft copies, it will then follow, that there never was
any fuch Gofpel in the world.
Having occafion here, as I often (hall hereafter, to make
mention of this Decree of Pope Gelafius, concerning the A-
pocryphal books of the New Teftament, I perfuade myfelf,
it will be a very excufable digreflion, if I give the unlearned
reader a tranflation of the Decree itfelf, as far as it concerns
any books which fall within my defign.
The DECREE of Pope GELASIUS, concerning Apo-
cryphal Books.
1. The Travels under the name of Peter the Apoftle,
which is alfo called the Eight Books c of St. Clemens, are
Apocryphal.
2. The A6ts under the name of Andrew the Apoftle are
Apocryphal.
3. The Adls under the name of Philip the Apoftle are
Apocryphal.
4. The Als under the name of Peter the Apoftle are
Apocryphal f .
5. The Ads under the name of Thomas the Apoftle are
Apocryphal.
d Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. par. 3. nine, others ten.
P. 5*6. f Jn feme copies this is not men-
c Other copieo for eight read tioned.
6. The
CHAP. vi. Tlie Decree of Pope Gelaf.us. 155
6. TheGofpel under the name of Thaddaeus is Apocryphal *.
7. The Gofpel under the name of Thomas the Apoftle,
which the Manichees ufe, is Apocryphal.
8. The Gofpel under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal.'
9. The Gofpel under the name of Bartholomew the Apoftle
is Apocryphal h .
jo. The Gofpel under the name of Andrew the Apoftle is
Apocryphal.
Ji. The Gofpels corrupted by Lucianus are Apocryphal.
12. The Gofpels corrupted by Hefychius are Apocryphal.
13. The Gofpel of the Infancy of our Saviour is Apocry-
phal j .
14. The Book of the Nativity of our Saviour, of St.
Mary, and the Midwife of our Saviour, is Apocryphal.
15. The Book which is called The Shepherd is Apocryphal.
1 6. All the Books which Lentitius, the difciple of the
Devil, made, are Apocryphal.
17. The Book which is called The Ads of Thecla and
Paul the Apoftle is Apocryphal.
1 8. The Revelation afcribed to Thomas the Apoftle is
Apocryphal.
19. The Revelation afcribed to Paul the Apoftle is Apo-
cryphal.
20. The Revelation afcribed to Stephen is Apocryphal.
21. The Travels, or Ats of St. Mary are Apocrypha!.
22. The Book called The Lots of the Apoftles is Apocry-
phal.
23. The Book called The Praife of the Apt>ftles is Apo-
cryphal.
24. The Book of The Canon of the Apoftles is Apocryphal.
25. The Letters of Jefus to King Abgarus is Apocryphal/
I may perhaps have occafion hereafter more critically to
enquire into the genuine authority of this Decree of Ge-
8 Other copies read here, The The Gofpel of James the Lefs, and
Gofpel of Matthias ; others both Peter.
Thaddaeus and Matthias. This is omitted in fome copies.
* After this, fome copies have
lafius ;
j 5 6 The Gofpei of Apellts: PART If.
lafius ; I fhall now only obferve, that it is generally agreed
to be very antient, and by moft learned men, to have been
formed in the Council of Rome, A. C. 494. Thofe who
have examined the manufcripts tell us, that in fome of them
it is afcribed to Damafus, who lived in the century before
Gelafius, and in others to Hormifdas, who lived the century
after: whence Baluzius feems rightly to conjecture, that
Pope Damafus began the Decree, Gelafius renewed and made
fome additions to it, and Hormifdas afterwards farther en-
larged and confirmed it k . It is true, Bifhop Pearfon, in his
celebrated Vindication of Ignatius's Epiftles, attempts to
prove, from this variety of titles, that the Decree is fpurious,
as alfo by other arguments ', which are approved by Dr. Cave,
and tranflated into his excellent Work m . But it is not at all
ftrange thefe learned men fhould reject this Decree, when we
confider it as direftly oppofite to fome notions, which they
would have been much more unwilling to part with than this
Decree,
CHAP. VII.
The Gofpel of Apelles: bis Age and Principles. The Gofpel
according to the Twelve Apojlle* : it was the fame with the
Gofpel of the Hebrews.
Numb. IV. The GOSPEL of APELLES.
THIS Gofpel is not mentioned by any writer till Jerome,
who places it among feveral other Apocryphal pieces of
the New Teftament, whofe words, becaufe I {hall frequently
refer to them, I fhall here tranfcribe at length a .
* SeeSpanheimHift.Chrift.Se- ' Vir.dic. Ignat. Par. i. 0.4.
eul. V. c. 8. juxta fin. ar.d Dallaeus p. 4' r , &c.
de Pfei;depig. Apoftol. 1.3. c. 3, m Hiftor. Liter, in Gelaf.
4, &c. ' Prxt'at. in Comm. in Matth.
Plures
CHAP. vil. The Gofpel o,
Plures fuiffe, qui Evangelia
fcripferunt, Lucas Evangelifta
teftatur, dicens, quoniam qui-
dem multi, &c. quse a diverfis
au&oribus edita, diverfarum
haerefium fuere pi incipia,uteft
illud juxta Egyptios, & Tho-
mam, & Matthiam, & Bartho-
lomaeum, duodecim quoque
Apoftolorum, & Bafilidis at-
que Apellis, ac reliquorum,
quae enumerare longiffimum
eft: cum haec tantum im-
praefentiarum neceffe fit di-
cere, extitiffe quofdam, qui,
fine fpiritu & gratia Dei, co-
nati funt magis ordinare nar-
rationem, quamhiftoriae tex-
cre veritatem.
157
The Evangelift Luke de-
clares, that there were many
who wrote Gofpels, when he
fays, forafmucb as many, &c.
(c. i. ver. i.) which being
publifhed by various authors,
gave birth to feveral herefies;
fuch as that according to the
Egyptians, and Thomas, and
Matthias, and Bartholomew,
that of the Twelve Apoftles,
and Bafilides, and Apclles,
and others, which it would
be tedious to enumerate : in
relation to .thefe, it will be
enough at prefent to fay, that
there have been certain men,
who endeavoured, without the
fpirit and grace of God, ra-
ther to fet forth fome fort of
account, than to publifhr a
true hiftory.
This Gofpel is confiderable, as it appears to have been
received by fome Chriftians who were the difciples of its au-
thor in the latter end of the fecond century. Mr. Fabritius
fuppofes, that Apelles did not write any new diftincl: Gofpel^
bjjt only formed one out of the true and genuine Gofpels,
that, as Marcion, he might be thought the author of a new
Gofpel : but however true this fuppofition may be, it is not
worthy of any great note, becaufe it is moft certain, that moft
of the Gofpels which the Hereticks made ufe of were formed
out of the true and genuine Gofpels, with the addition and
omiifion of what they thought proper. However, it is evi-
dent, it was an Apocryphal piece, by Prop. IV, V, VI. and
inafmuch as Jerome tells us, it was calculated to promote the
herefy of its author, it muft neceflarily be fuppofed to have
contained afTertio.es contrary to thofe certainly known to be
true.
15$ The Gcfpeloftbe Twelve Apofties. PART II*
true, and therefore to be rejected by Prop. VIII. To confirm
which obfervation, I (hall here give the reader fome {hort ac-
count of Apelles and his do&rines.
He was a difciple of the famous heretick Mareion, and be*
came famous about the year of Chrift 1 80. He wrote many
impious Tracts againft the facred Scriptures, rejected both
the law and the prophets, maintained there was one principle
of all things, who was the good God, from whom proceeded
the evil God, who made all things. He denied the refurrec-
tion of the dead, and publifhed a collection of revelations,
which he received from a noted ftrumpet, whofe name was
Philumene, of which both Tertullian and Eufebius give us an
account b , as do Origen , Epiphanius d , and Auftin of the
other particulars e .
Numb. V. The GOSPEL according to the TWELVE
APOSTLES.
/CONCERNING this Apocryphal piece, unqueftionfcbly
^s very antient, we have an account given us ;
i. By Origen f .
Ecclefia quatuor habet Evan- The Church receives four
gelia, Haerefes plurima ; e Gofpels, the Hereticks have
quibus quoddam fcribitur fe- very many; fuch as that ac-
cundum ^Egyptios, aliud jux- cording to the Egyptians, that
ta duodecim Apoftolos *- according to the Twelve A-
Legimus, ne quid ignorare pbftles Thefe we read,
videremur, &c. left we fhould be thought ig-
norant.
b De Praefcript. adverf. Hxretic. 23. in Apell. S:e alfo Dr. Cave's
c. 30. Hift. Eccl. 1. 5. c. 13. Hift. Liter, and Spanheim Hift.
c Homil. 2. in Gen. vi. Chrift. Secul. II. c. 6.
* Haeref. 44. f Homil. in Luc. i. i. in ink.
De Haeref. ad Quodvultd. N.
2. By
CHAP. vn. The Gcfpelcftht Twelve
2. By Ambrofes.
Multi E vangelia fcribere cona-
ti, quae boni Nummularii noa
probaverunt. Unum autem
tantummodo in quatuorlibros
digeftum ex omnibus arbitra-
ti funt eligendum i & aliud
quidem fertur, quod duode-
cim fcripfnTe dicuntur. Au-
fus eft etiam Bafilides fcribere
quod dicitur fecundum Bafi-
lidem Legimus, ne le-
gantur ; legimus, ne ignore-
mus i legimus, non ut tenea-
mus, fed repudiemus, & ut
fciamus qualia fmt in quibus
Magnifici ifti cor exultent fu-
Many have endeavoured to
write Gofpels, which the Ca-
tholic Church hath not ap-
proved, but hath determined
to make choice of four only.
There is indeed a Gofpel
fpread up and down, faid to
be written by the Twelve A-
poftles. Bafilides wrote ano-
ther called by his name
Thefe we read, that they may
not be read ; we read them,
that we may not feem igno-
rant ; we read them, not that
we receive, but reject them,
and may know what thofe
things are, of which the He-
reticks make fuch boafting.
3. By Jerome, in the paflage juft now produced 11 . He rec-
kons the Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles among
thofe, which occafioned hereues in the Church, and which
were wrote by men deftitute of the fpirit and grace of God,
without a due regard to truth.
4. By the fame, in his Dialogues againft the Pelagians ! , in-
troducing Atticus difputing againft the Opinion, That the
baptifed could not fall into fin, and at length citing this
Gofpel to that purpofe, in the following words :
In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos,
quod Chaldaico Syroque fer-
mone, fed Hebraicis literis
fcriptum eft, quo utuntur uf-
E Comment, in Luc. ininit.
h See above Numb. IV,
In the Gofpel according to
the Hebrews, which is writ-
ten in the Chaldee and Syri-
ack language, but in Hebrew
1 Lib. 3. Epiih 17. in init.
que
l6o The Gofpel of Barnabas PART n^
que hodie Nazareni, fecun- letters, which the Nazarenes
dum Apoftolos, five, ut pie- to this day ufe [and is called
rique autumant, juxta Mat- the Gofpel] according to the
thaeum, quod in Caefarienfi [twelve] Apoftles, or, as
bibliotheca habeturj narrat moft think, according to Mat -
hiftoriaj &c. thew, and which is in the li-
brary of Caefarea ; there is
the following hiftory, c.
I omit here producing the fragments of this Gofpel, and
making any critical remarks upon it, becaufe I fhall have a
more convenient place of doing this, when I come to dif-
courfe concerning the Gofpel according to the Nazarenes,
which appears very evidently, by this paffage of Jerome, to
have been the very fame with this Gofpel according to the
Twelve Apoftles.
CHAP. VIII.
An Account of the Gofpel of Barnabas^ mentioned ly Pope Ge-
lajius. Two fuppofed Fragments. Large Fragments of an
Italian Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas^ now in the
PoJfeJJion of Prince Eugene. It appears evidently a late Ma-
hometan Impojlure.
B.
Numb. VI. The GOSPEL of BARNABAS.
Book does not appear to have fallen within the
cognizance of any of the Chriftian writers of the firft
four centuries ; only it is thus mentioned in the famous De-
cree of Pope Gelafius I. above produced, Numb. III. The
Gofpel under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal. There are
not, I believe, any fragments of it extant, at leaft not within
my time, unlefs that be fuppofed to be one, which we find in
Clemens-
CHAP. VIII. dfuppofedPaJfageofBarnalas. l6l
Clemens Alexandrinus a , who having cited- thefe words of
the Pfalmift (Pfal. cxviii. 19, 20.) Open to me the gates of
righteoufnefs) and I will go into them^ and I will praife the
Lord. Tins is the gate of the Lord^ into which the righteous
/ball enter; he adds, Barnabas expounding this faying of the
Prophet, thus reafons :
sruXwv ai/Eoyutwi/, if Although there are many gates
u'm ifiv, tf P ened > righteoufnefs is that
,, ~ , r ' ' gate, which is in Chrift, at
Xflirw, EV vi uxxxoicu -srxvrts &
, o,' r which all they that enter (hall
be bleffed.
This paflage, attributed by Clemens Alexandrinus to Bar-
nabas, is indeed in the firft Epiftle of Clemens Romanus to
the Corinthians, . 48. and therefore Dr. Grabe b fuppofes,
that Clemens Alexandrinus was miftaken in citing it out of
Barnabas, becaufe it is not in the Epiftle which goes under
his name ; which is indeed probable enough, not only becaufe
the paflage is exactly the fame in Clement's Epiftle, but be-
caufe it does not appear that any Gofpel under the name of
Barnabas was known in the world, either in the time of Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, or a long time afterwards.
The learned Dr. Grabe, out of an antient manufcript, has
indeed produced a faying attributed there to Barnabas, which
he fuppofes to have been taken out of the Gofpel of Barnabas,
mentioned by Pope Gelafms c . The fragment is this, as he
has given it us out of the thirty-ninth Baroccian manufcript
in the Bodleian :
aVoroXo? jfpn, Barnabas the Apoftle faith,
'Ev a'pAXaiff Tro^pa?? a'Oxico- He who prevails in unlawful
rsoo; o wxuW, JWTI MW cont efts, is fo much the more
' T unhappy, becaufe he o-oes a-
uv TYIS euAf>|atf. vv ^ s
way having more fin.
* Stromat. 1. 6. p. 646. c Ibid. p. 302, 303.
b Spicileg. Patr. torn. i. p. 303.
VOL. I. M Whether
162 The Itali an Gcfpel ofBarnabat. PART i
Whether or no this paflage is really a fragment "of the an-
tient Apocryphal Gofpel under the name of Barnabas, feems
to me very uncertain. The author of the manufcript (which
is a common-place book made after the modern alphabetical
manner) does not mention the name of any Gofpel from
whence he took it ; nor has the Doctor, who produces it,
given any reafons to fupport his conjecture, and therefore we
may as fairly conclude it to have been taken from the Epiftle
under the name of Barnabas, as from the Gofpel ; and though
it be not now to be found in any part of that Epiftle, yet I
cannot fee why it may not be fuppofed to have been in that
part of it which is loft, fmce it is certain we have it now not
complete * : and I am the rather apt to imagine this, becaufe
we cannot difcover any intimations or citations of this Gofpel
in the antient writers, whereas the Epiftle was well known,
and frequently referred to.
I can fcarce tell, whether it be worth while to obferve,
that Mr. Toland, in his late trifling book, which he calls
Nazarenus, finding it very much to his purpofe, endeavours
to confirm the aforefaid conjecture of Dr. Grabe b . He tells
11?, that in an Italian manufcript, which he faw in Holland,
"and which is now in the library of Prince Eugene, entitled,
The true Gofpel ofjcfus^ called Chrij}^ a nsivProphetfent by God
to the Wcrld^ according to the relation of Barnabas the Apoftle*
In this, I fay, he tells us, he found the paflage (juft above pro-
duced out of the Baroccian manufcript) almoft in terms, and
the fenfe evidently there in more than one place. It is not
my bufmefs to make here any remarks concerning this pre-
tended Gofpel of Barnabas ; it is enough to obferve, that it is
a very late and notorious Mahometan impofture, as appears
iufncieatly by thetcraps of it which Mr. Toland has produced^
aud more fully by the large citations out of it, winch are given
us by La Monnoy % who,, had by Baron Hohendorf, Prince
Eugene's adj aunt- general, the fight of the manufcript; and
as he feems to have given a more juft and full account of it
* See Dr. Man^cy's Remarks >.n p. ao.
Mr. foiand's is .iz<uenus, c, 4. p. z 1 . c Aninndveif. ad M'rnagian.
* Nuzarcn. c. a. p. 8. and c. 7. apud Fabric, torn. 3. p. 373.
. * m
.CHAP. VIII. Some Fragments thereof . 163
than Mr. Toland, fo I verily believe he had more opportunity
to do it a . It is probable the curiofity of fome readers may be
fuch, as to defire thefe fragments in our language, for whofe
fake, though it be a digreffion from my propofed method, I
fhall infert them here, as I find them in either of the foremen-
tioned authors.
The title is, as above,
" The true Gofpel of Jefus, called Chrift, a new Prophet
" fent by God to the world, according to the relation of
" Barnabas the ApoftleV
The firft words of the book are thefe :
" Barnabas, an Apoftle of Jefus of Nazareth, called Chrift,
" to all thofe who dwell upon the earth, wifheth peace and
< confolation c .
" He declares he was commanded to write this Gofpel;
" reprefents himfelf as one of the Apoftles, very familiar with
" Jefus Chrift and the Virgin, better inftrucled than Paul
" concerning the defign of circumcifion, and the ufage of
*' meats, either allowed or forbid to the faithful.
" He aflerts, the infernal torments of the Mahometans
" fhall not be everlafting.
" Jefus Chrift is never called any more than a Prophet' 1 .
" It informs us, that the very moment the Jews were
** preparing to go and take Chrift in the garden of Olives,
tc he was taken up into the third heavens, by the miniftry of
" the four angels, Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel ;
" that he fhould not die until the end of the world, and that
a For I much queftion whether miller avec Jefus Chrift, & avec la
Mr. Toland had, or made much ufe Vierge, mieux inftruit que Paul du
of the MS. otherwife he need not merite de la circoncifion, & de 1'u-
have been obliged to have tranflat- fage des viandes accordees ou d ?fen-
ed La Monnoy, as he does in his dues aux fideles. On y voit, quc
Appendix. Jes peines infernales des Mahometans
- Nazaren. p. 15. neleront paseternelles. Jefus Chrilt
c Ibid. rf y eft appelle fimplement que Pro-
* Baraabe, qui fe dit chargg de phete. La Monnoy loc. cit. p. 376,
ricrire, y pafle pour un Apotre fa- 377.
M 2 it
164. A large Fragment of tie PART It.
" it was Judas who was crucified inftead of him, God per-
* { mitting that this traitor fhould appear to the eyes of the
tc Jews fo very like to Jefus Chrifr, that they apprehended
" him inftead of him, and as fuch delivered him to Pilate;
cc that the refemblarice between them was fo great, that the
" Virgin Mary and the Apoftles were even deceived, but that
" afterwards Jcfus Chrift had obtained of God premiflion to
" come and comfort them a ."
What pa/Ted after this, we fhall find in the following frag-
ment, for which we are alfo obliged to Mr. La Monnoy, as-
well as the former.
A large Fragment of the GOSPEL of BARNABAS *.
" The Virgin returned to Jerufalem together with the
<l author (Barnabas), James and John, upon the lame day in
" which the decree of the high prieft came forth. The Virgin,
" who feared God, although flie knew the injuftice of the high
" prieft's decree, gave a charge to all her particular acquaint-
" ance (or family), that they would forget her Son. But
" God, who is acquainted with the temper of all men's minds,.
" knew how we and the mother of Jefus were very miferably
" diftrelTed between forrow for the death of Judas (whom we
" believed to have been Jefus our mafter) and expectations of
" feeing him rifen again from the dead. The guardian angels
" therefore of the Virgin Mary afcended into the third hea-
" ven, where Jefus was in the fociety of angels, and related
" to him all the affair. Hereupon Jefus intreated God, that he
" would permit him to go and fee his mother and hisDifciples.
" Then God, being merciful, commanded four of his moft
" beloved angels, viz. Gabriel, Michael, Raphael and Uriel,
" that they (liould carry Jefus to his mother's houfe, and
" there be his guard for three fucceflive days, and fuffer no
" perfons to fee him, who did not believe his doctrine. So
a La Monnoy Ice. cit. p. 376, this En^Hfli tmnflation to follow
377. and tltrptnd upon the Latin one of
k Not underftanding thoroughly Mr. Fabritius,
the Italian it felt", I am obliged in
Jefus ,
CHAP. vin. Italian Gofpel of Barnabas. 165
<c Jefus, encircled with glory, came into the parlour, wherein
" were Mary the Virgin, with her two fitters, Martha, with
<c Mary Magdalen, Lazarus, with the author (Barnabas), and
" John, with James and Peter ; who, when they faw him,
" fell down on the ground almoft dead with the furprife.
" Whereupon Jefus, lifting up his mother and the reft of
" them from the ground, faid, Fear not, for I am Jefus ;
" mourn not, for I am alive, and not dead. But frill they all
c flood perfectly aftonifhed at the fight of Jefus, whom they
really believed to have been dead. At length the Virgin
<c very mournfully addrefTed herfelf to him, and faid, / be-
" feech you, my fan, how came it to pafs, that fmce God bad
*' given you power of raijing up the dead to life, be jhould pert
<c mit you to be jo betrayed to death, to the disgrace of your re-
*' lations and friends, as well as the reproach of your doRrine^
*' inafmuch as all that bad any kindnefs for you were ajlonljhed
<c even almcft unto death ? Then Jefus embracing his mother,
*' faid, Believe me, my mother, for I pofitively affirm that J
* c was, never dead, for God has referred me even to the end of
" the world. When he had thus faid, he defired the four an-
" gels that they would fhew themfelves, and teftify how the
" whole affair was managed. The angels then appeared like
*< four funs in their greateft brightnefs, whereupon they all
*' fell down again upon the ground at the furprize, as perfons
" that were dead. Then Jefus gave them four linen cloths,
" that being covered with them, his mother and the reft of
cc the company might be able to bear the fight of them, and
*' hear them fpeak. Lifting them then all from the ground^
4i he encouraged them, and faid, Thefe are the winijiers of
* c God, Gabriel, who carries and delivers the fccret mejjages
u of God; Michael, who. battles again/} the enemies of God',
" Raphael, who takes charge of the fouls of them who die j
" Uriel, who on the lajl day jhall gather all to judgment.
" Then the angels declared to the Virgin (that which God
*' had commanded them by Jefus) how that Judas was tranf-
" formed [into the likenefs of Jefus] that fo himfelf might
" fuffer the punishment, which he defigned to have brought
** upon another. Hereupon the author (Barnabas) fpake,
M 3 and
166 A large Fragment of the PART If,
<c and faid, Majler^ may I have the fame liberty of propojing a
" queftion to you now, which I heretofore had when you con-
" verfed with us? Jefus arifwered, Barnabas, propofe what
" quejiions you have a mind, and I will reply to them. The
<{ author (Barnabas) then faid, O my majler, Jince God is mer-
<c ciful, why would he fo torment us, and make us to believe you
* { were really dead, and your mother to grieve almojl to death ?
" And as to yourfclf, who ajk the holy one of God, why ^vould
<c God permit you to be brought under fuch dif grace, as though
<c - you had been executed with felons in mount Calvary ? Jefus
u anfwered, Oh, Barnabas, believe me, every fin, though it be
< a J "ma II one, is very fevere'y punijhed by God, to whom it is
* c offenfive. Inafmuch therefore as my mother and my faithful
cc difciplcs hvcd me with fome mixture of earthly love, the right-
<c eous God was pleafed now to punijh them for that love, that
they might not hereafter fujfsr for it in the flames of hell.
<c And as for my part, although 1 lived a very blamelefs life in
<c the world, yet fmce men called me God, and the fen of God,
" it pleafed God, in order to prevent my being mocked by devils
* c in the judgment day, that I Jhould fuffer difgrace in this
" world by the death of Judas, all men being perfuaded that I
" really died on the crofs. Wherefore this reproach Jhall lajl
<c till the coming of Mahomet, who, when he Jhall come into the
" world, will deliver all tbofe who believe the law of God from
this error."
In another part of this Gofpel, Mahomet is exprefsly
named for the Paraclete or Comforter promifed to come,
John xiv. 1 6, 26. and xvi. 7. and in feveral places foretold
as the defigned accomplifher of God's oeconomy towards men.
It is, in fhort, fays Mr. Toland a , the antient Ebionite or Na-
zarene fyftem, as to the making y^fus a mere man (though not
with them the fon ofjfcfepb, but divinely conceived by the Virgin
Jlfary), and agrees in every thing almojl with the fcheme of our
modern Unitarians, excepting the hiftory of his death and refur-
Teclion, about which a very different account is given from that
in our Gofpels, but perfectly conformable to the tradition of the
' Nazaren. p. 16.
Mahometans,
CHAP, viili Italian Gofpel of Barnabas. 107
Mahometans^ who maintain that another was crucified in his
Jlead^ and that yefus flipping through the hands of the Jews,
preached afterwards to his Difciples^ and then was taken into
heaven.
The laft words of this Gofpel are a ,
" Jefus being gone (into heaven), the Difciples fcattered
* c themfelves into many parts of Ifrael, and of the reft of the
<c world, and the truth being hated of Satan was perfecuted
" by falfehood, as it ever happens. For certain wicked men,
" under pretence of being Difciples, preached that Jefus was
u dead, and not rifen again ; others preached, that Jefus was
* c truly dead, and rifen again j others preached, and ft ill
" continue to preach, that Jefus is the Son of God, among
," which perfons Paul has been deceived. We therefore, ac-
' cording to the meafure of our knowledge, do preach to
" thofe who fear God, to the end they may be faved at the
*' laft day of his divine judgment. Amen. The end of the
Gofpel."
I believe every impartial reader, upon a bare view of thefe
fragments, will be foon perfuaded to conclude this fome late
Mahometan forgery, and therefore could not be the Gofpel
under Barnabas's name which is rejected by Pope Gclafius - 3
nor need I make any farther remarks upon it, or Mr.Toland's
unfair conclufions from it. This is very well done by Dr.
Mangey; one thing only falls in my way, becaufe it relates
o the paflage which is above produced out of the BarocciarT
nanufcript. Mr.T'oland affirms, he found it almojl in terms in
this Mahometan Gofpel of Prince Eugene ; and the fenfe there in
more places than one^ which, as he fays, made him believe this
to be the fame with the Gofpel anciently attributed to Barnabas^
though interpolated. A ftrange inference indeed ! Becaufe
thefe words are in a Gofpel evidently the compofure of fome
late Mahometan, under the name of Barnabas, therefore this
Gofpel muft be as old as Gelafius's time atleaftj i. e. a hun-
dred and fifty years, or more, before the Mahometan religion
* Nazaren. p. 22,
M 4 was
j 68 jt Conjecture concerning the PART n.
was known in the world. But, for my part, I cannot but
declare my fufpicion, that there is no fuch paflage as this in
the Italian Gofpel; for, had it really been, Mr. Toland
would not have omitted that which he thought fo much to his
purpofe ; and therefore confidering that writer's frequent un-
fairnefs in all his writings, and his numerous attempts to im-
pofe upon his readers, where he thinks he can fafely do it ; I
do not at all wonder, that Dr. Mangey does with the utmoft
aflurance affirm, that his omitting this paflage is a ftrong pre-
fumption that it was not in his copy, and that he has not given
fo good proofs of his ingenuity or fkill in this matter, as to be
believed upon his own bare aflTertion. Mr. Toland cannot
think it hard, that any one ftiould believe this charge of the
Doctor againft him ; becaufe in his Anfwer he has not faid
one word to juftify himfelf in this matter, nor to clear his re-
putation, attacked fo feverely, and in fo tender and valuable a
part.
CHAP. IX.
A Conjeflure concerning the true Original of the Gofpel of Bar-
nabas^from a Hi/lory in the fifth Century,
HAVING in the preceding chapter given fome account
of the Gofpel of Barnabas, I fhall clofe it with a con-
jecture concerning its true original, which I found upon a
known Hiftory in the fifth century related by Theodorus Lec-
tor % Nicephorus b , Suidas c , and others, to this purpofe :
" That in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, the relicts of Bar-
" nabas the Apoftle and companion of Paul were found in
" Cyprus under a tree called Ceratia d , and upon the breaft the
" Gofpel of Matthew, wrote with Barnabas's own hand, on
" account of which the inhabitants of Cyprus prevailed in their
a Cclle&an. 1. 2. in ipfoinit. d I know not how to tranflate the
k Hift. Eccl. 1. 1 6. c. 37. Greek KtfaTia, and therefore have
* In voc. Qt/'ita. put the original name.
conteft
CHAP, ix.' Original of Barnabas' s GofpeL 169
" conteft with the Bifhop of Antioch, that their own metro-
" polis fhould have an independent Bifhop, not fubject to the
** jurifdiction of Antioch. The book was carried to the Em-
** peror, and very highly efteemed by him, and put under a
" crown in his palace." Now I fay, whether this is a true
relation of fact, or otherwife, it feems clearly to intimate to
us, what that Gofpel was, which went under the name of
Barnabas in the time of Pope Gelafius, viz. that it was no
other than fome interpolated corrupted Gofpel of St.Matthew
If the fact was true, nothing can be more reafonably fup-
pofed, than that this book fhould afterwards be called the Gof-
pel of Barnabas ; becaufe,
1. The book is faid to be written with Barnabas's own
hand.
2. It perhaps was a translation of St. Matthew, made by
Barnabas into Latin, or the peculiar dialect of Cyprus. The
Hiftory informs us, that it was laid up in the Emperor's pa-
lace, and fomething read out of it at certain feafons of the
year a .
3. By virtue of this book, which received its virtue from
Barnabas, the Cyprians carried their point againft the claim
of the Bifhop of Antioch for fuperintendency. All which laid
together feems to intimate very plainly, that this book would
afterwards be called by the name of Barnabas, which was
really St. Matthew's Gofpel.
Nor does the cafe alter, if we fuppofe this a fiction of the
priefts of Cyprus ; for if the book really was a forgery, all the
fame things are fuppofed, and though they really did not find
the relicts of Barnabas, yet fome book they certainly produced,
and then all that was faid in the former cafe may as well be
faid here, and the fame reafons be affigned, why this Gofpel
of St. Matthew, pretended to be found upon the b re aft of
Barnabas, fhould go under the name of Barnabas, as if it had
been really found there.
. That which confirms me in the preceding conjecture is,
that we have no mention at all of any fuch Gofpel before this
* I regard not Sigebcrtus's fingle flory, that the bock was Hebrew.
time;
170 A feook under Bartholomew's Niamt. .PART it.
time ; but immediately after, Pope Gelafms mentions and
condemns it a .
Since the firft writing of this chapter, I have the pleafure to
obferve, Dr. Mangey has a conjecture very near the fame with
this of mine b . But I think his opinion lies under this diffi-
culty, that it fuppofes the book pretended to be found on Barna-
bas's breaft, to be really St. Matthew's Gofpel (for fome book
there muft be produced), and yet the very fame which was af-
terwards condemned in the Council at Rome by the Decree
attributed to Gelafius, under the name of Barnabas, as Apo-
cryphal. But to fay no more of this Gofpel ; whatever it
was, it is certain it never was a Canonical book, by Prop.
IV, V, VI.
CHAP. X.
'A Book under the Name of Bartholomew^ mentioned by the fup-
Pofed Dionyfeus the Areopagite^ proved fpurious. The Gofpel
of Bartholomew : -it feems to have been the fame which was
found by Pantanus in the Indies in the fecond Century^ and
no other than the Gofpel of the Nazarenes.
Numb. VII. A Book attributed to BARTHOLOMEW
the Apoftle.
THAT there was formerly fuch a book, I gather from
that antient book which goes under the name of Diony-
fius the Areopagite, who is in facred Hiftory related to have^
been one of St. Paul's converts at Athens c . The paflage I
refer to is that in the begining of his firft book of Myftical
Divinity d .
* The Emp?ror Zeno reigned b Remarks on Nazarer.. c. 3. p.
(including his exil-) from the year 14, 15.
or' Chrift 4.74, to the year 41; i. Ge- c Ail. xvii. 34.
lafius's Decree is commonly dated d De Myftic. Thcol. 1. i. c.^i.
in the year 494.
CHAP. X. A Book under Bartholomew's Name* 171
OU'TW yav o $t~oq ExfioXo- Thedivine Bartholomew hath
{*!(* <^<n, x. *roX;w TI\ f P oken to this P ur P ofe J viz -
/ r \ * / That divinity is both copious
- <
and concife j that the Gofpel
X.OLI TO . , , , , . . .
is both broad and large, and
XOU
It may perhaps be imagined by fome, as the the old Greek
fcholiaft of Dionyfms thought, that this was not a citation
out of any book of Bartholomew, but only a fentence of his
preferred by tradition : but this feems very improbable, be-
caufe the author of the books, which are now extant under
the name of Dionyfius the Areopagite, lived at fo great a
diftance from the Apoftles' time. The learned Daille has
largely a demonftrated the fpurioufnefs of the book, even to
the fatisfa&ion of his great adverfary Bifhop Pearfon b , and,
I think, of all learned men ; though that prelate difapproves
of Monfieur Daille's making the writer fo very late as the
year 520, and has made it evident that he wrote about the
fame time as Eufebius ; and therefore this pafTage becomes
confiderable here, falling within the fourth century. But
whichfoever of thefe periods we affix to this pretended Dio-
nyfius, it is hardly probable fuch a paflage fhould be preferved
in memory fo long ; and therefore either this author forged
this fentence out of his own brain, which he afcribed to Bar-
tholomew, and found it in no book, which Mr. Daille fup-
pofes c , or elfe he took it out of fome piece, faid to be the
writing of that Apoftle. Sixtus Senenfis d , Dr. Grabe%
and fome others, fuppofe it to be taken out of the book en-
titled The Gofpel of Bartholomew^ concerning which opinion I
am not able to determine ; nor indeed is it of any great ac-
count, whence the author of fo grofs a forgery made his cita-
tions : I fhall only obferve, that the language of the frag-
ment is no way like the language of the Apoftolick age j for
a De Pfeudcpig. Dicnyf. Areo- c Lib. clt. c.ay. in init.
pag. lib. i. d Bib'ioth. Sanft. 1. z. {5.43.
Vindic. Ignat. Epiftol. Par. x. Spicileg. Patr. torn. i.p. 128.
cap. 10. in init.
inftance,
1 72 A Book under Bartholomew* s Name> PART n.
inftance, the word Qtoteyia (Tfaology) was in that early time
unknown, and did not, till of a long time after, come in ule
in the Church, and as the word 0oAoy being conftantly ufed
in this book under the name of Dionyfms, does fufficiently
demonftrate it to be a forgery of times much later than thofe
of the true Dionyfeus of Athens a ; fo a fortiori does the word
Gloria, prove this writing under the name of Bartholomew to
be much later than the time wherein the true Bartholomew
lived. It is therefore to be judged Apocryphal by Prop. X,
XII. as well as by Prop. IV, V, VI.
Numb. VIII. The GOSPEL of BARTHOLOMEW.
This is mentioned,
1. By Jerome b : Many have endeavoured^ fays he, without
the grace and fpirit of God, to fet forth Gofpeh, among which
is that under the name of Bartholomew.
2. By Pope Gelafius c : The Gofpel under the name of Bar-
tholomew the Apojile, is Apocryphal. There is not any other
exprefs mention, that I know, of this book ; fo that it is evi-
dently to be reckoned among the Apocryphal ones, by Prop.
IV, V, VI.
There are not any fragments extant of this book, unlefs,
as I am inclined to think, it was the very fame with the Gof-
pel of St. Matthew, which the Hebrews or Nazarenes made
ufe of. The reafon of my conjecture is, the account we have
both from Eufebius d and Jerome % viz. "That Pantanus y
being fent by Demetrius Bijhop of Alexandria to preach the
Gofpel to the Indians , at the requeft of their ambaj/adors, when
he came among them, found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
Apaftles, had preached the Gofpel among them before, according
to the Gofpel of St. Matthew, which he left there in Hebrew
characters j and, as Jerome adds, brought it back with him to
* Dr. Grabe, ibid. above, Num. III.
b Prasfat. in Comm. in Matt. See d Hiftor. Ecclef, 1. 5. c. 10.
j^e at large above, Num. IV. c Catalog. Virg. Illultr. in Pan-
. L ' In his Decree 5 ite it at large tn.
Alexandria.
CHAP. x. proved to be fpurians. 173
Alexandria. Now this, I fay, feems to me to have been the
book afterwards called The Gcfpel of Bartholomew, only that
it had fuffered many interpolations and additions. For it can-
not be thought improbable, that thofe who heard St. Bartho-
lomew preach over and explain this Gofpel to them, fbould,
after his departure, rather call it by his name, whom they
knew, than the name of Matthew, whom they knew not.
Befides, if we may credit Nicephorus a , he afiures us, that
Bartholomew diftated the Gofpel of Matthew to them out of
his memory , and did not bring it along with him ; and, if fo,
it is very improbable they fliould call it by any other name
befides his.
Nor is there room to objet, that it cannot be fuppofed this
book fliould be among the Indians without any title : for,
1. If Nicephorus's relation be true, there would be no necef-
fityofa title; his dictating it to them was fufficient to entitle
it. But,
2. If we fay he brought it with him to the Indies, it is not
at all Jlrange it /hould be left without a title. Bartholomew
himfelf knew who the author was, and fo perhaps did not
write any. But I need not fly to any conjectures in the mat-
ter ; 1 dare affert, and undertake to prove, that the prefent
titles of our four Gofpeis, as well as many other antient books,
were not prefixed to them by their authors b . As to the titles
of the Gofpeis, all I offer at prefent is, the exacl: likenefs or
uniformity of their titles, the difference that is between the
Greek and Latin copies in this refpedr., and the difference of
the old Syriack Verfion from both.
Hence it feems probable, this Gofpel of Bartholomew v/as
that of Matthew, which he left, and Pantznus found in the
Indies : I add, it received many interpolations and additions,
fome few perhaps by Bartholomew himfelf (by way of com-
mentary or illuftrating notes, which afterwards crept into the
text), but more, and of a different fort, by others ; otherwife
Jerome and Gelafius would not have condemned it as Apo-
* Hiftor. Eccl. 1. 4.. c. 32. this proved by Father Simon, Crit.
* He who has a mind may fee Hiftory of the NewTeft. chap. 2.
cryphal.
174 Tlie Gofpel of Bartholomew. PART n.
cryphal. And, if I may be allowed to guefs, I would offer it
as probable, that when Pantaenus brought it to Alexandria, it
had at length inferted into it the interpolations of the Hebrew
Gofpel of St. Matthew, which the Judaizing Chriftians there
made ufe of. Two things make this conje&ure more proba-
ble, viz.
1. Becaufe it was in Hebrew character s t and fo of courfe
falling into the hands of the Jewifh converts, it cannot be
thought but they would endeavour to make it as like their
own Hebrew copy of St. Matthew as they could, otherwife
their own muft have been cenfured as a fpurious and Apocry-
phal piece.
2. Becaufe the Nazarene Gofpel (or the Hebrew Gofpel of
St. Matthew) feems at this time to have been more in ufe at
Alexandria^ than any other part of the world. It is well
known, what number of Jews, or Judaizing Chriftians, in-
habited that city; and that thefe ufed this Hebrew Gofpel, is
evident, becaufe it was known to Clemens Alexandrinus, the
fcholar of the above-mentioned Pantsenus, and Origen, the
fcholar of Clemens, who both dwelt at Alexandria ; befides
whom, it does not appear that any Chriftian writer (except
Hegefippus) knew any thing of this Gofpel, till Jerome.
This I offer as a probable conjecture concerning this book 3 .
I know but one thing can be objected, and that is, how Ji-
rome, who j "aw and read the Hebrew Gofpel of the Nazarene s,
could fpeak of this Gofpel of Bartholomew as di/iincJ from zV,
which he certainly does. To which I think it will be enough
to anfwer, that it is very probable Jerome had never feen any
Gofpel under Bartholomew's name, but only rejedts it, as
what he knew was commonly efteemed a fpurious piece.
I have only here to add, that if the foregoing account be
juft, Monfieur Daille b is very much miftaken in fuppofing
that the Gofpel of Bartholomew was forged but a very little
time before Gelafius. Nor is his reafon true which he offers,
Dr. Grabe propofes this ccn- b De Pfeudepig, Dion. Areopag.
jeflure in part, Spicil. Patr. torn, i . c, 2 - .
p. 128.
viz,
CHAP. XI, The Gofpel of Bafilides. 175
viz. Becaufe it is neither mentioned by Eufebius^ Jerome-) nor
any of the antient writers; for that it was long before men-
tioned by Jerome in the place above cited, every one may
perceive.
CHAP. XI.
The Gofpel of Baftlides : bis Age and Tenets : bis Twenty-four
Books upon the Gofpel.
Numb. IX. The GOSPEL of BASILIDES.
CONCERNING this Gofpel we have very little account
Vy in any Chriftian Hiftories ; it is only juft named among
the Apocryphal books of the New Teftament :
1. ByOrigen 3 : The Church hath but four Gofpek, the
hereticks many Bafilides was fo impudent as to ivrite a Gof-
pely and prefix his own name to it.
2. By Ambrofe b : Many have attempted to write Gofpeh y
which the Orthodox do not approve Eafilides had the im-
pudence to write one, which is called The Gofpel according to
Bafilides.
3. By Jerome e : Many have endeavoured without the grace
and fpirit of God to publijh Gofpels^ among which is that of
Bafilides, &'c.
There are not now any fragments of this Gofpel any where
extant, nor am I able to make any conjecture concerning it ;
befides that it was calculated to promote the heterodox fenti-
ments of its author ; of which it may not be foreign to my
purpofe to give the following account.
He was one of the firft noted hereticks of the Chriftian
Church, and lived very near the Apoftles' times, though the
Ecclefia quatuor habet Evan- b See the paflage at length above,
gelia, Haerefes plurima Aullis Num. V. in Luc. i.
eft Bafilides fcribere Evangelium, c Praefat. in Comment, in Matth.
& fuo illud nomine titulare. Honoil, produced at large above, Num. IV.
in Luc. i. i. in init.
precife
lj6 'The Age and Tenets cf Bafilides. TART II.
precife time of his age has been much difputed by Bifhop
Pearfon * againft Daille b . He was the fcholar of Menander,
and one of the main authors of the known fel of the Gnof-
ticks, a quo Gnojlici, fays Eufebius in his GfrmicM*. His
principal tenets were,
That there was only one being or creature made by God ; this
leing formed the next, and that another, and fo on, in a ridi-
culous feries of Gods or angels proceeding from each other, to the
number of 36 '5, each of which created a heaven to anfwer to the
number of the days of the year, over which he prejided. Tljat the
angel who prejided in that heaven which is nearejl to us, made
this earth and its inhabitants ; that the angel, or God of the
yews was more obflinate than the rejl, and endeavoured to make
that people fuperior to all other-, at which the angels of other
nations being provoked, incited their refpeclive countries to wage
war with the Je^^us ; that the unbegotten Father fent his Son,
in the Jhape of a man, to prevent the Jewijh tyranny ; that he
was not really flejh, or a man, but only appeared to be fo-, that
be did net himfelf fuffer on the crofs, but Simon the Cyre-
nian in hisjlead. He denied the refurreftion, allowed of the Py-
thagorean transmigration of fouls, of fodomy, and all forts of
uncleannefs, &c. He that would read more of this fort may
confult Irenaeus d , Tertullian e , Clemens Alexandrinus f , Eu-
febius ?, Epiphanius h , Jerome 5 , and Auftin k among the an-
tientsj Mr. Spanheim (who has obliged the world with a
fpecimen of their images and magical hieroglyphicks, neatly
engraved on copper plates ') and Dr. Grabe among the
moderns m .
I have been the more large in reciting the tenets of Bafi-
lides, becaufe it may perhaps be not abfurd to fuppofe them
1 Vindic. Ignat. Epift. par. ^. of his Stromata, he is often refuted.
c. 7- E Hiit. Eccl. 1.4. 0.7.
" De Pfeudepig. Dion. & Ignat. h Haeref. 24..
1. 2. c. 10. ' Catal. Vir. Illuftr. in Agrippa
c Adann. Chriiti 136. Caftor.
d Adv. Hasref. 1. i. c. 23, &c. k DeHceref. ad Qupdvultd.n.^..
& 1.2. c. 65. ' Eccl. Hift. Secul. II. p. 638,
c De Pnefcript. adv. Haeret. c. 639.
4 6 - m Spicileg. Patr. torn. ^. p. 35
1 In the third and fouith books &:c.
as
CHAP. XI,
'The Commentaries of Bafilides.
177
as fo many fragments of his Gofpel. Eufebius a tells us of
an excellent piece wrote by Agrippa Caftor, wherein he con-
futed all the fubtle principles of this impious heretick, and
mentions his having wrote twenty-four books upon the Gof:el;
but whether he means upon either or all the Gofpel? which
we now have, or upon his own Gofpel, is utterly uncertain.
Valefius b , and after him Dr. Cave c and Dr. Grabe d fuppofe
it to have been his own Gofpel, and not any of ours, which
is indeed much the more probable opinion ; for it cannot be
imagined that Herefiarch would fhew fo great refpecl: to ours.
But perhaps neither of thefe opinions is true, but rather that
the twenty-four books upon the Gofpel, which Agrippa Caftor
fpeaks of, were the very Gofpel of Bafilides itfelf, which
Origen and Jerome mention in the places above cited. There
are indeed fome confiderable fragments of this work in Cle-
mens Alexandrinus % which becaufe I cannot certainly prove
to have been the Gofpel of Bafilides, I {hall think it fuffiaent
to refer the reader to, as they are collected by the learned
writer laft mentioned.
* Hift. Eccl. lib. 4.
TO E^afeXo Tttract
c. 7. Efe
crjoy t roi$
b Annot. in loc. Euf. jam citat.
p. 62.
c Hift. Literar. p. 30.
d Spicileg. Patr. torn. 2. p. 37,
38-
* Strom. 1.4. p. 506, &c. There
is alfo another Fragment of it in
the Difputation of" Archelaus and
Manes published at Rome by Lau-
rentius Alexander Zacagnius, Li-
brary-keeper of the Vatican. See
Grab. loc. cit.
VOL. I.
N
CHAP.
The Gofpel of Cerinthus. PART II.
CHAP. XII.
7he Gofpel of Cerintbus ; bis Age and Principles. A Story of
St. John the Apoftle and him at Epbefus. That be is referred
to Acts xv. His Gofpel proved to be the very fame with the
Gofpel of the Ebionites and Na-zarenes.
C.
Numb. X. The GOSPEL of CERINTHUS.
THIS is mentioned only by Epiphanius under this name,
though under other names byfeveral of the firft writer?,
as will appear hereafter. He mentions it upon the fame oc-
cafion as many other of the Chriftian writers do the Apocry-
phal books ; viz. expounding the firft words of St, Luke's
Gofpel a.
TD-oAXo I- Saying, forafmuch as many
have taken in hand > b 7 which
he would intimate, that there
had been many undertakers of
, ... , ...
N v the like work, among which,
I fuppofe, were Cerinthus,
Merinthus, and others.
That which makes it worth while critically to enquire into
this Gofpel is, that it feems to follow from thefe words of
Epiphanius, that he thought it was compofed before St. Luke
-wrote bis, and that the hereticks, againft whom he is in that
chapter writing, maintained, that the Gofpel which is received
as St. John's was written by this fame Cerintbus.
In order to introduce what I conjecture concerning this
matter, I fhall firft premife fome account of Cerinthus and his
tenets. He appears to have been one of the firft who troubled
the Chriftian Church with his heretical opinions j for, if we
* Ancetorum feu Alogorum, Haeref. 51. . 7.
may
CHAP. XII. His Tenets and Dottrines. 179
may credit Trenaeus % St. John wrote bis Gofpel with this par-
ticular view, that he might confute the errors which were fpread
abroad by Cerinthus ; and in another place b he tells us, that there
were fame in being in his time, who heard Poly carp a companion
efthefaid Apofile relate the following ftory, viz. " That when
*' St. John was in a certain bath at Ephcfus, and faw Cerin-
" thus alfo in, he immediately leaped out of the bath, faying,
" Let us go away, left the bath (hould fall down, in which
" is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth." Epiphanius c adds,
that he made frequent oppofition to the Apojlles themfches at An-
tioch, C&farea, and Jerufalem ; that he was one of thofe con-
demned in the Council of Jerufalem, A&s xv. -and referred to
in the Synodical Letter to the Church of Antioch, ver. 24. as one
who had troubled them with words fubverting their fouls, &c.
That he reproached St. Peter for going to Cornelius a Gentile,
and other uncircumcifed perfons, and St. Paul upon the very fame
account at Jerufalem. His principal tenets were the fame with
the Carpocratians and Ebionites, a few of which, as far as
they are ferviceable to my defign, I fhall mention ; viz. He
denied the divinity of our Saviour ', averting that Jefus was but
a mere man, not born of a Virgin, but of Mary, begotten by Jo.-
feph in the ordinary way of generation ; that circumcifion and
the other rites of the Mofaick law were ji ill in force and obliga-
tory upon Chriftians. This ftiort account of this heretick and
his principles does very plainly intimate, what we are to de-
termine concerning the Gofpel now under confideration, to
which his name was prefixed, viz. That it was either entirely
the fame, or very little different from the Gofpel of the Ebionites
er Nazarenes, which was mojt certainly calculated to thefe fen-
timents, as will appear hereafter, and was no other than St.
Matthew's Gofpel tranflated into Hebrew, with diverfe inter-
polations and corruptions. This conjedture will appear pro-
bable to thofe who confider,
I. That the Cerinthians and Ebionites agreed in almojl all
the fame heretical principles, but chiefly in maintaining the
a Adv. Hseref. lib. 3! c. u. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 14.
p. 257. c Haeref. 28. Cerinth. .2,3.
b Lib. 3.c.3. Vid.Eufeb. Hift.
N 2 continuing
180 TTje Gofpel of Cerinthus the fame PART II.
continuing obligation of Mofes's laiu, denying our Saviour's di-
vittitj, and ajferting him to be a mere man. This has b en
already hinted, and will undeniably appear by a bare cafting
of the eye upon the places of Epiphanius cited at the bottom
of the page *.
2. Agreaable to thefe principles they both received only St.
Matthew's Gcfpd, rejecling the other parts of Scripture. Con-
cerning the Ebionites we have the terHmony of irena-us b ,
but more large in Eufebius c : They utterly reject ell Paul's
Epiftles, Jfyling him an apojiate from the law, and receive only
that which is called The Gofpel according to the Hebrews ;
i. e. that under St. Matthew's name d . As to the Cerinthians
we are told the fame, more than once, by Epipha.iius ; fo
Haeref. 28. They receive only the Gcfpel of Matthew, bY. and
Haeref. xxx. . 14. he exprefsly tells us (v/hi^h puts the matter
paft all doubt) that they received the fame Gofpel of Matthew
as the Ebionites did, and that it was called The Gofpel accord-
ing to the Hebrews.
3. The Gcfpel of St. Matthevj, which Cerinthus and the
Ebionites made ufe of, was in the very fame refpecls altered and
corrupted; for inftance, the genealogy of our Saviour, and fome
more in the beginning of St. Matthew's Gofpel, were left out
in the copies of both thefe hereticks. As to the Ebionites, it
is exprefsly aflerted by Epiphanius % In the Gofpel which they
ufe, and which they call by Matthew's name, and the Hebrew
Gofpel', which is not perfefi, but adulterated and imperfect, &c.
And as to the Cerinthians no lefs evidently in the place above
cited : They ufe only the Gofpel of Matthew in part, but not
the whole of it ; for they have taken away the genealogy of our
Saviour according to the fiefl} out of their Gofpel : which that the
Ebionites did alfo, appears from what the fame author fays in
another place? ; having produced a paiiage out of the Gof-
pel of the Ebionites according to Matthew, he adds, Cerin-
thus and Carpocras making ufe of the lame Gofpel of Mat-
* Compare Hxref. a8. and 30.
together. See alio Philallr. Haercf.
36. and Auguft. deHseref. N. 8.
b Adv. Haeref. lib. 3. c. 1 1. p.
a 5 8.
Hift.Eccl. I. 3-c. 27.
Vid. lien. loc. cit.
Haeref. 30. .13.
Haeref. a8. .5.
Haeref. 30. . 14.
thew
CHAP. xii. with that of the Nazarenes- l8l
thew (as they call it) with the Ebionites who have erafed
out of their copies the genealogy of Chrift, and begin their
Gofpel at thefe words, And it came to pafs in the days of Herod
the king (Matt. iii. i.). The defign of their agreement to omit
the genealogy, and the firft and fecond chapters, was, that
their notion of Chrift's being a mere man might not be con-
tradifted and confuted, which they certainly had been, if the
account there given of the Virgin's conception by the Holy
Ghoft was credited 2 .
Upon the whole then, it feems not unfair to conclude,
that the Gofpel of Ccrinthus and his followers icas no other
than the E bior.it e or Nazarene Gofpel^ \. e. the Gofpel of St.
Matthew corrupted and interpolated, in Hebrew. A farther
account of this Gofpel, together with all its fragments, will
be produced in its proper place, viz. under the title of The
Gofpel of the Nazarenes. I {hall only add farther here, that
the antient hereticks, called the Alogi, afcribed the Gofpel of
John and the Revelations to Cerinthus, as the author of both;
and upon that fcore rejected them as Apocryphal b : but how
abfurd this opinion was, Epiphanius has well {hewn ; and I
{hall endeavour to prove hereafter, viz. as to the Gofpel in
the laft part of this work, and as to the Revelation in the
following chapter.
* It is to be obferved, that though
Epiphanius in the pb.ce laft cited
feems to intimate, that Cerinthus
and Carpocras attempted to prove
our Snviour to be a mere man from
the genealogy, Matt. i. contrary
to the Ebioiutes who rejecl it, yet
he cannot mean that thofe hereticks
ov.T.ed the genealogy, but only ar-
gutd upon the fuppcfition of its
being true: for ifotherwiie, he mutt
contradict himfcif in the other places
cited.
" Hseref. 51. . 3.
N 3
CHAP.
182
The Revelation of Cerinthus.
PART u.
CHAP. XIII.
The Revelation of Cerinthus not the fame with the Revelation
of St. John^ but compiled out of it ; on which Account the
Canonical Revelation was fo long of doubtful Authority.
Numb. XL The REVELATION of CERINTHUS.
THIS Apocryphal piece is only mentioned by Caius, of
Gaius, a learned Prefbyter of Rome, in his difputation
againft Proclus. The fragment is preferved by Eufebius, out
of whom I fhall here tranfcribe it.
'AAAa xai
Si 'A- Cerinthus in a book of Reve-
lations written by him, as
, - thou g h he were fome S reat
' Apoftle, falfely tells us of
a.yyi- . J
' ' certain furpnfing difcovenes,
. T>:> avaVariv Imyetov m-
Ai/
* , ' IT x
OT?
A:'y?< y(T^i. Vid.
Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28.
he thus intro _
duces, faying, That after the
refurretion Chrift (hall reign
here on earth, and thofe who
dvve11 at Jerufalem fhall again
ferve (or be capable of) bo-
dilyluftsandpieafures. To
which that enemy ofthe divine
Scriptures addS) the better to
propagate his errors, that the
fpace of a thoufand years fhall
be fpent in marriage-feafting.
Hence it is evident that Caius knew of fome book under
the title of The Revelation^ which pretended to infpiration,
as being dictated by angels, and wrote by Cerinthus, as fome
great Apoftle ; for I think nothing more juft than Valefius's
translation of thofe words *flj IKQ 'Amrote ptyxhx yt'.-^a.'j.uumr, a
f<
CHAP. xiii. Not the fame with St. John's. 183
fe tanquam a magno Apojlolo confcriptas, for otherwife It will
not be poffible to make any fenfe of the fentence. Dr. Grabe
indeed imagines, that Caius afcribed the Revelation of St. John
to Cerinthus in the fore-cited paflage, and meant no other than
that this Canonical book was publifhed by Cerinthus under
the name of St. John 3 . But the fragment which Caius pro-
duces does moft evidently demonftrate the contrary, becaufe
the contents of it, viz. Chri/J's reigning on earth, the Jews
then enjoying carnal lufts and pleasures , andfpending a tboufand
years in nuptial merriments^ are no where found in the Reve-
lation of St. John. It is true indeed (as that learned anti-
quary obferves), Dionyfius Alexandrinus b intimates, that it
was the opinion of fome, that no Apoftle nor holy ecclefiajlical
writer wrote the Revelation called St. John's, but that Cerin-
thus forged it, and, the better to propagate his notions and gain
credit to his fancies, prefixed the name of John to it. He might
have added too, that the hereticks called Alogi were of tins
opinion c : but all this will not prove what he contends for,
that The Revelations of St. John and Cerinthus were the fame
book ; for befides what has been already obferved out of the
fragment of Caius to prove them diftint, it is evident Diony-
fius Alexandrinus looked upon them as fuch too ; for though
he endeavours to prove (what I hope hereafter to confute)
that the Revelation under the name of John the Divine, or
Apoftle, was not wrote by him, but fome other John, yet he
declares his belief of it as the work ciylu -mo? VM\ Stovnvrov, of
fome holy and infpired writer ; whereas he had a little before
condemned the pretended Revelation of Cerinthus, and his
doctrine which he calls Herefy, and accordingly produces the
following fpecimen of his Revelations, as well deierving to be
exploded. See Eufeb. Hift. Ecclefiaft. 1. 7. c. 25.
TSTO y ttvoti T <Ua<rx.- For this is the doarine of
Ai'a? aura TO <?c'<y ( ua, eWyeiov Cerinthus, that Chrijl Jhall
sc-ec-3-aj TW T Xc,-a (3a<7i- reign here on earth, when, as
* Spicileg. Patr. torn. i. p. 311. c. 28.
h Lib. 2. de PromiiT. apud Eu- c Hasref. 51. . 3.
ftb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 7. c. 25. & 1. 3.
N 4 As'av,
184 The Revelation of Cerinthus PART n.
xai uv aJro? ciyTO, he extravagantly fancied, there
wx x Tra'vv rac- ^"^ ^ * enjoyment of thofe
WTOK o^OTroX^ W* tf **>< W* ^ which him-
v N ~ /^//" ww exceffively inclined
rai. varpo? x T*;? V j jj-n j j ,
and addicted, vaz. abundant
Tr yttf^a ^Xwpov*??, Ta- p rov if jons for the belly and the
rift fl-iT/oi?, xal TTOTO:?, xi ^ am ^ ^ s w/ -^ OTM , f flw ^
ya^ioi? , Hat ^i' aiv u<p ri p T ~ drinks^ and marriages^ for the
f ov f aura w''3> wooiEur^ai, ^f^r accomplijhing -of which
xai 3v<rta? xa iepfiwi* ^e% J *^ ^flK/rf ^ feajl-
'^ tfw</ banqueting!, and
killing offacrifices.
Such a book was the Revelation of Cerinthus, fufficiently
different frem that under the name of St. John now in the
Canon, and undoubtedly to be efteemed Apocryphal, by Prop.
IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX.
If it fliould be yet urged, that it is veryjlrange^ that not
only the Alogians, but others who lived before Dionyfius of
Alexandria, and confequently very near the time of St. John,
Jhould afcribe his Bcok of Revelations to Cerinthus, as its author 9
1 fhall only now anfwer,
Fir/?, That we have very ftrong reafon to prefume the Re-
velation, now reputed Canonical, was really wrote by him whcfe
name it bears.
Secondly, That from the foregoing account it feems very
probable, that the Revelation of Cerinthus was compiled out of
that of St. John, with the addition of many trifling fancies , and
perhaps the ffmijffion of fame things not fa agreeable to the fenti-
ments of that heretick. This I am the rather inclined to think ;
becaufe,
I. This was a prafiice very csmmon with the hereticks of
thofe early times of the Church, viz. to alter the genuine records
of Chri/lianity, and to accommodate them to their own impious
fentiments, retaining only fo much of the true writing, as would
enable them with the greater confidence to impofe their fpurious
pieces upon the world. See above in this part, Chap. I.
Obferv. II. This has been already proved to be fact as to the
Gofpel
CHAP. xni. a ridiculous Forgery. 185
Gofpcl of Bartholomew and Barnabas, and will appear here-
after to be true of the Gofpel of the Ebionites, Nazarenes,
Marcton, Peter, and others.
2. Becaufe this has been proved to be the cafe in refpecl of
the Gofpel of Cerinthus in the preceding chapter^ viz. that it
was an interpolated and corrupted copy of St. Matthew ; and it
is notjlrange the fame perjo'n Jhould be guilty of the fame practice
-with the Revelation of St. John.
3. Becaufe, fuppofmg the Revelation of St. John to be
genuine, there can be no other caufe more probable ajftgned^
why it Jhould have been by fo many attributed to Cerinthus.
Upon this hypothecs of his altering it fo much, it is not
ftrange if it was by his followers afcribed to him as its author,
and fo by others ; and fo this being known, at length even the
genuine book of St. John came, by fome weaker perfons, who
had not compared both, to be afcribed to that heretick. This
will yet feem farther probable, if we confider the myfteriouf-
nefs of St. John's book, which is fuch as would be a very
likely means to give force to the common report of its being
rather wrote by Cerinthus than St. John, efpecially if we add
this farther confideration of its being wrote in a ftyle very dif-
ferent from thole commonly received and acknowledged.
Coroll. Hence we may give at leaft a probable account,
why the Revelation of St. John was fo long of doubtful au-
thority in the Church, viz. becaufe it was unhappily interpo-
lated by Cerinthus immediately after its firft being publifhed,
and fo by many attributed to him. That this was the plain
^reafon why the Alogians rejected it, Epiphanius exprefsly tells
us a , and may fairly be concluded of others from what has
been faid. Something like this is the conje&ure of Grotius
concerning this matter, with whofe words (becaufe of thejuft
reputation of the man) I will finifh this chapter b . / fuppofe t
(ays he, the reafon why there have been doubts concerning the
author and authority of this book^ among others (there given),
JSy becaufe what we read in it of the refurreclion^ of the tboufar.d
sy of Gog and Magog y agrees in found with the Jewifh
Loc.jamcit. k Anact. in Ti:ul. Apocalypf.
fcook's ;
1 86 Books under the Name of CbriJJ. PART II,
books; and though they are here in a different fenfe, yet were
perverted by Cerinthus, and fome Chriftians, who judaized too
much into a plain Jewifh fenfe. But of this more hereafter.
CHAP. XIV.
Books under the Name of Chrift. None of this fort mentioned
till St. Auxin's Time. A malicious Mi/lake of Mr. Toland
detetted. An Epijlle of Chrijl to Peter and Paul proved out
of St. Aujlin to be a ridiculous Forgery. Another Book at-
tributed to Chrijl. Concerning the Magick ofCbriJl.
THE Books, which fall next in courfe under confidera-
tion, are thofe attributed to our Saviour Jefus Chrift,
which before I come particularly to confider, I \vould premife,
that / have not found any mention of fuch within the limits of
my time^ i.e. in any writers of the firft four centuries, befides
by Aufiin^ except the. Epijlle of Cbrift to AbgarUs^ which is
fr.il! extant, and to be examined in the next part of this work.
It is true indeed, in later ages, many fuch forgeries are known
to have been ; fome of which are ftill extant, but fo ridiculous
and trifling, as not to deferve any mention or regard. Mr.
Fabritius has been at the pains (though to little purpofe) to
collect them in his Codex Apocryphus NoviTeftamenti, where
p. 3c8, &c. he who has a mind may fee a more particular ac-
count. I return to what is more material : it does not ap-
pear that our Saviour ever wrote any book or letter whatfo-
ever, except what he wrote with, his finger on the ground*,
whilft the Jews were accufing the adulterous woman to him j
concerning which writing I think it as needlefs to form any
new conje&ure of my own, as it would be trifling to give the
reader the elaborate difcourfes of Sixtus Senenfis b , Fabritius*,
and others. Mr. Toland indeed in his Catalogue ( Amyntor,
p. 20.) under the title cf Books reported to be written by
a John viii. 6. c Cod. Apoc. N. T. Pars i.
.- fc Bibliothec. Sanft. lib.z. p. 70. p. 315.
Chrift
CHAP. XIV. A Miftake of Mr. Poland. iSj
Chrift himfelf, reckons one entitled 'the Parables and Ser-
mons ofChrift) as mentioned by Eufebius, Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. 0.39.
At firft view of this, one would be ready to conclude, that
fome fuch book under this title there certainly was written by
our Saviour, feeing it is mentioned by fo credible an author as
Eufebius. But let the reader obferve here a plain inftance ei-
ther of the unfairnefs or blundering of that filly writer ; for it
is evident Eufebius never thought any thing of fuch a book,
either wrote by Chrift, or that went under his name. The
pafTage referred to is this ; fpeaking of Papias, and his fond-
nefs for traditions, he adds,
Kai aAAa SI o etvros wyfy- That writer farther declares,
ga- ** he received many other
<v things by oral tradition, viz.
{i- & '
^ , , fome Itrange parables and dif-
JftTOll l/a? Tc TIV&; T&OiCCt,- f. / o ,
* N 5 courfes of our Saviour, and
aura, xai ri
To, &c. Among thefe one was the
Millennium.
It is ftrange Mr. Toland would either fuffer himfelf to be
fo much impofed upon, or endeavour to impofe upon his rea-
ders a thing fo very grofs, as to call that a book written by
Chrift, and cite Eufebius for it, when Eufebius exprefsly fays,
it was no book at all, but only fome fabulous traditionary
ftorics of Chrift, which the credulous Papias had collected. I
take it then for granted, that we have no mention of any
books as written by our Saviour till the fourth century ;
which pr.emifed, I come to enquire, what mention is made of
hem there.
Numb.
i88 Chri/l's Ep'iftle to Peter. PART n.
Numb. XII. The EPISTLE of CHRIST to PETER
and PAUL.
ST. AUSTIN difputing againft the Pagans intimates, that
they pretended to have feen or read fome books which,
were written by Chrift. His words are thefe a ;
Ita vero ifti defipiunt, ut in They are fo ftrangely infatu-
illis libris, quos eum fcripfifle ated, as to aflert, that in thofe
exiftimant, dicant contineri books which they fuppofe
eas artes, quibus eum putant Chrift to have written, are
ea fecifle miracula, quorum contained thofe arts, by which
fama ubique percreSuit ; he wrought his celebrated mi-
Quid quod etiam divino judi- racles. They are foblind-
cio fie errant quidam eorum, ed by the judgment of God
qui talia Chriftum fcripfiile upon them, who believe or
vel credunt, vel credi volunt, would have others believe that
ut eofdem libros ad Petrum et Chrift wrote fuch books, as
Paulum dicant, tanquamepif- to fay, that the books are
tolari titulo praenotatos. wrote in the form of an Epif-
tle to Peter and Paul.
It is not very difficult to form a judgment concerning thefe
fpurious pieces; and indeed the folly of them is fo well de-
monftrated by St. Auftin, that I need do little more than give
the reader his words. He firft feems to queftion the fincerity
of their relation as to the facl: : " If they have, fays he, any
u fuch books which they affirm Chrift to have written, let them
u produce them to us. They mujl necejjarily be very ufeful and
" edifying books, which were written by one whom themfelves
** ejleemed as a man of the greatejl wifdom. If they are afraid
" to produce them, it is a fign they are bad; and if they
" are bad^ they could not be written by the wifejl of men ; but
u fuch they confefs Chrift to have been, therefore Chrift did not
" write any fuch book. A little after, Why do not they -who
" a ffi r m they have read fuch books do fome fuch works y as they
* De Confenf. Evang. Lib. i. c. 9, 10. T. Opp. 4.
" with
CHAP. xiv. St. Aujlirfs Opinion^ ff<r. 189
" with -wonder own he did by them ?" In the reft of the
chapter this pious Father (hews it impoffible that this book
fliould not be a forgery, by this good argument, that St.
Paul was not a Chriftian until a conjiderable time after
Chrijfs afcenjion y and fo could not be joined with Peter, as a
Difciple of Chri/t, and receive a letter from him^ unlefs it was
fent by pojt from heaven.
It is manifeft therefore this book muft be reckoned Apo-
cryphal and fpurious by Prop. IV, V, and VI. as alfo by
Prop. VIII. it containing things contrary to certainly known
and undoubted truths, which being fuch alfo as are fubverfive
of the whole defign and doclrine of Chriftianity, viz. That
Chrift wrought his miracles by magical arts 3 , prove it Apo-
cryphal by Coroll. Prop. VIII.
Whether this book was forged by a Heathen or a Chriftian,
is not very eafy to determine. St. Auftin fuppofes the latter b ;
which indeed feems the more probable conjecture, and be-
caufe it is a very ingenious one, it may be worth while to
tranfcribe it. " Perhaps," fays he, u it was the contrivance of
u fome, who fancied by writing fuch books, under the names
'* of Chrift and his Apoftles, they could gain fome weight
*' and authprity from fo glorious a name to theie execrable
" arts ; but were fo infatuated in their impudent impofture,
" as juftly to expofe themfelves to the laughter of children,
" and thofe who were only able to read (in gradu lettorum)
" the Chriftian books. For when they had refolved to forge
" fuch a Letter under the name of Chrift to his Apoftles,
" they contrived to infcribe it to thufe to whom it was moft
u likely to be believed that Chrift would have wrote, viz.
" thofe who were moft familiar with him, and fo moft worthy
" of having fuch a fecret committed to them; hereupon
" they prefently thought of Peter and Paul, becaufe, I fup-
" pofe, they had often feen thefe two pictured with Chrift,
" feeing the paflion of Peter and Paul on the fame day is fre-
" quently and Iblemnly celebrated at Rome."
See Auguft. c. 9. lib. cit. between thefe, and thofe whom he
b I interpret this of a Chriftian, calls inimici nominis Cbrifti, i. e.
becaufe he makes a plain oppofition Heathens.
IQO St. Aii/lln's Opinion^ &c. ?ART II.
If this conje&ure be juft, we fee an inftance of the pious
frauds of the firft Chriftians in forging books, which I align-
ed as one reafon of the great number of Apocryphal pieces,
in the firft part of this work, chap. iv.
Numb. XIII. Another BOOK under the N A M E of
Our SAVIOUR CHRIST.
o
F this we have fome account in another part of the laft
cited book of St. Auftin 3 . His words are
Primo mihi difcutiendum.oc-
currit, quod nonnulli quaerere
folent, cur ipfius Chrifti nulla
fcripta proferamus ? Ita enim
volunt, & ipfum credi neicio
quid aliud fcripfifle, quod di-
ligunt, nihilque fenfifle contra
Deos fuos, fed eos potius ma-
gico ritu coluifle, & Difcipu-
los ejus non folum fuiffe men-
titos de illo, dicendo ilium
Deum per quern omnia facia
funt, cum (non) b aliud nifi
quam homo fuerit, quamvis
excellentiflimae fapientiae, ve-
rum etiam de Diis eorum non
hoc docuifle quod ab illo di-
diciflent.
* Cap. 34..
b I iniert the particle non, hecaufe
either that or fome other word like
I judged it neceflary firft to
difcufs a queftion moved by
fome [ Pagans ], Why we
[Chriftians] can produce no
books written by Chrijl himfelf?
For fo they would perfuade
us, that he wrote fome other
fort of book ( different from
the Evangelifts), which they
efteem, and in which he ap-
pears to have thought nothing
to the prejudice of their Gods,
but on the other hand himfelf
to have worfhipped them with
magical ceremonies, and that
hisDifciples did not only afTert
falfe things of him, in faying,
That he was the God by
whom all things were made,
when he was no more than a
mere man, though of moft ex-
traordinary wifdom, but that
he did not teach thofe things
concerning their Gods which
they (pretended to have)learnt.
it was certainly wrote by St. Auftin,
though it be not in ray edition.
CHAP. XIV. Chriji falfely fuppofed a Magician. igi
It would feem at firft view, the book here mentioned was
the fame with the foregoing, each of them treating concerning
the magickof Chrift ; but, if I miftake not, there is a proba-
ble reafon at leaft to conclude them to have been different, be-
caufe St. Auftin fuppofes the former to have been compofed
by fome impious Chriftian ; but this he could not poflibly
conceive 'to have the fame original. It is poffible a Chriftian
fo called (for there were many in thofe days little more fo than
in name) might conceive a magical book, and publiih it under
the name of Chrift, which is the cafe in refpect of the former
book ; but it is impoflible a perfon fhould take upon him the
Chriftian name, and write a book to prove Chrift a worfhipper
of the idol Gods, to countenance the Heathens in their idola-
try, and to make all his Apoftles and Difciples impoftors and
liars, which is the cafe with refpecl: to the book now under
confideratioh. However this be, it was certainly Apocryphal
by Prop. IV, V, VI, and VIII.
After reading what has been faid concerning thefe two ma-
gical books afcribed to Chrift, I hope no one will be fur-
prifed at the mention of them ; nor is it ftrange, fuch forged
accounts (hould be publifhed, when we find that as the Jews
objected to our Saviour himfelf, that he wrought his miracles
by the power of devils, Matt. xii. 24. fo both Jews and Gen-
tiles endeavoured to fpread the fame malicious lies in the firft
ages of Chriftianity. Celfus frequently makes this impious
objection, that Chriji learned his magical arts from the Egyp-
tians^ among whom he had his education*. The fame we
meet with frequently as made by others in the writings of
Eufebius b , Arnobius c , Auftin d , &c. The Jews have a trite
idle fable to the fame purpofe, Tliat in the reign of tjhieen
Helena there was a Jlone in the temple of Jerufalem, on which
the ark was formerly placed^ on which was engraved CDty
EHEDn *. e. the name Jehovah, in fuch letters that it might
* Vid. Origen. contra Ceif. I. i. Evang. 1. 3. . 6.
p. 30. & 1. 8. p. 384. & Spencer. c Contr. Gent. 1. i. p. 15.
Annot. in lib. i. p. 7. " Loc. fupra cit. & Serm. xi. in
b Contr. Hieioc. & Deraonft. Matth. p. 38. Turn. Opp. 10.
If
ig2 AJewiJh Story concerning Chrijl. PART n.
le read (for the Jews all hold that name ineffable, and
not to be pronounced). Now the efficacy of this name was
fuck) that whoever learned the pronunciation of it y became
thereby able to work all forts of miracles. But the wife men
among them, fearing left an ill ufe Jhould be made hereof ^ ap-
pointed brazen dogs to keep the gate^ which were formed with .
fuch exquiftte art, that if any Jhould learn the name> and be going
away with it in his memory , they Jhould be fo affrighted with
the terrible barkings of the dogs^ as to forget it ; but that Jefns
knowing this, wrote it down in parchment , and fewed it up
in a wound which he made in his thigh for that purpofe^ and fo y
after he went out of the temple, taking forth the parchment, re-
covered the name again which he had for 'got \ and by virtue of
it wrought all his miracles.
Such were the defpicable objections the Jews and Heathens'
made againft our Saviour ; the confutation of which in a very
juft and clear manner may be read in the fore-cited places of
Origen, Eufebius, Auftin, and efpecially Arnobius ; and a-
mong the moderns in the celebrated Huetius ~ ; and Dr. Par-
ker's Demonftration of the Divine Authority of the Chriftian
Religion b .
Demonftrat. Evang. Prop. IX. c. 39. t Seel. 25.
CHAP.
CHAP, xv, jffpurious Epijlle ofCbrifi. 193
CHAP. XV.
Afpurlous Epijlle of Chrift among the Manichees. A notorious
Blunder of Mr. Toland. A Hymn which Chriji taught his
DifcipleS) forged by the Prifcillianifts in the fourth Century.
The Occafion of the Forgery, The Spurioitfnefi of the Hymn.
Numb. XIV. The EPISTLE of CHRIST produced
by the MANICHEES.
TH E only account which we have of this Letter is in
St. Auftin's Difputation with Fauftus the Manichee *.
Quis eft ergo tam demens, Can any one be fo wild, as
qui hodie credat efle Epifto- to believe that to be the Epif-
lam Chrifti, quam protulerit tie of Chrift, which Mani-
Manichaeus, & non credat chseus produces, and not be-
fa&a vel di&a efie Chrifti quze lieve the hiftories and doc-
fcripfit Matthseus ? trines of Chrift, which are
related by Matthew ?
Mr. Fabritius b fuppofes, that this paflage does not fully
prove, that the Manichees really had any fuch Epiftle under
the name of Chrift, but that St. Auftin only, for argument's
fake, makes fuch a fuppofition; but the whole feries of the Fa-
ther's reafoning feems to prove the contrary. He is endea-
vouring to prove the reafonablenefs of the Manichees fubmit-
ting to the authority of St. Matthew's Gofpel; and his argu-
ment ftands fairly thus : " You boaft of an Epiftle, which
" you have, written by Chrift : this, if it were really fo,
" muft needs have been read and received with the utmoft
" veneration in the Church, that has a continued fucceflion
" of Biftiops from the Apoftles' time : but it has no fuch evi-
44 dence of its being genuine, and yet you believe it rather
" than Matthew's Gofpel, which was always received by the
a Contr. Fault. Manich. lib. 28. * Cod. Apoc. N. T. Pars i.
c. 4. T. Opp. 6. p. 306. in Notis.
VOL. I. O Church.
194- A Blunder of Mr .Tohmd. PART rt
" Church. Befides, your pretended Epiftle receives all its
u credit from an obfcure man of Perfia, who lived two hun-
" dred years or more after Chrift j and is he likely to give a
" better account of what Chrift faid and did than Matthew,
" who was one of his Apoftles and companions?"
Thus far he; which reafoning neceflarily fuppofes a real
Epiftle under Chrift's name, among the Manichees : what
doctrines it contained, I cannot guefs, any farther, than that
it is probable they were fuch as peculiarly fuited to the opi-
nions of Manes and his followers, of which a fpecimen is given
above, Chap. V. It was certainly a fpurious piece, as ap-
pears by St. Auftin's reafoning and Prop. IV, V, VI.
I fcarce know whether it be worth while to trouble the
reader with the following remark on Mr, Toland's inaccu-
racy in quotations, unlefs it may be looked upon as (which
I think I may juftly fay it is) a fpecimen of his conftant foul
dealing in thefe matters. In his catalogue of books reported
to be written by Chrift (Amynt. p. 21.) he refers his reader
to this book of St. Auftin for an Rpijlle of Chrift to Peter and
Paul; and quotes lib. 28. c. 13. Now in all this book there
is not one fyllable of any fuch Epiftle ; and whereas he cites
the thirteenth chapter, there are but five chapters in that book :
but this is not all ; he produces another book, which he calls,
A Book of the Magick of Chrift^ and for this refers the reader to
Auguft. de Confenf. Evang. lib. i. cap. 9, 10. and then adds,
If it be not the fame with the Epi/lle to Peter and Paul, i. e.
the Epiftle which he thought had been mentioned in the
twenty-eighth book againft Fauftus : a learned note indeed !
In the firft place to guefs this the fame with a book which
was not mentioned in the place cited, and then to guefs it to
be the very fame with itfelf ; for had this blunderer but caft
his eye upon the place he refers to in St. Auftin de Confenf.
he muft have feen 'that the book of the Magick of Chrift
was in that very place faid to be wrote in form of an Epiftle
to Peter and Paul. But it is plain he c,ted from others, and
was glad to fay any thing which would found bad againft
Chriftianity, though fo plainly at the expence of his ingenuity
and integrity.
* ' *.T 1
Numb.
CHAP. XV. A fpurious Hymn of Chriji,
195
Numb. XV. A HYMN which CHRIST taught his
DISCIPLES.
MR. TO LAND in his fore-mentioned catalogue,
and Mr. Fabritius a have obferved this fpurious piece
in an Epiftle under St. Auftin's name, infcribed to a Bifhop
called Ceretius. But as this Epiftle is not in my edition of
that Father's works, I am obliged entirely to depend on Mr.
Fabritius's quotation out of him, which, that nothing may be
wanting here, I (hall tranfcribe with the addition of a few
remarks.
Hymnus fane quem dicunt
Prifcillianiftae efle Domini
noftri Jefu Chrifti, qui maxi-
me permovit venerationem
tuam, in Scripturis folet Apo-
cryphis inveniri. Prifcil-
lianiftae vero accipiunt omnia
& Canonica & Apocrypha
fimul. Habes verba illorum
in illo codice pofita, Hymnus
Domini quem dixit fecretefanc-
tis Apojlolis & Difcipulisj quia
fcriptum eft in Evangetio,
Hymnodicto afcendit in mon-
tem, &" qui in Canone non eft
pofttus propter eos quifecundum
fe fentiunt, iff non fecundum
Spiritum ff veritatem Dei.
In ifto Hymno cantatur &
dicitur, Solvere volo & folvi
volo Sahare vslo & falvari
vole Ornare volo & ornari
vdoLucerna fum tibi, ille
As for that hymn which the
Prifcillianifts fay is our Lord
Jefus Chrift's, and for which
you have fo great a venera-
tion, it is really among the
Apocryphal Scriptures. The
Prifcillianifts receive all forts
of books, Canonical and Apo-
cryphal too. You have their
words in that Book, A
HYMN WHICH CHRIST SE-
CRETLY TAUGHT HIS APO-
STLES AND DlSCIPLES ; for
it is written, Having fung a
hymn, he went up into a moun-
tain^ and which is not placed
in the Canon by reafon of
thofe who are governed by
their own fentiments, and not
by the Spirit and truth of
God. In that hymn there are
the following words to be
fung and faid, I will bind^ and
Lib. fup. cit. p. 307,
O 2
*>*
196 A ffymn of Chrijl proved fpurious. PART i>.
qui me vides "Januafum till, I will be bound. I will fave,
quicunque me puljas >ui and I will be faved. I will
vides quod ago, face opera adorn, and I will be adorned.
mea. I am a light to thee, who feejl
me. I am a fate to tbee t who
knockejl at me. T/JOU who feejl
what I do, conceal my works.
From this account we fee what gave occafion to this im-
pious forgery, viz. our Saviour's finging a hymn with his
Jpojlles after the pafchalf upper, and their going thereupon up to
the mount of Olives, Matt. xxvi. 30. The hereticks, who
efteemed it, were an impious fort of Chriftians, in the middle
of the fourth century, fo called from Prifcillianus, a Spaniard %
who jumbled together and adopted the iilly and ridiculous te-
nets of the Gnollicks and Montanifts. That this hymn was
forged by Prifcillian himfelf, or fome of his followers, feems
to me probable, from the laft words of it in the foregoing
fragment, Thou, who feejl what I do, conceal my works. For
concealing their myfteries and fecrecy of their doctrines was
enjoined all the feel ; and St. Auftin tells us, this was one of
their maxims b ;
'Jura ; per jura ; ficretum prodere noli.
Swear; forfwear; but be careful of your fecrets.
However it may be, as to this conjecture, the hymn was
certainly fpurious, for the fame reafons as the former pieces
falfely afcribed to Chrift, Prop. IV, V, and VI. But be-
iides, the Ihort fragment given us by St. Auftin undeniably
proves it ; for there cannot be any thing more difagreeable to
the flyle of Chrirfc than it is; in which there are no where
fuch jingles and playing with founds, as appear to be in this.
Moreover, ii I miftake not, the jingle in the two iirft fen-
tences proves this hymn to be firft written in the Latin
tongue; for though indeed it is poflible they may be a tiani-
lation, yet nothing can be more improbable, than that two
V id. Augiift.de Haercf. 'Num. fc De Hxref. ad Quodv. Num..
7*. T. Opp. . 70- T. Opp. C.
fuch
CHAP. xvi. The Gofpel of the Egyptians. 197
fuch diftinr. ideas, as binding and faving^ fhould have been
brought together in fuch a manner, as they are, by any other
means, than the great likenefs which there is between the
founds, folvere and falvare. Nothing elfe could have pro-
duced two fuch fentences as, folvere volo & folvi volo, falvare
volo y falvari volo. It is therefore to be judged fpurious by
Prop. XI. and XII.
But to conclude this matter, it is plain by the exprefs tef-
timonies of the beft writers among the antients, that our Lord
Jefus Chrift left nothing behind him in writing, although
there be indeed many fayings, not in our Gofpels, attributed
to our Saviour, to be found in the antient books, which, for
the entertainment of the curious in thefe things, I have col-
lected, and fhall place in an Appendix at the end of this
volume.
CHAP. XVI.
'Tie Tejlimonies of the Antients concerning the Gofpel of the
Egyptians. All its Fragments : fuppofed by later Writers to
be written before Luke wrote bis Gofpel. Too highly ejteemed
by the Moderns. Rejected by all the Antients as Apocryphal.
Clemens Alexandrinus rejected it. It was forged by the
Monks of Egypt. This largely proved^ ivith an Account of
Philo's Therapeuta.
Numb. XVI. The GOSPEL according to the
EGYPTIANS.
THIS was one of the mofr. celebrated of all the antient
Apocryphal books ; it is frequently mentioned in the old
writings, and very highly efteemed by feveral of our modern
criticks, being fuppofed to have been a faithful compofure of
fame catbolick Chriflians in Egypt^ before either of the four Ca-
nonical Gofpels now received. It requires therefore a very ex-
acl and critical enquiry ; in attempting which I {hall, accord-
O 3 ing
198 Fragments of the PART if.
ing to my method, firft produce the teftimonies and fragments
of it, which are to be found in the antient books, then the
opinions of the moderns, which I have met with, concerning
it, adding the moft {uitable remarks I can upon the whole.
'The antient Tejlitnonies and Fragments of the Gofpel according
to the Egyptians.
I. THE firft writer who has mentioned any thing of it, is
Clemens Alexandrinus in the latter end of the iecond century:
the feveral places are as follow, viz.
Trf
Strom, lib. 3. p. 445.
o Kv'oio? wAz- When Salome
afked our
Mr, fxff* -sfort Soivan& Lord > How long Death Jhould
prevail? (not as though life
were an evil, or the creation
an evil?) he anfwered, As long
trvu X , *
.-,/ \
pia OKTO?, xai rr>q
***
xrfTf. children.
It is not exprefsly faid by Clemens here, that this paflage
was in the Gofpel of the Egyptians ; but it evidently appears
to be taken thence by the next paflage a few pages after, viz.
O;
Page 452.
31 avrirotffffoiuvQt, T*J But they who oppofe (the
ra 0a
-ni?
defign) of God's creation, by
thdr f P ed US Pr etenc to ce-
libacv, cite thofe things which
' . B
ur oaviour fpake to Salome,
T xar
a-ro?
xaroXuVai ra
They are, I think, in
pel according to the Egyptians - t
for they fay, that our Saviour
himfelf faid, / tftfz w* W de-
froy the works of the woman^
TT?
CHAP, xvr:
Gofpel of the Egyptians.
199
yi- that ' ls > tne works of female
concupifcence, generation and
corruption.
From what follows in Clemens it appears, that upon our
Saviour's faying this, Salome afked him the foregoing quef-
tion, viz. How long it Jhould be that death Jhould prevail again/I
men? and he anfwered, While ye women bring forth children.
To which in the next page we meet with her reply, and our
Saviour's anfwer again,
Pa g e 453-
$ajtrni( <ya aJ-r/K, KaAwj Hereupon flie faid, TJjen I
av iirohffet /xij TW8<ra, ? a ^ ave d n e well in bearing no
TIS ywsww? 7srf- children, feeing there is no ne-
CfTi Xs'- "I lt yf Station. To which
our Lord replied,
TXTO TO o
la-
xt OTV
, xai TO appsv
are *ppv, T
X- Utter eat not.
Page 465.
Wherefore Caffianus faith,
that when Salorae afkcd
fChriftJ When the things
I '
Jhould be known^ concerning
. . . - _ T -
which Jhe enquired? our Lord
anfwered, /F/;. ;w ^// A-
^^ or have no need for, a
covering of your nakednefs^
and when two foall become one,
the fe-
>t fvowfy TO pn-
, , ^ , ,
aAA iv TJ) X.&T AI-VUTT-
(Clemens adds) Firft, I ob-
* ... . , ,.
ferve, this is not in either of
, r /^ r i j r j
the four Gofpels delivered to
us, but in the Gofpel according
to the Egyptians.
O 4 This
200 Fragments of the PART ir.
This laft pafiage, with fome little variation, is in the end of
the fecond Epiftle of Clemens to the Corinthians^ and will be
produced in the Appendix at the end of this volume.
II. Tlie Gofpel according to the Egyptians is mentioned by
Origena, The Church receives only four Gofyeh; the hereticks
have very many^ fuch as that according to the Egyptians^ &c.
See the paflage produced at large above, Num. V. chap. 7.
It is mentioned in .the fame manner by Ambrcfe : fee the
fame place.
III. It is alfo mentioned by Jerome b in the paflage above
produced at large, Num. IV. chap. 7. in init. Many have
wrote Gofpelsy which gave occafion to herefies, without the Spirit
and Grace of God, fuch as that according to the Egyptians, &c.
IV. Epiphanius in his account of the herefy of the Sabel-
lians faith, they eftabliflied their erroneous principles by the
Gofpel of the Egyptians^ and other Apocryphal books. His
words are,
Hsref. LXII. . 2.
Si rauq israVaK They make ufe of all the
Scriptures, both of the Old
and . New Teftament, but
principally of fome certain
r J
.. ,
,., , ' paflas;es, which they pick out
IOKZV Oi'jrav Graponrnrow- ,. , .
J \ according to their own cor-
a rupt and pr epoft erous f enti _
Tr,i/ $1 srxrav O.VTUV ments. But the whole of
xa) rw Tyi"? XMK their errors, and the main
'A- ftrength of their heterodoxy
Va the 7 have from fome Apocry-
y - P hal books ' but Principally
/ from that which is called, The
7 r - Gcfpelof the Egyptians; which
* Homil. in Luc. i. i. k Prsef. in Coirm. inMatth.
CHAP. xvr. Gofpel of the Egyptians. 2>9f
Aa ToiauTa cu? v wapay'rw f r m tnat many things of
Ix woe-wVa ra this fort are propofed in a hid-
den m y fterious manner, as by
our Saviour, as though he had
rot? u.a"vTa,i ?, TGV . . . , . .p..- . . _^
faid to his Difciples, 77;^ the
F X T a, TW u-
the fame Perfon, <7rf
^o/? /^ yi^2^ Per-
fon.
Thefe are the accounts we have from antiquity of this fa-
mous Gofpel.
My fecond propofal was, in like manner to give fome ac-
count of the fentiments of more modern writers concerning it.
Sixtus Senenfis a .
The Gofpel of the Egyptians, or according to the Egyptians^
was made ufe of by the hereticks, called Valentinians. Cle-
mens Alexandrinus rejects (anfwers) certain teftimonies cited
out of it by Julius Cailianus, and other hereticks, to confirm
their errors. Epiphanius fays, the Sabellians endeavoured to
prove out of it, that the Father, Son and Spirit were one
Perfon.
Erafmus b .
When St. Luke fays, chap. i. ver. I. That many have taken
in hand to write^ &c. he means thofe who attempted, but
were not fuccefsful in writing ; for at that time not only the
Gofpels of St. Matthew and Mark were extant, but many
other Gofpels were publifhed, viz. The Gofpel of the Ns-
zarenes, Thomas, Matthias, the Gofpel according to the
Egyptians, that of the Twelve Apoftles, Nicodemus, and
others, which were afterwards rejected by the Church as Apo-
cryphal.
Grotius c .
It is evident, that, when St. Luke wrote his Gofpel, there were
many other books extant concerning Chriil, the importance
* Bihlioth. Sinft. l.b. z. p. 38. c / nnot. ineund.lx.
b Annot, in Luc. c. i.'v. i.
201 Sentiments of later PART n.
of the fubje& influencing many to that undertaking : but as
thefe others collected the common rumours, it is not ftrange
they fhould mix true and falfe things together, among whom
I reckon the moft antient writer of the Gofpel according to
the Egyptians : for as to the other Gofpels which were fpread
abroad, they are the impious forgeries of much later days.
Mr. Du Pin =.
The antients make mention of two Gofpels, which were
not of the fame authority with the four Canonical Gofpels,
but which cannot be rejected, as records invented by the he-
rcticks to authorife their errors, viz. the Gcfpel of the Naza-
renes, and the Gofpel according to the Egyptians.
Father Simon b .
The Fathers have fometimes made ufe of Apocryphal books,
and have quoted even falfe Gofpels ; as for example, the
Gofpel that is called, according to the Egyptians ; which yet is
not on this fcore alone to be reckoned authentick, viz. be-
caufe it is thought to be moft antient, and cited in Clemens
Alexandrinus ; nor ought we to reject it under this pretence
alone, that the Gnofticks and Sabellians have maintained their
errors by this book.
Dr. Grabe e .
What this learned writer faith concerning this Gofpel is
too long to be here tranfcribed ; it may be fufficient to
exprefs the fubflance of his opinion in the following
particulars. He fuppofes,
1. // had its title from its firjl author s^ whom the myftical
ftyle of the book, fo much in requeft among the Egyptians,
evidences to have been fome Chriftians in Egypt.
2. That this, as well as the Gofpel of the Hebrews, was pul-
lijhed before Lukis Gofpel^ and was referred to by him in his
Preface^ as being wrote before either of the four Canonical
Gofpels.
* Hift; of the Canon of the New part i. c. 3. p. 28.
T' f -. Vol. a, c. 6. |. 3. e Spicilej. Patr. torn. i. p. 31
* Critic. Hilt, of the New Tcft. to p. 34..
3. That
CHAP. xvi. Writers concerning it. 203
3. That Clemens Alexandrinns did not rejett it y but endea-
voured rather to explain it, and make the paflages cited of it to
appear capable of a good meaning, which he would never have
done, if he efteemed it the compofure of an heretick.
Dr. Mills.
About this time, viz. the year of Chrift 58, or a little
fooner, there were compofed by the believing Chriftians certain
hiftorical accounts of Chrift and his actions, as appears from
St. Luke's Preface to his Gofpel. Thefe were compofed before
either of our prefent Canonical Gofpels, not with any ill de-
fign, but the very fame as our Gofpels now received. Among
thefe the moft celebrated were, the Gofpel of the Hebrews y
and the Gofpel according to the Egyptians ; fee his Prolegom,
in N. T. . 35 to 38. It is probable the authors of it were
Effenes, who received the Chriftian faith from the preaching
of Mark at Alexandria. Nor does it feem to have been made
ufe of by them publickly, after the publifhing of our four Ca-
nonical Gofpels. See . 50.
Mr. Le Clerc *.
Several learned men fuppofe the falfe Gofpels, viz. that
according to the Hebrews^ or that according to the Egyptians^
gave occafion to Mark and Luke to write their Gofpels ; but
inafmuch as we find no intimations of this in our Gofpels, it
feems much better to believe, that thofe holy and infpired men
were fuificiently apprifed of the danger of leaving fuch impor-
tant matters only to the memories of men,, before any fuch
fpurious Gofpels were publifhed.
Mr. Whiftonb.
The Therapeutae mentioned by Philo feem to have been
thofe firft Chriftians Jfceticks^ which were converted from
the Jews, chiefly in Egypt, foon after our Saviour's pafiion,
before the coming of Mark thither, and to have both irnper.
fediy unclerftood and pradifed the Chriftian religion. Eufe-
Hift. Eccl. S;cul. I. Ann. b Eff ;y on the Conftityt. c. i.
LAV. .ji. P . 430. p . 37.
204 The Egyptians Gofpel Jpocryphal. 'PAR Til."*
bius, Epiphanius and Jerome, plainly take them for Chrif-
tians, and their facred antient myftical books are by Eufebius
fuppofed to be the Gofpels and Epiftles of the New Tejiament =,
The modern criticks are entirely puzzled about thefe Thera-
peutic, and yet are not willing commonly to believe them
Chriftians. And indeed Eufcbius's opinion, that their an-
tient allegorical books were our Gofpels and Epiftles, is lia-
ble to great exceptions, fmce they are not allegorical in their
nature, nor were they publifhed any confiderable time before
Philo's own writings j fo that upon the whole, I believe, it is
more reafonable to fay, thefe Therapeutic were thofe firft
Chriftians dfceticks^ who had gotten very imperfect accounts
of Chriftianity, and were guided by the Gofpel according to the
Egyptians, which, we know by the fragments remaining, was
a Gofpel fufficiently myftical and allegorical, according to-
the genius of that nation.
. Thefe are the fentiments of the criticks in later ages con-
cerning this Gofpel. I have now only left to make fome re-
flections upon the whole. Accordingly I obferve :
OBSERV. I. That the Gofpel of the Egyptians was certainly
an Apocryphal book. This appears, I. by Prop. IV. /'/ not
being found in any of the antient catalogues of facred writings ;
2. by Prop. V. as it is not cited in any of the old records of
ChriJJianity y bat rejected as Apocryphal by Clemens Alexan-
drinus, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanius, who are the only
Fathers who have mentioned the name of it. This is evident
as to the three laft, and may be eafily collected from the paf-
fages of Clemens above cited, as 1 fliall undeniably fhew pre-
fently ; 3. by Prop. VI. it not appearing even to have been
read in the Chrijlian ajjemblies ; 4. by Prop. VIII. as it con-
tained things contrary to known truths. Of this fort I believe
every one will readily allow the doflrine of the unlawfulnefs of
all marriages, which, it is certain from the pafTages of Cle-
mens, this Gofpel afterted. Of this fort muft needs be our
Saviour's declaring^ he came into the world to put an end to ail
s Hift, E.c\f, lib. :. c. 17. p. 53, &c.
marriage^
CHAP. xvr. The Egyptians Gofpel Apocryphal* 205
marriage , i. e. in effect to the race of mankind; which it is
plain, by the whole of Clemens's arguing, as well as by the
pafTage itfelf, was declared as fpoken by Chrift in this Gofpel.
Laftly, of this fort Epiphanius reckoned the Sabellian herefy,
which was evidently contained therein ; but from hence I
conclude nothing, it being at this day defended by fome : but
a moft undoubted inftance of falfehood is, that Salome in this
Gofpel is introduced, as applauding herfelf for having borne
no children (fee the place above out of Clem. Alexand. p. 453. )
whereas it is certain, that Salome was the wife of Zebedee,
and the mother of James and John, two of our Lord's Apof-
tles ; for fhe, who is by Matthew called the mother cf Zebe-
dee's children? chap, xxvii. 56. is by Mark, chap. xv. 40. ex-
prefsly called Salome : that thefe children were John and
James, appears from Matt. iv. 21. x. 2. and many other
places. 5. It was evidently Apocryphal by Prop. XL feeing it
relates thofe things as fpoken by Chrift, which are direRly oppofite
to his known fi yle and manner effpeaking ; for whereas that was
perfectly clear, eafy and familiar, the fayings here attributed
to him are each of them myjlical, involved and perplexed, and
more like the foolifh ambiguous anfwers of the Delphick ora-
cles, than the rational and plain difcourfes of Jefus Chrift.
To inftance only in one, when Salome afked him, When the
things, -which /he enquired about, Jhould come topafs? He is made
to anfwer, JVhen you Jhall tread under foot (or defpife) the co-
vering of your nakednefs, and when two Jhall become one, and
the malt with the female neither male nor female.
It feems therefore very unaccountable, that the authors
above mentioned, viz. Grotius, Du Pin, Father Simon, and
Dr. Grabe, Jhould have thought fo highly of this Gofpel, and
reckon it of a different fort from the books of hereticks, and
not to be rejected. I leave it to the reader, after what is now
faid, to judge, whether the five arguments I have offered to
prove it Apocryphal, do not alfo evidence it to have been the
compofure of fome monftrous and filly hereticks, as Origen
and Jerome exprefsly fay, and confequently to be rejected as
an impious and ridiculous forgery.
OBSERV.
106 The Egyptian Go/pel PART li
OBSERV. II. Clemtns Alexandrinus never faw the Go/pel of
the Egyptians, never made one citation out of it, but, on the con*
trary, rejected it as an impious, heretical, and Apocryphal book.
This obfervation is of very confiderable importance in this
matter, becaufe the want of it induced the learned criticks
juft named into their erroneous and too high opinion of this
Gofpel. They imagined, it was appealed to, and made ufe cf,
by Clemens Romanus and Clemens Alexandrinus in their
writings, and therefore concluded, it ought not to be meanly
thought of. // is cited by St. Clemens of Alexandria (faith
Du Pin a ), Clemens Romanus (faith Dr.Grabe b ), or whoever
was the author of the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, undoubt-
edly moft antient, made ufe of it. And again, Clemens Alexan-
drinus doth not reject it, but fo far approve of it, as to endeavour
U explain its myftical and obfcure pajfages. But as I lhall here-
after prove abundantly, that Clemens of Rome never made
any appeal to this Apocryphal Gofpel, (viz. in the Appendix)
fo I fhall endeavour here to prove the fame of Clemens of
Alexandria. My obfervation confifts of three parts : viz.
that he never faw it, nor cited it, but rejecled it. I fliall en-
deavour to prove the truth of each feparately.
I. Clemens Alexandrinus never faw the Gofpel according to
the Egyptians. This I gather from what himfelf fays in the
fecond teftimony, viz. p. 452. above produced; ^i^ M $,oipi,
t TU v.a.'i A7a>9TT4aj E^ay/iAiw, <paw y CTI ctvroi; tlirtt ZWTJK, &C,
Thefe things (viz. the difcourfes between Chrift and Salome)
are, AS I SUPPOSE, to be found in the Gofpel according to the
Egyptians; for, they fay, that our Saviour fa id, &c. From
whence it is plain, that he was uncertain in what Gofpel thefe
difcourfes were, elfe he would not have faid, / fuppofe they
are therein. Had he read the Gofpel, or ever feen it, he
could not have been in this doubting uncertainty. Befides,
from the next words it is evident, he only cites by tradition
from others, they fay, that our Saviour faid thefe things; which
implies his own dubioufnefs and ignoranee in the matter.
Hiftor. of the Canon ef the N. fc Spicily. Patr. torn. i. p. IA.
Teft, rol, i. c. 6. . 3.
2. Clemens
CHAP, XVI. nut appealed to by Clemens. 207
1. Clemens Alexandrinus never cited or appealed to tfiis
Gofpel. This indeed does neceflarily follow from the former
head, but will more clearly appear, if we confsder, that all the
feveral fragments of it, that are extant in Clemens, were produced
by the hereticks, again/I whom he is difputing, not by him, as
will appear by a bare reading the places cited : fo the firft
pafTage, page 445, he premifes e^r* xxi &rfEw!f*r, VT^ ri
iv ettnut (^t^outvet ^iaXtors, v$i TTWJ, Tr> Sa/Vvf/.t; o Ki'fio> &C. JV0W
/ mujl overthrow and confute the things urged or cited by then
tut of the Gofpel of the Egyptians, sV. So likewife in the
next paflage, p. 452. Of ^1 amTayo-eaiw T) xKc-n rS QtS xa-
yiitia, \iyaff^ ty, TT^O; Ai^ir tlpi/Atta,, uv ttprsfof ln^&nutt , &C. ThfY
who oppofe the defignscf God's creation by their fpecious pretences
to celibacy^ cite thofe things, which our Saviour fpake to Sa-
lome^ which I have above mentioned, &c. Again in the third pa-
fage, p. 453. He premifes, v^J .a.l ru. ifa ?Zr -JT^ ia>.^ tl-
py,i*u* fvtCi;^>> ; &c. The things which follow, fpoken to Salome^
they cite, who had rather ufe any books than the Canonical ones^
C3V. Once more p. 465. he particularly mentions the perfon
who cited this Gofpel, Aia rSro TCI o Kao-c-c? tp^c-l, mii&ctvoii.ivriS
T?J DaX^;, &c. Wherefore CaJJianus faith , when Salome
ajked Chrijl, &c. So that nothing can be more manifeft, than
that Clemens himfelf does not cite or appeal to this Apocryphal
piece, but only cites the writings of hereticks, in which ap-
peals were made to it.
But, 3. Clemens was fo far from citing it, or approving the
Gofpel of the Egyptians^ that he utterly rejeffs it, as an impious^
heretical, and Apocryphal book. This will be manifeft, if we
obferve, that the only defign of Clemens, in producing thefe
paflages out of the hereticks' books, is to confute them, and
their ridiculous notions of the unlavvfulnefs of all forts of
marriages. Hence he begins with this introduction, p. 445.
" As for thofe who by fpecious pretences of continency think
" impioufly both of the creation, and the Holy Creator, the
" only Almighty God-, and fay, that no marriages are lawful,
" nor procreation of children; that we ought not to bring
" others into the world to be unhappy, nor fatisfy the cruelty
" of death, I have the following things to fay j firft, that of
" Jchn
208 The Egyptians Gofpel PART i^
ct John, And now, there are many Antichrijls, whence we know
." the later times are come. They went out from us, but were
<c never of us, for if they had been of us, then they would have
** continued with US. "Emi-rac, xetl oiatrfnfliot etinti;, ?ct irc-' cti-tut
" <p-^o[jt.ttx ciaX'joVraj, uo< KKS, TV SaXa/^, &c. In the next place
*' I jnuft confute thofi things , which t/.,y cite (out of the Gof-
<c pel of the Egyptians) in this manner , When Salome ajked
Chrifti fcrV. />. 445." Which when he had confuted, he in-
troduces the next paflage thus : " They who by their plauftble
" celibacy oppofe the creation of God, urge the things fpoken by
Chrijl to Salome, &~c. p. 452." And in the next page,
though he does not call this Gofpel in fo many words Apocry-
phal, yet he plainly does in other words : oi^l x** to. i&s
TU xctta.
Tis Kxson, <p&p.itr,f yaip airr*;, &C. The
things which follow, fpoken to Salome, they cite, who had rather
follow any thing than the true Canon of the Gofpel, &c. p. 453.
Once more, when he is about to anfwer the fragment urged
out of this Gofpel, he reafons againft it thus : HfSrot pl> *>, h
iKHS /* TiTf<T Et'7Xoi; cv. ixpp.i TO IJTOK, asAX
e TU XO.T Alyisifltiis. Firjl, fays he, this faying is not in either of
the four Gcfpel which have been (received) delivered to us, but
in that according to the Egyptians, p. 465. He who will lay
. thefe things together without prejudice, muft evidently per-
ceive, that as Clemens never faw, fo he utterly rejected the
authority of this Gofpel, and efteemed it no other than a vile
forgery of fome impious hereticks. I wifh Dr. Grabe had
well confidered thefe things, before he gave this Gofpel fo
high a character ; but prejudice ftrangely blinds the greateft
men; and it is eafy to fee that Dr. Grabe's circumftances,
when in England, inclined him to a too fond affection for
Apocryphal books : fo that I think Le Clerc did him no
injuft ice, when he lately ftyled him dpocryphorum nimis Jiu-
diofus 1 .
* Hiftor. Eccl. de Afcenf. Chrift. ad Ann. -.<). not. ad. . 13. p. 333.
OBSERV.
CHAP. xvi. ly whom compofed. 209
OBSERV. III. The Go/pel of 'the Egyptians feems to have been
compofed by fame very early heretic ks tofupport their doftrines of
celibacy and ab/Jemioufnefs, and very probably by thofe of Egypt.
To confirm this conjecture, I obferve,
Firft, That there were in the very infancy of Chrijlianity
great numbers of perfons called Chrijtians, who offer ted the un-
lawfulnefs of 'marriages, and profej/ed a great abftemioufnefs in
their manner of life. Againft thefe St. Paul writes in feveral
of his Epiftles ; for inftance, thofe words, i Cor. vii. I. It is
good for a man not to touch a woman ; which are not St. Paul's
words, (asourTranflation makes them tobe,andmoft perfons
think) but their words to him, intimating a queftion that had
been ftarted by fome hereticks among them, whether it was
lawful to marry? In his firft Epiftle to Timothy, (c. iv. 3.)
he more plainly mentions them as departers from the faith,
giving heed to feducing fpirits, and doclrhies of Devils for-
bidding to marry , and commanding to abjiain from meats, &c.
And again, in his Epiftle to the Coloffians, (c. ii. 21.) he
blames them for being injluenced by the tbffrines which com-
manded them to touch not, tafte not, and handle not, i. e. not
touch women, but abjiain from marriages^ and certain fort of
meats. In thefe places the Apoftle is guarding his converts
againft the artful infinuations of thofe who declared it was un-
lawful for a man to marry, or have any concern with a wo-
man; and thus thofe, who lived near the Apoftle's time, and
while thefe foolifh tenets were yet in efteem, underftood him.
So Clemens Alexandrinus in the forecited book 1 interprets
both thofe laft paflages of Paul, concerning thofe who abhorred
matrimony, TTJ^ TW> Qoih.vffa'Qp.ivui yf*o 5 fix K>$ n<Xo$ x/yst j and
Tertullian expounds the paflage in Tim. iv. 3. b The Apojlle^
fays he, writes againjl them who forbad marriage, &c. But
befides the Apoftle's mentioning this, we find it in the writ-
ings of the firft Fathers continually fo ; in the Epiftle under
the name of Ignatius to* the Philadelphians, we read, if any one
call lawful marriage and the begetting of children corruption
and pollution, or think any fort of food abominable, fuch perfon
* P. 447. See alfo p. 461. b De Monoonm. c. 15.
VOL. I. P has
210 TJje Unlawfulness of Marriage^ fcfc. PART 1
has the apojlate dragon dwelling within him a. Though it is
oblervable, that in another part of that fame Epiftle b , the au-
thor gives no pnall encomium to the virgins in the Ghurch f
Philadelphia^ who were like Elijah, Jofhua, Melchifedeck,
Elifha, Jeremiah, John Baptift, Timothy, Titus, Euodius, and
Clement, who lived all their days in celibacy.
Irenaeus, in his account of the herefy and followers of Sa-
turninus, tells us, it was their opinion, that marrying and be-
getting children was from the Devil, that they abjlained from
living creatures, and by their pretended fanttity and abjlemiouf-
nefs induced many to follow them c . The fame he aflerts was
the doctrine of the Encratites J , who fprang from Marcion,
and Saturninus of Tatian, and his followers e . Tertullian
affirms the fame of Marcion often f . Clemens Alexandrinus
has wrote a whole book againft this doctrine of the Marci-
onites and Giiofticks, viz. that, in which the Gofpel of the
Egyptians is mentioned. In (hort, we find this doctrine pro-
fefled not only by the forementioned, but the Manichees ? y
Apoftolicks or Apota&icks h , Origenians ', and moft of the
hereticks of thofe primitive times of the Church. I will only
add, that in the fpurious book, called The Conjlitutions of the
Apofile^ there is alfo frequent mention of this doctrine k ; all
which laid together will fufficiently confirm the truth of my
obfervation, that there were in the infancy of Chrijiianity many
perfons called Chrijiians, ivho denied the lawfulnefs of marriage.
Secondly, Thefe heretical opinions prevailed in a very re-
markable degree in Egypt. This I gather,
I . From the common opinion of the antients, that the Thera-
peutic or Eflenes (for it cannot be reafonably doubted but
they were the fame perfons), of whom and their opinions
Philo has wrote a whole book, were no other than feme imper-
fecJ Chrijlians. Eufebius has largely attempted the proof of
P. 102. & liW. 5. adv. eund. c. 7.
P. 97,98. * Epiph. Haerei. 66.
" Id.Haei-cf.6x.
Adv. Haeref. lib. i.e. 21.
Ibid. c. 30. * Ibid. 64.
Ibid. c. 31. k Sec lib. 6. c. 8, 10, 26.
Lib. i. adv. Mzrcion. c 29.
this,
CttAP. XVI. Of Philo's TJierapeut*. all
this, and that by no contemptible arguments a . He firft pofi-
tively afferts, that after St. Mark had preached up and down
in Egypt, and even planted Churches in the city of Alexandria,
there were immediately a great number of converts, who entered
upon a rigid ab/lemious life. This I take as a fadfc moft cer-
tain, becaufe it is by him fo pofitively afierted, and not a con-
jedlure drawn from Philo, who never mentions any thing of
St. Mark. After this he produces a great part of Philo's
book concerning the Effenes in Egypt, and their various fen-
timents, endeavouring to fliew, they were no other than Chrif-
tians, and that their antient facred books were the Prophets
of the Old Teftament, the Gofpels arid Epiftles of the New
Teftament. Jerome had the fame opinion of Philo's book ;
he fays in the Life of Mark b , that he went with his Gofpel,
which he had wrote, into Egypt , and that he firjl preached
Ghrift there, and constituted a Church ; that be was Jo remark-
able in the abftemioufnefs of his life, that he obliged all his con-
verts to follow his example ; infomuch that Philo, the mojl elo-
quent if all the yewijh writers, when he faw the fir "ft (Qiriftiari)
Church at Alexandria ftill obferving the yewijh cujloms, thought
it would be to the honour of his nation, (viz. the yews) to write
a book concerning their way of life ; and as Luke fays, the
Chrijtians at yerufalem had all things common, fo he relates that
it was at Alexandria under Mark's inftniftions. And to the
fame purpofe a little after, in his Life of Philo, Jerome faith,
that he placed Philo among the Church writers, becaufe, by
writing a book concerning the fir Jl Church of Mark at Alexan-
dria, he has fa id much in commendation of the Chrijlians : he
not only mentions fuch as being there, but in many other pro-
vinces, and calls their places of abode monafteries ; from whence
it appears, that the fir jl Chriftians,who believed there on Chri/t^
were fuch as the monks now pretend and dejire to be, viz. to
have all things common, &c. c
Epiphanius alfo followed Eufebius in his opinion'', and
makes Philo's Efienes at Alexandria not only to be Mark's
4 Hift. Ecclef. lib. a. c. 16, 17. c Ibid, in Philone.
k Catal.VirorJlluftr. in Marco. " Kxief. 29. .4.,
P 2 converts
212 Of the Egyptian EJJines. PART if.
converts to Chriftianity, but to have derived their very name
EJfines from their being Chriftians. They who believed on
Chrijl, fays he, were called "Jejfxi (or EJfenes) before they were
called Chri/tians, either becaufe Jejfi was the father of David,
cr from Jefus, the name of our Lord, becaufe they were his Dlf-
cip/eS) and derived their constitution from hlm^ or from the Jigni-
fie at ion of the name Jefus^ which in Hebrew ftgnijles the fame
as Sefo.'irivTr,; (the name by which Philo calls them), i.e. a Sa-
viour, or Phyfjclan. Whether thefe etymologies are right, I
need notdifpute: Fuller, Serarius and Scaliger, have difputed
it fufficiently a . The faft I contend for is fufficiently plain, that
Epiphanius thought thefe Eflenes at Alexandria to have been
the firft Chriftians there. I might here farther add the judg-
ment of other antient writers to the fame purpofe, as Cedre-
nus, Sozomen, Nicephorus, &c. but it is needlefs in fo evi-
dent a cafe. It has indeed been very much debated, whether
their opinion in this matter be right, or no ; viz. whether the
Eflenes in Egypt were Chriftians, or not. Scaliger b , Fuller 6 ,
Godwin d , Valefius e , Le Clerc f , and generally allthe Protejt-
ants, have rejected the authority of the Fathers in this point,
and believe Philo's EfTenes were not Chriftians ; on the other
hand, they of the Roman Church generally hold the affirmative,
fuch as Bellarmine B , Serarius , who has wrote very largely
about it h , and lately the learned Montfaucon *. I will not
here enter into fo large a difpute ; for my own part I believe
neither of the contending parties perfectly in the right, nor
their arguments on either fide conclufive. I (hull only deliver
my own conjecture concerning the matter, which I think my-
felf able, when there is occafion, to fupport by good argu-
ments. What I mean is a fort of compounding the matter
thus, viz. i. That when Philo wrote foon after our Saviour's
Vid. Serar. Trihzref. lib. 3. < In Euftb. Hift. Eccl. lib. 2.
c. i. & Scaliger. Elcnch. Tiihaeref. c. 17.
c. 26. Fuller Mifcell. Sac. lib. i. f Prolegom. in Hilt. Eccl. . i.
c. 3. lib. 2. c. 3. & lib. 4. c. 3. c. 5. & 15.
b Prolegom. in Lib. de Emend. Vid. Scrar. Triharref. lib. 3.
Temp. &Tib. 6. p. 539. c. 17.
c Locis jam citat. " Ibid. &c.
4 Mofes and Aaron, lib. i.e. n. l Vid. Cleric. Loc. cit.
in fine.
refurreclion,
CHAP. xvi. Of the Egyptian EJJenes. 413
refurre&ion, there were a great number of Jewijb Ejfenes at
Alexandria j and though at that time Chriftianity was not yet
fpread in Egypt (and fo Philo could not mention the name of
Chrift or his Apoftles), yet foon afterwards it was very much
received in Alexandria.
2. That the Jews were generally the firft converts that were
made to Chriftianity, in every place where the Apoftles went,
This has been already proved above a .
3. The principles of the EJJenes there werefuch as would be
likely to influence them above all others to become Chrijlians.
This is plain out of Philo, efpecially if we fuppofe there were
any of the Gnofticks, or difeiples of Saturninus, or their fol-
lowers, in Egypt, as we know Simon Magus was, from whom
they arofe.
4. It feems therefore probable, that feme of thefe received
Christianity, and at the fame time continued in their old way of
living abftemioufly. Who can prove, fays a late writer b , that
no Ejfenes embraced the faith of Chrift, or that they could not do
it, and yet retain their old fentiments concerning meats and
marriage ?
5. Hence Eufebius knowing certainly there were fame fucb
fort of Chriftians in Egypt, might eafily be induced to believe,
they were generally of the fame fort, and confequently the fame
of whom Philo wrote.
But if, after all, Eufebius fhould not be in the right, nor
the Fathers that followed him, nor my conjecture be juft,
it muft at leaft be certain, there was a very great agree-
ment between thefe Egyptian Therapeutse or EfTenes, and
the firft Chriftians in Egypt, in their cuftoms, and fo it
only remains neceflary to give fome inftances of this. I need
only mention one for my prefent purpofe, viz. that relating to
their forbidding marriage ; and as I have abundantly proved
this of the moft antient hereticks, fo to (hew the fame of thefe
Eflenes or Therapeutae. Jofephus relates this concerning
them in feveral places c (though he indeed mentions a fort of
Parti, c. i. p. 26. <= Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 2. &
k Pr. Whitby on j Tim. iv. 3. de Bell. Jud. lib. 2. c. 12.
, P 3 them
214 Monks originally from Egypt. PART u.
them that did marry), fo alfo did Pliny a and Philo feveral
times b . Concerning the celibacy of the Egyptian Therapeutse,
I (hall only recite one pafiage out of his book, De Vita Con-
templativa^ page 899.
$1 xal ywa~xE;,uv Women alfo are admitted to
their feafts > moft of which are
ld . &> wh P referved
_ their virginity not by compul-
EAAr,<nv - r /- i
lion, as lome lacred ones a-
mong the Heathen> but of
Acts xo (r t& v yvJiv, ^j,. own accor d, through
^a it ^Aov xi ic-c^oi/ TTIJ their zealous defire of wifdom,
in the conftant purfuit of
which, through their whole
lives ' the 7 def P ifed al1 carnal
.v0tr, &C, enjoyments, not defirine mor-
tal and perithing children,
but thofe which are immor-.
tal.
It appears therefore from the antient opinion of the Egyptian
Therapcutae, that there were the fame heretical dodrines
of the unlawfulnefs of marriage among the Chriftians in
Egypt, as in other countries.
2. Th : s farther appears probable from this confideration,
viz. that mono/series and the monkijb way of life derive their
frjt original fr^m Egypt, It is not at all ftrange, that an ab-
ftemioufnefs, fo great as that of the firft Chriftians in Egypt,
above defcribed, fliould influence many zealous perfons to the
like practices, and that thefe by degrees {hould add many
other things of the fame nature, Serarius makes no doubt
but they were the firft beginners of the monaftick life; it is
enough to my purpofe to obferve, that the firft certain evi-
dences of this wCre in Egypt, in the latter end of the fecond,
or beginning of the third century. This Jerome tells us c ;
Natural Hift. lib. 5. c. 17. < In Vit. Paul. Eremjt. Par. 3.
h See Serarius's , Colieftions of Traft. 8. dc vit. contem. Epift. 37.
their Dogmata,
CHAP. xvi. The Defign of this Go/pel. 215
/'/ has often been a quejlion, fays he, from whom the defert way
of life of the monks derives its original? So.ne derive it as far
as from Elijah and John^* Others (which is the prevailing
opinion} from Antonius ; winch is in part true, for he was not
fo much the fir Jl in this way of life, as the means of propagating
it; for Amathas and Macarius, two difciples of Antonius, af->
firm, that one PaulofThebais (in Egypt) was the chief author
of this matter, which I alfo ajjent to. Sozomen a follows the
common opinion, and deduces it from Antontu?, but he alfo
lived in Egypt ; but in a thing fo well known I need produce
no more authorities. An account of their way of living, and
the means that Paul and Antonius promoted it, may be read
in the places already cited, and the writers of Ecclefiafti-
cal Hiflory in the third century b . Now hence I argue it as
probable, that the Egyptian Chriftians were remarkable above
others for their abftemioufnefs, in the time before tins r'aul ;
elfe it is not likely he fhould have influenced fuch great num-
bers as he did, in fo fhort a time, to become his followers.
3. Perhaps it may not be abfurd to argue the hmefrom the
defign of the third book of Clemens Alexandrinus 's Stromata,
which is principally to confute thofe hereticks, who denied the
lawfulnefs of entering into a conjugal Jlate. For inafmuch as
we do not find this argument infifted upon fo largely by any
of the writers of his, or the preceding century, it feems rea-
fonable to conclude thefe hereticks prevailed moft in that
country and place where he lived. This was Alexandria, the
very place where Philo lived, and where his Therapeutae were
in the greatefl numbers. They abound, fays he c , mojl in the
provinces of Egypt, but especially about Alexandria*
Thirdly, The remaining fragments of the Gofpel according
to the Egyptians are all fuch as were urged out of it by thofe
who held marriages and procreation of children Jinful, in order
to countenance their errors in this refpecl. This is evident
from the paflages themfelves, and what has been above faid
Hift. Eccl. 1. i. c. iz. et 1. 6. Eccl. Secul. III. p. 832.
0*29. c DeVit. Contemplat. p. 892.
> See efpceially Spanh.-im. Hift.
P 4 concerning
216 Not known till the fourth Century. PART jr.
concerning them. For inftance, the Gofpel of the Egyptians
makes Chrift to approve celibacy and a fmgle life : the Egyp-
tian Chriftians forbad all marriages as unlawful ; in the Gof-
pel of the Egyptians, Salome is introduced, as concluding from
what our Saviour faid, that fhe did well in bearing no children :
among the Egyptian Chriftians we find women celebrated for
their virginity, and refolution not to bear children. Once
more, in the Egyptian Gofpel we find it the main reafon af-
figned againft bearing children, that they fhould not be
brought to trouble and death ; fo Philo fays his Therapeutae,
who were the fourceand pattern of thefe Egyptian Chriftians,
defired not to bear children, which fhould perifh and die, &c.
I omit making the parallel between the old Chriftian here-
ticks and Philo's Therapeutne, in other inftances of their ab-
ftemioufnefs, viz. their avoiding certain forts of meats, &c.
becaufe we have no account of it in the remaining fragments
of the Egyptian Gofpel, though I could eafily fliew there was
fuch agreement.
Laying therefore all thefe things together, and judging with
a due impartiality, I think there is as much evidence as the
nature of the fubjecl: will allow, that the Gofpel of the Egyp-
tians was the forged compofure of forne imperfect Chriftians
in Egypt, with defign the better to recommend their plaufible
doctrines of celibacy and abftemioufnefs under the names of
Chrift and his Apoftles ; eafily perceiving, that whatever was
publifhed under fo great names, would be more likely to im-
prefs and influence the minds of the people.
I have only farther to add, that the foregoing account feems
to receive fome ftrength from the ccoifideration of the Gofpei
of the Egyptians not being cited, nor even mentioned or known
by any Chriftians before the very end of the fourth century,
but only Clemens and Origen, who both dwelt at Alexandria
in Egypt. Thus much of this famous Gofpel, which I have
taken more pains about than ordinary, becaufe it has been
judged by many learned men not only a moft antient, but va-
luable Gcfpel, made ufe of by true primitive Chriftians, and
not by hereticks ; but with what juftice, let the reader now
jud'.:e.
CHAP,
CHAP. XVII,
The Acls of the Ebionites.
2I 7
CHAP. XVII.
The Afis of the Afro/lies made life of by the Ebionites. A Frag-
ment of them. Mr. TolancC s unfair Dealing cenfurcd. The
Gofpelofthe Ebionites.
Numb. XVII. The ACTS of the APOSTLES received
by the EBIONITES.
A LTHOUGH we have very frequent mention in the
-*- antient writers of fpurious Acb under the Apoftles'
names, yet I do not remember that any writer has either men-
tioned this, or hinted at any fuch things as it contained, be-
fides Epiphanius. His account we have Haeref, 30. . 16.
viz. After having faid, the Ebionites make ufe of the fame
Hebrew Gofpel cf St. Matthew, which alfo Cerinthus and
Carpocras did ufe, as alfo the Acls of Peter written by Cle-
mens, he adds :
aAAa? y.x/ffiv But they have others, which
i, iv K ^roA- ^ey call the Jtfs of the Apof-
tleSy in which there are many
.- .
, cf their wicked opinions, with
ioyu; . f .
s ' which they carefully furnilh
nmi themfelvcs to' oppofe the
'A r o>.v
TT.q
,.
iv-Jiv
y.at v$r.yr,c
TO~? ctv?a6aciV '
For they have there
forged certain fteps, and cer-
tain fpeeches of James in each
of them ' in which he de "
clares a S ainft the tem ^ le and
facrifices, and the fire on the
*
altar, beudes many other
A*
TKT T*? rav
xTr,yo-
fyvSot-
f or inftance, they
h ,^ the impudence to accufe
Paul therein, by fome falfe
ftories forged by the wicked-
nefs and deceit of their pre-
218
A Fragment of it.
PART II.
/.cycif
yoi/7j.
cj * T o?
* , '
rat, A-
M \
JE auToi/
tended Apoftles : for calling
him a man of T *rfus (which
he himfelf is fo far from de-
n y in g> tnat he exprefsly owns
. . ......
it), they falfely reprefent him
as a Gentile ^ concluding fo
f rom t h at p l acej w jj ere he
truly fays, I am a man of
Tarfus, and a citizen of no
mean "*y> (See Ads xxi.
39-) Furthermore, they fay
he WaS a Gentile ' and Of Gen ~
tile parentage on both fides,
. , , .
and that when he went up to
j erufalemj and had ftaid there
S-uyTc-f TH 'if-
yy.<j.w dyit.'yi<r$oU)
orflO(riAuTW
xa.j xara
nation to marry the (High)
Prieft's daughter, and, on that
account, became a profelyte,
and was circumcifed. But
being difappointed, and not
obtaining the young lady, he
was angry, and wrote againft
circumcifion, and the fabbath,
and the law (of Mofes).
Part of this fragment is produced by Mr. Toland in hia
Original Plan or Scheme of Cbrijlianity according to the Ebi-
cuites a , both in Greek and Englifh ; nor is it ftrange that a
perfon of Mr. Toland's profefTion fljould grace his fchemc
with a pafiage fo much to his purpofe, I mean of abolifliing
the doctrines of Chriftianity, which are agreed upon by all
Chriftians, and introducing his inoft ridiculous and impious
fcheme of Nazarene, or Jewifti, or Ebionite,or Mahometan,or
(which is the undoubted truth) of no Chriftianity at all. Did
Nazaren. p. 35.
Mr.
CHAP. xvii. Air. Toland's unfair Dealing. 219
Mr. Toland and his friends, in thefe their vile attacks upon fo
excellent and divine a conftitution, not quibble and juggle,
and prevaricate, as they upon all occafions do, in their cita-
tions out of the old records of Chriftianity (a crime which
they are ever forward to charge upon others, who are much
more c^ear of it), I fhould excufe myfelf and the reader from
the trouble of any remarks upon them, leaving them to their
flavifh infidelity : but when I obferve a perfon ranfacking and
muttering together all the filly trumpery of the antient here-
ticks, grofsly mifreprefenting the books he cites, only with de-
fign to fatisfy a bigotted humour againft the Chriftian reli-
gion, I am obliged, by my regards to the profeffion I make of
the name of Jefus, to lay open fuch vile impofture. Of this
I have given feveral inftances already from" Mr. Toland's
books. The paflage I am now upon out of Epiphanius fur-
nifties me with another. He would perfuade us, the Ebionites
or Nazarenes (a moft ridiculous fort of hereticks, who fcarce-
ly deferved the name of Chriftians, as I fhall fhew hereafter)
were the only true and genuine Chrijtians^ consequently their
books mujl be the trueft and mojl genuine accounts of the Chrif-
tian affairs ; and fo for inftance muft thefe A6t,s, which we
are now difcuffing ; becaufe it fo much vilifies St. Paul, and
cxpofes his doctrine. But, as Dr. Mangey 3 has juftly re-
marked, this is mojl insupportable impudence in him to cite as
genuine a wretched forgery of the Ebionites. One can fcarce
tell, whether his intention of vilifying St. Paul, or the method
he ufeth to do fo, be the more deteftable : this forry unbeliev-
ing critick governs his fkill by his wicked principles, and has
no other way to judge of fpurious and genuine books, fhan
their oppofition to Chrjfiianity. Had this learned writer ex-
amined the paflage in Epiphanius, I doubt not, he would have
remarked more of Mr. Toland's infmcerity in this matter;
for that Father, who is the only perfon that has mentioned this
Apocryphal book, does almoft in every fentence rejedl: it as a
grofs and notorious forgery. Hence we meet with the words
* Remarks on Nazaren. c. 10. p. 83.
9
220 The Ebionites Afts Apocryphal PART u.
foaf&lTM, TroMap xsjoflWaj fftvfea, ax .'-
TO> iJ/ffJaTroroXwv xaxpy/f, xat arXaio)? Aoyot?
ETEflroHj/xivoK, &c. which are all to this purpofe ; that thefe Afis
cfthe Ebionites were full of impious opinions , forged, filly and
ridiculous, counterfeited by the imps/Jure and wickednefs of falfe
Apojlles^ (Jc. But all this Mr. Toland faw it proper to lup-
prefs. To have tranfcribed Epiphanius's account of the book,
he was well aware, would have fpoiled the credit of it, feeing
he is the only writer, as I faid, who has mentioned it ; befides,
it would have fpoiled his own book, and fo have touched him
in the tender point of intereft, if he had publifhed this judg-
ment of Epiphanius concerning the Ebionites and their books.
Though therefore his defign againft Chriftianity be fb noto-.
rious, and his nu.th.od of executing it fo unfair, yet the violence
of the temptation was great. But I leave him.
Thefe A<5ls of the Ebionites were certainly Apocryphal,
being I. never heard of, nor read, nor received by any but thofe
falfe fort of half Chrijlians, called Ebionites. Prop. IV, V,
and VI. 2. It appears to have contained things contrary to
known and certain truths. Such is the reafon there given for
Paul's preaching againft juftification by the ceremonial Law,
viz. his being exajperated againft the Jews on account of bis
difappointment in a marriage ivith the High Prieft's daughter ;
for if this be true, then the whole of Paul's dodtrine muft be
falfe, as not proceeding from God, but from the revengeful
humour and rage of a difappointed lover. But this is con-
trary to the fubftance of Chriftianity, which has been proved
to be true, by Prop. IJ. Coroll. 2. and the book therefore
Apocryphal, by Prop. VIII. and Coroll. Again, though I
have not indeed yet proved the truth of our Canon, yet what
I have faid Prop. IJ. is fufficient to give a credit to it fuperior
to this fpurious piece; and if fo, it is certainly Apocryphal,
becaufe it contradicts feveral things therein, viz. when it ajjerts
Paul to be of Gentile parentage, both in refpect of father and
mother, when as himfelf exprefsly declares the contrary more
than once. So A&s xxiii. 6. / am a Pharjfee, the fon of a
Pharifee^ Rom. xi. I. I am an Ifraelite, of the feed of Abra-
ham, of the tribe of Benjamin^ 2 Cor. xi. 22. Are they He-
brews ?
CHAP. XVIII. The Gofpel of the Encfatites. 221
brews ? So am I. Are they Ifraelites ? So am I. Are they the
feed of Abraham? So am I. And once more, more fully;
Phil. tii. 5. / was c ircumc ifed the eighth day, of the Jlock of
Ifrael, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Plebreiv of the Hebrews;
which laft words are a full demonftration that his parents
were both Jews, as Mr. Selden a has well proved, and the
Greek conftru&ion will moft properly bear ". And this will
lead me to another inftance of the fpurioufnefs of thefe Ats,
viz. that they represent Paul as becoming a profelyte, and being
circumcifed on account of obtaining the Prie/i's daughter, when
as he was circumcifed the eighth day, and consequently ne-
ver was a Jewifh profelyte,
Numb. XVIII. The GOSPEL of the EBIONITES.
THIS appears evidently to have been either altogether,
or very near, the fame with the Gofpel of the Nazarenes ;
and therefore I (hall refer the difcufling it to its proper place
under the letter N. where I (hall diftinctly confider its varia-
tions from, or agreement with, the famous Hebrew Gofpel of
the Nazarenes, and produce all its fragments.
CHAP. XVIII.
No peculiar Gofpel of the Encratites. The Gofpel of Eve a
Forgery of the Gnojiicks.
Numb. XIX. The GOSPEL of the ENCRATITES.
IN this title I have followed Mr. Fabritius % and many
others, though I confefs it does not appear from any thing,
which I have obferved, that there ever was any Gofpel called
by this name. The paflage that learned writer produces out
* De Jur. Natur. & Gentium, gefil. c. i. . 2.
lib. a. c. 4. c Cod. Apocr. N.Teft. torn. x.
b So in Xenophon we read !* p. 349. Vid, Feu -ardent, in lien.
ettr geurfawtt. Orat.de A- lib. 3.0. x.
of
122 The Gofpel of Evt. PART If,
of Epiphanius is in his account of the Tatianites^ or followers of
Tatian, and their herefy, (Haeref. 46.) and not in his account of
the Encratites ; of whom he treats as a diftinft fe& in the next
book, viz. Haeref. 47. It is true, and appears evidently from
Irenzeus 3 , Eufebius b , and Epiphanius , that the Encratites
and Tatianites agreed very much in the fame principles, but
it is as true alfo, they,,had fome different principles; and
therefore, perhaps, they might not receive the fame Gofpel.
Befides, the Encratites were a fe formed, as Irenaeus d fays,
by Saturninus and Marcion, who lived before Tatian, who
only built upon their foundation, and made lome additions of
his own ; as that concerning the damnation of Adam, which was
not received by the antient Encratites. It is therefore not juft,
to entitle the Gofpel of Tatian and his followers thus ; where-
fore I fhall refer the difcuflion of it to its proper place under
the title of Tatian, Numb. LXI.
Numb. XX. The GOSPEL of EVE.
THIS Apocryphal Gofpel has been obferved by feveral
modern writers, though, I believe, only by Epiphanius
among the antients. It does not appear fo much as named in
the writings of Irenseus, or Clemens Alexandrinus ; nor is it
either in Origen, Ambrofe, Jerome, or Gelafius's catalogues of
the Apocryphal books of the New Teftament. Epiphanius in
his herefy of the Gnofticks e gives the following account and
fragments of it.
Some of them do produce a
w T certain fpurious and forged
. / writing, which they call, the
nri-
Gofpel of
, . j
" ave tne impudence to pro-
oms -xyyi- ve . for unt j er her name , as
JOV t&tf* elf ovepa, yu,% aJ- being reported to have receiv-
a Adv. Haeref. lib. i. c. 30, 31. Loc. iam. cit.
Hift. Eccl. Lb. 4. c. 28, z 9 . Ht-rei. a6. . 2, '-,.
CHAP. XViir.
ug
The Gofpel
IV Kf&T'jp yVU(A'/l
aAAa
^OTTOV,
xaxta? *i
, Eyw <ru
xai <yco <ru xai
CTTH v ^?, lyw
UTOV
w TVK ra AtaSoAou
fl/".EW. 223
ed great difcoveries revealed
to her in her difcourfe with
the Serpent, they propagate
their principles. But as the
difcourfes of a perfon in drink,
pretending to give advice, are
according to his giddy fancy,
not equal, but fome of them
merry, others melancholy, fo
are the wicked principles of
thefe impoftors. For they
are led away with certain ridi-
culous teftimonies and vi-
fions, which are in that Gof-
pel which they make ufe of:
they produce fuch as the fol-
lowing : " I flood upon a
" high mountain, and faw
" one man very tall, and ano-
" ther fhort (or lame). And
u I heard a voice, as it were,
" of a thunder, upon which I
u went nearer to hear, and
11 he fpake to me, faying, I
" am what thou art, and thou
** art what I am ; (and again)
" I am what thou art, and
" thou art what I am j and
" where thou art, there am I,
" and I am in all places and
" things : and wherefoever
" thou wilt, thou fhalt find
" (gather) me, and in find-
K ing me, thou findeft thy-
" felf." Behold,
of Devils!
I find
24 The Gofpel of Eve*. *AkT II;
I find no farther account of this fpurious Gofpel among the
antients, nor indeed is there need of any more to prove it both
Apocryphal and a filly forgery, as Father Simon a and Mr*
Du Pin b have already obferved. The words of the former are,
Some of this fame feel (viz. the Gnojlicks) that was divided into
feveral branches, had invented a Gofpel entituled, Eia.fy&M Ei'aj,
The Gofpel of Eve, wherein they fc ottered their wild conceits
under the name of this woman, whom they conftdered as a perfefl
Gnojlick, who had received great illuminations in the conference
thatjhe held with the Serpent. Mr. Du Pin exprefles himfelf
thus concerning it : The Gnojlicks had likewife another Gofpel,
more infamous than the former (viz. the Gofpel of St. Philip),
which they called, The Gofpel of Eve; giving out, that from
her they held the name of ?<?, which Jhe had learnt from the
Serpent. In which laft words, either Mr. Du Pin is miftaken,
or his Englifh tranflator has mifreprefented him, which feems
very probable both here and in many other places of the Eng-
lifli editions of thofe two writers. From the foregoing frag-
ment of this Gofpel out of Epiphanius it is evident, how juft-
ly thefe French cri ticks pronounced it Apocryphal : it appears
plainly to be fuch by Prop. IV, V, arid VI, as alfo by Prop. IX.
it containing things trifling and ridiculous, and plainly forged
to ferve the turn of thole filly hereticks, who fo much trou-
bled the Church in the fecond century. Nothing therefore
can be more ridiculous, than that Mr. Toland c mould, to
grace his catalogue of books, which he would have received
with the fame authority as thofe of the prefent Canon, place
this among them, in the following pompous words: Norfiould
we wonder at Judas' s being an author, when we read of the
Prophetical Gofpel of Eve, whom the Gnofticks reckoned a patro*
nefs of their opinions, fsc. For neither does the book appear
to have contained any thing which looked like prophecy, nor
did the Gnofticks themfelves pretend that Eve was its author.
Critic. Hiftor. of the N.-Tcft. e. 6. . 5. p. 126.
Par. i. c. 3. p. 23. Amyntcr, p. 33.
b Hiftory of the Canon, v, a.
CHAP.
CHAP, xix, the Gofpet of the Hebrews, 225
CHAP. XIX.
TJje Go/pel of the Hebrews. The Book of the Helkefaites^ pro-
bably a Forgery of Elxai. Two Fragments of it. The Gcj-
pels of Hefychius no other than ours interpolated.
H.
Numb. XXI. The GOSPEL according to the
HEBREWS.
THIS was without all controverfy the fame with the
Gofpel according to the Nazarenes ; I (hall therefore
confider it under that title in the letter N.
Numb. XXII. The BOOK of the HELKESAITES.
IN the catalogue of Apocryphal books produced Fart I,
I produced this Book as mentioned by Eufebius ; which,
though indeed it be true, yet it fhould rather have been re-
cited among thofe which are mentioned by Origen j for Eu-
febius in the place there cited takes his account out of his
Homily on the eighty-fecond Pfalm a ; his words are (peaking
concerning the hereticks called Helkefaites) :
Ki (3i'Aoj; TUX psgacny, w Befides, they produce a cer-
tain book > wb * cb tJje J a ffi rm
* 9 ha f llen ^n from hea*
ven ; which they who obferve
' *" ?T K9 '> r> d Believe (hall obtain the
pardon of their f ms ; a pardon
diff erent f rom t h a t which Je-
f us Chrift beftowed.
Thefe Helkefaites were a moft ridiculous fel of Chriftian?,
who feem to have derived their name from Elxai, or Elxxus
* Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6, c. 38.
VOL. I. Q. (who
226 The Book of the Helkefaites. PART it*
(who lived in the time of Trajan, viz. about the year of
Chrift 114), a falfe prophet, who, according to Epiphanius,
joined himfelf with the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and formed
a feft, entertaining the fame principles with the Eflenians and
Sampfeans 3 . Epiphanius fays, they -were neither yews nor
Ghrijtiansj nor Heathens , but a fort of medley of each. Their
principles are fo ridiculous, as not to deferve tranfcribing.
Origen, in the place cited, fuppofes them to have arofe not
long before his time ; and adds, they rejected fome things of
every part of Scripture, but allowed none of Paul's writings.
As to this book, I doubt not but it was the very fame of
which Epiphanius fpeaks, that was written by Elxai, becaufe,
as he fays, it pretended to infpiration, and wifdom from God,
<roQ'w. It appears to have contained a fort of fyftem of his
fhuffling and foolifh doctrines: I fhall only inftance in thofe
which regarded our Saviour and the Holy Ghofr, by which it
is eafy to judge of the whole compofure.
Concerning Chrifr. Haeref. 19. . 4.
JToAA* if* rx. y.^-% uvjo- It contains many fabulous
- hxyszest & things, fuch as the defcription
of Chrift ' viz - That he . was a
certain power (i. e. an invifi-
*
ble body) whofedimeniionshe
aflertswere as follow, viz. his
height wastwenty-four^^-
irM*ro{ r^ttyum ?, nia) or Egyptian leagues, i. e.
about fixty-fix miles, his
Tf*Tuo/t*o?, breadth twenty four miles,
xou Tf TTc^f, xai T^ i'xx and his thicknefs proportion-
TI . b ably wonderful; fo alfo his
jw.V-JoAoyrw.aTa . J . ..
feet, with many other trifling
accounts.
' -Confer Hsercf. iq.et c^. of 600 fu-Iongs; ier Herodot. lib.
* Concerning the word .^o>vr, 2. .6.
and it^. bt-mg ;m -Kgyptun jnet'-H'v
Concerninc;
CHAP. XIX. 77;,? Gofpeh of Hefyc bius* 227
Concerning the Holy Ghoflr.
ETuai SI xal TO ay.cv TSTVK- The Holy Ghoft is of the fe-
male kind > and like Chrift > as
the ftatue of a man, reaching
f x * / above the clouds, and itand-
lursp v0=ATji<, xo *au<roi/ . .
,,,, , ing between two mountains.
fvo ogiw Irw?.
He who would read more of this ridiculous author, may
confult the place of Epiphanius juft cited : it is fufficient to
my purpofe to obferve, that the book was certainly Apocry-
phal by Prop. IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX. I have only to
add, that the hereticks under this name were generally of the
Jewifh nation, as Elxai himfelf, their founder, was ; and there-
fore it is not ftrange, they mould have thus forged immediate
revelations from heaven. For about the time of this forgery,
nothing was more common among the jews than fuch pre-
tences. The Jewifh writers commonly fay, there were three
forts of revelations antiently among them ; the firft by Ur'im and
Thummim^ which was in ufe from the ereEi'mg of the Tabernacle
until the building of the Temple ; the fecond, by the Spirit of
Prophecy^ from the beginning of the world-, but mo/fly under
the fir/1 Temple^ until the death of Malachi under the fecond
Temple ; the third by Tp j-~Q Bath Kol^ i. e. by voices from
heaven^ fucceeding the former^ and continuing in ufe thencefor~
ward -, concerning which it may be well worth while to read
what Dr. Lightfoot ", and after him Dean Prideaux b have
wrote.
Numb. XXIII. The GOSPELS of HESYCHIUS.
TH E reafon, which induced me to mention thefe Gofpels
under a diftinct title, is, that 1 find them Ib mentioned
in the Decree of Pope Gelafius, among the reft of the Apo-
cryphal books of the New Teftament, though I think it very
evident, that they were no other than fome interpolated copies
> Hor. Hebr. in Matth. HL 1 7. Old and New Tcftam. par. i. b. 4.
k Conneft. of the Hiitory oi the p. 328, &c.
Q.2 Of
228 Only Interpolations of ours, PART II.
of our prefent Gofpels, as will appear from the authors who
have mentioned them, viz.
i. Jerome, who in the Preface to his Tranfiation of the
Gofpels into Latin, after having fhewed the necefllty of it,
adds 3 :
Prsetermitto eos codices quos I take no notice of thofe books
a Luciano & Hefychio nuncu- which go under the names of
patos, paucorum hominum af- Lucian and Hefychius, and
ferit perverfa contentio, qui- are efteemed through the per-
bus utique nee in toto Veteri verfe humours of fome. For
Teftamento poft Septuaginta as they were not able to make
Interpretes emendare quid li- any amendments to the Sep-
cuit, nee in Novo profuit tuagint Verfion in any part
cmendafie j cum multarum of the Old Teftament, fo nei-
gentium linguis Scriptura an- ther were their amendments
te tranflata doceat falfa elTe of the New of any value, fee-
quse addita funt. ing the former tranflations of
the Scripture into all the lan-
guages of the world prove
their additions or interpola-
tions to be falfe.
2. Pope Gelafius's words are b ;
Evangelia, quae falfavit Hefy- The Gofpels, which were in-
chius, Apocrypha. terpolated by Hefychius, are
Apocryphal.
From thefe accounts it is manifeft, thefe Gofpels of Hefy-
chius were no other than our prefent Canonical Gofpels, with
fome additions of his : for as Jerome cenfures their work, as
containing ufelefs amendments and additions, fo the wordfa2/a-
"jit in Gelafius implies the fame. What thefe interpolations
were, there is not any pofllbility of our conjecturing now,
though I know not whether it be worth while to lament the
lofs of them fo much as Dr. Mill does : " It is much to be
Pra-f.it. in Kv.ing. ad-Dair.; ! I' .'. > .,-. in N. Tcft. . -a2.
In Dccret.
" lamented,"
CHAP. xx. The Books of James. 229
" lamented," fays he, " that Jerome, who is the only perfon
<c that I know (belides Gelafms who tranfcribed from him)
*' that has faid any thing of this forgery, has given us no more
" clear and full account of this matter." I fee not any great
advantage it would have been, had thefe corrupt copies been
preferved. It is probable enough, what he added was no more
than fame idle Jlories out of the Gofpel of the Egyptians , it being
generally thought, with good reafon, that this Hefychius was
that Egyptian martyr mentioned by Eufebius a , whofe Greek co-
pies of the Old Tejlament were^ as Jerome fays, generally receiv-
ed in Egypt b . This, however, is certain ; thefe falfe Gofpels
were only received by fome few perfons of perverfe minds,
and rejected by the main body of Chriftians, and therefore to
be efteemed Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, VI. but efpecially
by Prop. XIV.
CHAP. XX.
The Book of 'James not the fame with the Prot-Evangelium
under his K^ame. A common Opinion among the Antients^
that the Brethren of Chrift mentioned in the Gofpels were
Jofeph's Children by a Wife before Mary. Other Books
attributed to James, ivhich were the forgery of Leucius
Charinus. The Atts and Books of John. The Gofpel of
Judas Ijcariot.
I.
Numb. XXIV. The BOOK of JAMES.
UNDER the name of this Apoftle there have been fe-
veral fpurious and forged pieces, of which it is not now
eafy to form a diftinc"r. and clear account. The title of this
now under enquiry I have taken from Origen % who in his
2 Hill. Eccl. Hb. 8. c. a?. Con- b Epiff. ad Chromat. quae eft
fer Utter. Syntag. dc Edit. LXX. Prasfat. in Lib. Paralipom. *
c. 7. and Dr. Cave Hiftor. Liter. c Orlg. Op. Exeg. p. izs-
vol. i. in Hefych. p. 808.
Q_ 3 Commentary
230 Wot the fame with the Prot-Evangelium. PART II.
Comm-errtary on thofe words of St. Matthew, c. xiii. 55.
h not this the Carpenter's Son? Is not his Mother failed
Mary? and his Brethren James and Jofes^ and Simon and
Judas? has the following paflage.
TK- ft 7eX?8 'Itio-5 <po-/ There are fome who fay
rmt Tv*i i* traiaftnu; * e - the brethren of Chrift (here
- . / mentioned) were the children
rz fjnyiyoatu.tJ.ivy. '
, , * of Jofeph by a former wife,
an are
x irf ojfl*ff -yuvatxo? <ruv- to t h[ s opinion by fome paf-
aurw -srco rrij Mas- fages in that which is inti-
^1*5. tied, The Gofpel of Peter, or
the Book of James.
Our learned countryman Dr. Mill a , after feveral others, is
of the opinion, that the Book of James here referred to is for
the moft part the fame with the Prot-Evangelion under this
jfpojile's name, which is now extant, and which I fhall infert
in Greek and Englifli in the third part of this work : but I
think this can hardly be proved by any good arguments, be-
caufe it does not appear this Prot-Evangelion was extant until
long after Origen's time, as I fhall (hew in the particular dif-
cuffion of it. I confefs I have obferved in this book an ac-
count cfjofepb's having children by a former wife, for he is
introduced cap. ix. as anfwering the High-prieft urging him
to take the virgin, Tit? t^u, > ^i^c^vrr.f iJ/*, uirr, &t nans' ^r,irut
itropui netray^uf tut ffo~ 'lagaijA. / have children, and am an old
man y but Jhe is young^ and I Jhall appear ridiculous in IfraeL
But, notwithftanding this, it is for the forementioned reafon
probable, thefe two books were not the fame ; befides, Origen
does not feem to have feen this book of James, but was un-
certain whether the opinion he cites was in that or the Gofpel
of Peter; and laftly, this was a very common opinion among
the Antients, viz. that Jofepb had children by a former wife b ,
Prolegom. inN.Teft. . 174. many other antients cited to this
See Euleb. Hift. Eccl, 1. 2. purpofe by Valef. in Loc. Eufcb.
c. i. Kpiphin. Hacrcf. 29. Naznr. and Biftiop Pearfon on the Creed.
& 78. qua: tit Antidicomar. and Art. 3. p. 174, &c.
and
CHAP. xx.
Other BooKs of James.
231
and fo might very probably have been in feveral of the fpurious
and Apocryphal pieces. And this is no more than what Je-
rome a exprefsly fays, Some fuppofe^ by the brethren of our Lord
we are to underjland Jofeph's children by another wiff^ follow-
ing the idle fancies of feme Apocryphal books. However this be,
we have the jufteft reafon to efteem this book of James to have
been a fpurious piece, and Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, VI.
Numb. XXV. Some other BOOKS attributed to JAMES.
TP PIPHANIUS, in his account of the Ebionites b , after a
J -rf large confutation of their principles, adds :
Twi/ $\ 'AiroroAwv ra wo>oU Befides they have counterfeit-
ed the Apoftles' names, for
the better perfuading of thofe,
whom they have deluded ; for
.- , , ' c . f .
they have forged feveral
- bookSj and prefixed their
cu- nam es to them, viz. the name
xal of James, Matthew, and o-
ther Difciples, among which
i s alfo the name of the Apoftle
J hn ' that their fo11 ^ mi S ht
appear every where the ereat-
x -i *'
w srco(T7roii>)TWf 02-
, K$tv Vo
TT 'Iaxw'a, Jtai
|xaS->iTa)
o? ote-
I am not able to fay any thing particular concerning thefe
books, there being no fragments of them now extant ; only,
if I may conjecture, I would fay, they were the fame with
thofe mentioned by Pope Innocent I. c in his Decree concern-
ing Canonical books.
Qui vero Libri recipiantur in
Canone San6tarum Scriptura-
rum, brevis annexus oftendit.
Haec funt ergo quae defiderata
What books are to be re-
ceived into the Canon of the
facred Scriptures, the annexed
fchedule will declare Thefe
Corr.men.5n Matth. xii, 49.
30. . Jj.
Fpift. 3ad Exuper. c, 7.
Q. 4
moneri
-31 Wbtther Leucius tie Author. PART if.
moneri voce voluifti : Moyfis are they, concerning which
libri quinque, &c. C.ttera you defined to be informed,
autem quas vel fub nomine viz. The five books of Mofes,
Matthaei five Jacobi Minoris, &c. But as for thofe which
vel fub nomine Petii & Joan- go under the name of Mat-
nis, quae a quodam Leucio thew, or James the Lefs, or
fcripta funt, &c. non folum under the name of Peter and
repudianda-verumnoverisefle John, which were wrote by
dainnanda. one Leucius, know, that they
are not only to be rejected,
but condemned.
Whether thefe words will prove that Leucius was the au-
thor of thefe books under the name of James, or whether they
only afiert thofe afcribed to Peter and John to have been writ-
ten by Leucius, is not very eafy to determine. The former
appeared moft probable to Dr. Mill 3 , and perhaps not without
reafon, if we confider, that this Leucius was the author of a
great many forgeries under the Apoftle's name, as will ap-
pear fully hereafter under the letter L. Although therefore
there is nothing more particular known concerning thefe
books, yet from what is faid, it is plain, they were fpurious,
and confequently Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. It
may perhaps be objected, that Leucius cannot be fuppofed to
be the author of thefe books, and confequently that Epipha-
nius and Pope Innocent do not mean the fame, becaufe the
former fays, they were forged by the Eiionites, but it does not
apfcar that Lem'ius was one of this fort. To which I (hall
think it enough to anfwer, that Leucius fecms to have formed
his books with defign to be received by all forts of hereticks,
and, therefore, mixed the peculiar principles of each moft ce-
lebrated party together in them } whence, as the incomparable
and mojl excellent writer among the antients^ I mean Photius,
the Patriarch of Cwjtantinople, obferves, bis forgeries are full
effoolifo and filly contradictions^ and he may be jujlly efteemed as
tbtfiurce or author of every bcrtfy*.
Prck-gom. mN.Teft. .336. rwfftus Usurns et'po-w; yr#v* x*i
b Tipu ol xati lAi-jjia; coV^.;, p.r t ~if%. Cod. cxiv.
-z-YJ* *<) -
Numb.
CHAP. xx. The Afts of John^ and the Gofpel of Judas. 233
Numb. XXVI. The ACTS of JOHN the APOSTLE.
OF thefe fpurious A&s there is frequent mention in the
old Chriftian writers, who lived within the limits of my
time i but inafmuch as they appear evidently to have been the
forgery of Leucius, I {hall refer the confideration of them to
their proper place under the name Leucius in the letter L.
Numb. XXVII. Other BOOKS under the Name of
JOHN.
THESE appearing to have been compofed by the fame
perfon with the former, lhall be confidered in the fame
place.
Numb. XXVIII. The GOSPEL of JUDAS
ISCARIOT.
HIS Apocryphal book is mentioned by Irenaeus and
J- Epiphanius, as peculiar to one of the moft monftrous
and inconfiftent feels, who ever took upon them the Chriftian
name. The account given by Irenaeus is as follows 3 .
Alii autem rurfus Cain a fu- But there are other hereticks,
periore principalitate dicunt ; who fay, Cain (was deliver-
& Efau & Core & Sodomitas, ed b) by a Heavenly Power,
& omnes tales cognatos fuos and who acknowledge Eiau,
confitentur, & propter hoc a Corah, and the Sodomites as
Faftoreimpugnatosneminem their pattern (or kindred),
ex eis male acceptos : Sophia who though they were fought
enim illud, quod proprium ex againft by the Creator, yet
e^ erat, abripiebat ex eis ad received no damage thereby :
femetipfam. Et haec Judam for Wifdom took from them
proditorem diligenter cogno- whatever belonged to it.
vifle dicunt, & folum prae cae- Thefe things, they fay, Judas,
teris cognofcentem veritatem who betrayed Chrift, careful-
a Adv. Hteref. lib. i. c. 35. to be fupplied to make the fentence
b I fupply this word out of The- perfect.
oduret, Ionic word being neceflary
perfecifTc
234
perfecifle proditionis myfteri-
um ; per quern & terrena &
casleflia omnia diffoluta di-
cunt, & confi&ionem afferunt
hujufmodi, Judae Evangelium
illud vocantes.
The Gofpel of Judas Ifcariot. PART iz,
Jy obtained the knowledge of;
and as he was the only one of
the Apoftles who knew the
truth, he accomplifhed the
myftery of betraying Chrift.
By him (viz. Judas) they fay,
all things in heaven and earth
were difTolved; and agreeable
to thefe fentiments they pro-
duce a certain forgery, which
they call the Gofpel of Judas.
Epiphanius difcourfmg of thefe fame hereticks relates 1 much
the fame thing as Irenaeus, and in the fame myftical unintel-
ligible language; of which he in like manner fays, they af-
nrrned Judas to have had a perfect knowledge j adding,
That they will have him to be
their relation, and efteem him
to have obtained extraordi-
nary knowledge, inafmuch as
they produce a certain book
under his name, which they
call the Gofpel of Judas ; be-
fides, they have forged many
other fuch writings^ &c.
TOV arav
AAa
ra 'J7
tya <7uy-
rat, cc.
Mr.Toland has not failed to adorn his catalogue of Books,
which he would perfuade us are as valuable as any now re-
ceived, with the title of this Gofpel b : he has introduced it
thus : That none of the dpojlks might be thought unable to write
a Gofpel) we find one alledged by the Caianites^ a fett of the Gnof-
tic&s, under the name of Judas Ifcariot. Artfully faid indeed !
A fet of impious, beaftly, prophane wretches, abandoned to
all the excefles of vice and immorality, forged a piece under
the name of Judas i and this is to be ranked in the fame clafs
fc Amyntor, p. 33.
with
CHAP. xx. The Gofpel of Judas Ifeariot. 235
with thofe which contain the fublime doctrines and holy pre-
cepts of Chriftianity ! But let us a little fee what fort of per-
fons thefe Caianites were : They called the Creator of all things
Hyjlera^ and wrote fever a I books again/I him ; they affirmed^ n*
man could be faved^ who did not make trial of all forts of vice \
accordingly they reckoned it virtue to commit the mojl notorious
immoralities and crimes ; and feigning to themselves a great
number of Angels^ they attributed to each a particular Jin y which
^vhen they were about to commit^ they invoked that Angel's re-
gard and patronage: they applauded the aclion of Judas in be~
fraying Cbrift\ &?<% Such were their ridiculous fentiments;
from whence it is eafy to form a notion of their Gofpel, and
to fee reafon to reject it. See Prop. IV, V> VI, and efpeciaU
ly VIII. and IX.
a He who has a mind, may read lous kind, in the places of Irenaeus
this, and more of the fame ridicu- and Epiphanius laft cited.
C H A P.
CHAP. XXL
The dtfs of the Apojlles under the Names of Lucius, Lenthius^
LesutiHSy and, Leuthon, proved to be one and the fame Book^
bccaufe thefe were all the fame Perfon's Name corruptly writ-
ten. They contained the Acts of John, Andrew, Thomas,
Peter, Paul, "James, and others. Their Spurioufnefs proved.
f,ei(cius their Author lived in the fourth Century. His
Principles and Tenets. A Remark on Dr. Mill's Greek
Tfjlament. Lcucius and Leonides the fame Name. Leonides
peeved to be a corrupt Writing injlead of Leucius. Nexo-
charis or Xenocbaris proved to be a corrupt Way of writing
Charinus, the Surname of Leucius.
Numb. XXIX. The ACTS of the APOSTLES by
LEUCIUS.
Numb. XXX. The ACTS of the APOSTLES by
LENTITIUS.
Numb. XXXI. The ACTS of the APOSTLES by
LEONTIUS.
Numb. XXXII. The ACTS of the APOSTLES by
LEUTHON.
Numb. XXXIII. The BOOKS of LENTITIUS.
EA C H of thefe differing titles being to be found in the
antient writings, I thought it moil agreeable to my de-
fign to produce them diftin&ly, though they are unqueftion-
ably only miftaken writings of the fame perfon's name, viz.
Leucius. I fhall, according to my method, firft produce the
places, and then form the beft judgment of them which I can.
The firft is that of,
I. St. Auftin, who gives the following account of the Acls
vn^er the Apojlh? names written by Leucius^ received by the
Manichees a .
* Lib. de Fid. cont. Manich. t. 38.
Moltum
CHAt. XXI.
Multum appsretimperitiavef-
tra, vel potius audacia. At-
tendite in actibus Leucii,quos
fub nomine Apoftolorum fcri-
bit, qualia fmt, qus accipitis
de Maximilla uxore Egetis ;
quae quum nollet marito de-
bitum reddere, quum Apofto-
lus dixerit, uxori vir debitum
reddat, fimiliter & uxor viro ;
ilia fuppofuerit marito fuo an-
cillam fuain, Eucliatri nomine,
exornans earn, ficut ibi fcrip-
tum eft, adverfariis lenociniis
& fucationibus, & earn nocle
pro fe vicariam fupponens, ut
ille nefciens cum ea tanquam
cum uxore concumberet. Ibi
etiam fcriptum eft, quod cum
eadem Maximilla & Iphida-
mia fimul iiflent ad audiendum
Apoftolum Andream, pueru-
lus quidam fpeciofus, quem
vult Leucius vel Deum vel
certe Angelum intelligi, com-
mendaverit eas Andreae Apof-
tolo, & perrexerit ad praeto-
torium Egetis, & ingreflus
cubiculum eorum finxerit vo-
cem muliebrem, quafi Maxi-
millae murmurantis de dolori-
bus fexus faeminei, &. Iphi-
The jftfs of Leucius.
237
Your imprudence, or rather
impudence, appears very re-
markable Confideronly,what
fort of things you receive
concerning Maximilla, the
wife of Egetes, in the Afls of
Leucuis^ -which he wrote under
the Apojtle;? name. How that
when (he would not render
due benevolence to her huf-
band, according to the Apof-
tle's command ( I Cor. vii. 3.)
Let a man render due benevo-
lence to his wife, and Itkewife
the wife to her hu/band, (he
impofed upon her hufband by
her maid called Euclia. For,
as it it written there, fhe
adorned her, and by artful dif-
guifes deluded her hufband, by
placing her in the night in her
own place, fo that he igno-
rantly lay with her as his wife.
It is there alfo written, that
when the fame Maximilla
and Iphidamia went together
to hear the Apoftle Andrew,
a certain handfome boy, whom
Leucius will have either to
have been God himfelf, or at
leaft an angel, recommended
them to Andrew the Apoftle,
and having led them to the
palace of Egetes, went into
their bed-chamber, and feign-
ed the voice of a woman, like
Maximilla's, bemoaning the
misfortunes of her fex; to
damiae
77} f Atts of Leucius.
PART II.
damiz refpondentis. Quae
colloquiacum audifletEgetes,
credens eas ibi efie, difceflerit.
which Iphidamia replied.-
Which difcourfes when Ege-
tes heard, believing them to
be really theirs, he went a-
way a .
II. The fame St. Auftin b , difputlng with Felix againft the
Manichees, urges againft him :
Habetis hoc etiam in fcriptu-
ris Apocryphis, quas Canon
quidem catholicus non admit-
tit, vobis autem tanto gratio-
res funt, quanto a Catholico
Canone fecluduntur. Aliquid
etiam inde commemorem, cu-
jus ego au&oritate non teneor,
fed tu convinceris. In A6li-
bus confcriptis a Lentitio,
quos tanquam actus Apofto-
lorum fcribit, habes ita pofi-
tum: Etenimfpeciofafigmen-
ta & oftentatio fimulata, &
coa&io vifibilium, non qui-
dem ex proprianatura proce-
dunt, fed ex eo homine qui per
fe ipfum dcterior fa&us eft per
feduftionem.
This you have alfo in the
Apocryphal writings, which
are not admitted into the Ca-
non of the Church, but are
indeed fo much the more ef-
teemed by you, as they are
excluded the Canon of the
Church. I ftiall cite a paf-.
fage thence, not that I regard
its authority, but for your
conviction. In the ARs ii-rott
by Lentitius, which he writes
as the Afls of the Apoflle^ you
find the following words :
" The fpecious appearances
" and delufive pomp, and the
" influence of the things that
" are feen, do not proceed
" from nature, but from that
" man, who through his own
" fault became worfe by
" temptation."
III. The fame Father in his treatife ofFaith^ or the Trinity
cf the Unity') produces the fame paflage with no variation \
only that the author's name is there written Leontius, and not
Lentitius, as in the place laft cited : His words are, In afliins
1 Something of this is referred to
in the Life of Andrew. Se Ab-
dbs's Hilt. Apoft. in vit. And.
c. 39.
k Aft. cum Felic. Manich. lib.
2. C.6.
etiam
CHAP. XXI. The Acls of LeuciuS, bV. 239
etiam confer ipt'ts a Leontio^ quos ipfe acclplnnt^ Jtc fcriptum eft ;
Etenim fpeciofa figmenta csc. a Whence it is evident, that
thefe two names denote the fame perfon ; not that he was an-
tiently known by both thefe names, but through the ignorance
or inadvertency of latter fcribes, when they found the name
Leucius contra&edly wrote thus, L. or Lus. according to the
old way in manufcripts, they fubftituted cither Leucius, Lenti-
tiusj or Leontius, according to their own fancy.
IV. Jerome, or whoever was the author of that famous
Epiftle to Chromatius and Heliodorus under his name among
his works b , afcribes not only the book of the Nativity of
Mary, but that called, The Acls or PaJJions of the Apojlles t to
Leuthon, as it is in my edition, or as it is in others, Seleucus,
who was the fame as Leucius, as has been often obferved; fee
Cafaubon c , Fabritius '', and others j and fo Dr. Mill affures
us, the manufcript copies ftill have the name Leucius, and
neither Leuthon nor Seleucus e : fo that I may now fet down
the words of the Epiftle under Jerome's name.
Sed faftum eft, ut a Manichsi But it is certain that this book
difcipulo, nomine Leucio, qui was publifhed, &c. by a dif-
etiam Gefta Apoftolorum fal- ciple of Manichasus, whofe
fo fennone concripfit, hie liber name was Leucius, who alfo
editus, &c. wrote a falfe account, inti-
tled, The Arts of the Apojilcs.
Hence it is evident there were certain As under the Apoftles'
names wrote by Leucius. It remains now, that we more par-
ticularly make enquiry what thofe Als were.
To me it feems certain, they were the very fame with tbofe
Apocryphal Afts which are fo often mentioned by the antlent
writers, as forged under the names of John^ Andrew, and Tho-
maS) and perhaps two or three more. I (hall make good my
ailertion by thefe following reafons :
* Lib. de Fid. cont. Munich, c. ron. Annal. 15. No. 39.
5. a Cod. Apoc. Nov. Tcftam. p.
k Ephtol. Sa. Par. 2. Traft 6. 137. par. i.
fol. 140. " Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. ^.
i Exercit. i. ad Apparat. Ba- 3-6.
I. Fram
2.1.3 Ike Atts of Leucius the fame PART if.
I. From tie exprefs tejlimony of Photius y that moft accurate
and judicious critick, who had read the books, and aflerts,
that they manifejled Leucius Charinus to be their author a .
*Avr/vw<r$u (3i6A'ov, oil Xiyo- I read the book which is call-
'- ed ' /; * ^ * tbe
among which are contained
the
r^ ft aJ- writer of Which5 as appears
TO ur0 PJ^- plainly f rom tne book, was
Xxv6f. Leucius Charinus.
2. /'Vtfw the Decree of Pope Innocent* ', in which feveral
books under thefe Apoftles' names are joined together, as
wrote by this fame Leucius ; Cegtera qu<z fub nomine Petri &
Joannas, qua a quodarn Lcucio fcriptafunt, &c. As to the other
books under the name ofjohn^ which were written by one Leu-
cius, &c. See the paflage at large above, Numb. XXV.
3. St. Auftin, who fays the Manichees made their citations
out of the A6h of the Apoftles written by Leucius, in the
places juft now cited j in another book c fays, they made their
citations out offome Apocryphal pieces under the names cf Andrew
and John.
4. 17} ey were received by feveral hcreticks^ who agreed ir-
many of the fame impious principles. This is evident by the
table which I have compofed of this agreement in Chap. V.
of this part, and the authors there cited, who mention the
Als of Andrew and John together, as received by the Mani-
chees, Encratites, Apoftolicks or Apotadlicks, and Orige-
nians.
Thefe therefore appearing fo evidently to be the fame, I
fhall in the next place produce the places where they are men-
tioned, viz.
* Cod. cxiv. teftimonia, qux fub nominibus A-
* Epift. 3. ad Exuper. Epilcop. poftolorum Andrew, Johannuquc
Tolof. c. 7. conlcriptalunt. Contr. adverf. leg.
c Sane de Apocryphis iftc pofuit & proph. lib* i . c. 10. in ir.it.
i.Bv
CHAP. xxi. as the Acts of Andrew and John.
241
I. By Eufebius
'Airof foe* *r^
(flTl
\ ~ \
xai 0w.ua, xai
us
TWV aAAwv 'A?ro>
ra^a TO ^S-o
vaAAaTT
TO 'A-
Tf
arA?roi/ cirov Trig
op.
That we may know the
books published by the he-
reticks under the Apoftles'
names, fuch as the Gofpels of
Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and
fome others, and alfo the Afts
of Andrew and John and fome
other Apojtles, which were ne-
ver efteemed valuable enough
to be cited in the works of any
Ecclefiaftical writer: befides,
the phrafeology of them is very
different from the Apoftles'
ftylej and withal, the doc-
trines and fentiments, which
they contain, are fo very op-
pofite to the Orthodox faith,
as evidently to demonftrate
that they are the forgeries of
hereticks, and fo not only to
be looked upon as fpurious,
abfurd and impious .
raxTEOv, aAA* w? TOTT 7javTj
By Athanafius b .
f AiaOnW MXrof*v6 The Apocryphal books of the
Tliiooi
ala
O- New Teftament are thefe:
u- 7*^ -^?J of Peter, the Afts of
,^ Jhn, the Afls of Thomas, the
Hift. Eccl. I. 3. c. 25. ,
In Synopf. or whoever was the
VOL. I. R
author of that antient book.
242
Mentioned by PbHaftrius, frV. PART II.
a TT*- Gofpel according to Thomas,
X tin
raruv rui>
the Dotr\ne of the
and the books under Cle -
ment's name. They are all
r ir r j i
falfe, fpunous, and to be re-
^*An<pS-VTwi/ xai syxci-
isr ? * TO?? traXa^
'.
tv, ATTCXOU-
Apocryphal books of the New
Teftament have been either
approved, or are ufeful ; but
they have all been judged A-
pocrvphal fi- e. rather worthy
* r v >
to be concealed than read ) by
aura ra xaXa/*"* auT0 ^
reofwv
Fathers> wh ; ch contain any
thing contrary to the books
above recited a ; as alfo all
other Gofpels, befides thofe
four delivered to us.
By Philaftriusb.
E quibus funt Manichaei,
Gnoftici, Nicolaitae, Valen-
tiniani, et alii quamplurimi,
qui Apocrypha Apoftolorum,
i.e. feparatos Aclus habentes,
Canonicas legere Scripturas
contemnunt Scripturae au-
tern abfconditse, i. e. Apocry-
pha, etfi legi debent morum
caufa a perfect is, non legi de-
bent ab omnibus, quia non
intelligentes multa addiderunt
1 He refers to the catalogue he
had given before of Canonical books.
Among whom are the Ma-
nichees, Gnofticks, Nicolai-
tans, Valentinians, and many
others, who having fome Apo-
cryphal books under the Apof-
tles'names, i.e. fome diftinft
A&s, defpife the Canonical
Scriptures as not worthy to
be read : but thefe fecret, i. e.
Apocryphal Scriptures,though
for the conduct of life they
ought to be read by the more
able Chriftians, yet ought not
to be read by all, becaufe the
ignorant hereticks have added
b Hsref. 40. cui titul. Apocry-
phi.
& tu-
CHAP. xxi. Mentioned by Epipbanius,
243
& tulerunt, quse voluerunt
haeretici. Nam Manichsei
Apocrypha beati Andreas A-
poftoli, i. e. A6lus quos fecit
veniens de Ponto in Graeci-
am, quos confcripferunt difci-
puli tune fequentes Apofto-
lum ; unde & habent Mani-
chasi & alii tales, Andreae beati
& Joannis Adlus Evangeliftae,
beati & Petri fimiliter Apof-
toli, & Pauli pariter Apofto-
li ; in quibus quia figna fece-
runt magna & prodigia, ut &
canes & beftiae loquerentur,
etiam & animas hominum
tales velut canum & pecudum
fimiles imputaverunt efle has-
retici perditi.
and taken away many things,
according to their own fan-
cies. For the Manichees
(make ufe) of Apocryphal
books under the name of St.
Andrew the Apoftle, i. e. the
Acts which he did in his jour-
ney from Pont its to Greece^
which the Difciples, who fol-
lowed that Apoftle, wrote :
So alfo the Manichees and
other fuch (hereticks) have
the Afts of St. Andrew and
yohn the Evangelijl ; alfo of
St. Peter the Apojlle, and the
Apojlle Paul\ in which, be-
caufe they wrought many mi-
racles, fuch as making dogs
and beafts to fpeak, thofe
wretched hereticks imagined
the fouls of men to be like
the fouls of dogs and beafts.
4. By Epiphanius 3 , fpeak ing concerning the Encratites
HtT<*i <TE
Tw? T
Tsrfiulo- They principally made ufe of
'AnJo8 thofe Scriptures, which were
'} 0- ca M e d tne A&s of Andrew,
/ and John, and Thomas, and
fome other Apocryphal pieces.
The fame author, in the herefy of the Apotadlicks and
Origenians, fays, they made ufe of the fame book ; the p?.f-
fages are produced above, in the place referred to ia the mar-
gin b .
Haeiaef. 47. . r.
Part 2. c. $.
R ^
244 Concerning Leucius. PART II.
5. By Pope Gelafms \
Libri omnes quos fecit Len- All the books which were
titius, feu Leucius, filius Dia- made by Lentitius, or Leuci-
boli, Apocryphi. us, that fon of the Devil, are
Apocryphal.
Thefe are ail the places which I have obferved, in which
thefe Apocryphal Ah are exprefsly mentioned by name :
there are indeed fome other places where they are referred to,
but not named, as I fhall fhew in the end of this chapter ;
and only add here fome account of their author Leucius, and
fome reafons for rejecting his books.
Concerning Leucius I have met with very little, befides
what has been produced above, in any writers within the limits
of my time. Pacianus, a writer of the fourth century, men-
tions one Leucius, whom the Montanifts falfely aflerted to be a
great promoter of their herefy b ; accordingly Dr. Grabe c , and
Dr. Mill d , fuppofmg Pacianus to fpeak of the fame Leucius,
of whom I am now writing, conclude, he lived in the fecond
century, viz. fays Dr. Mills, about the year of Chrift 140, i. e.
a little before the rife of the Montanijls t who pretended to be en-
couraged by him. The faid Doctor adds, that Leucius was a
follower of Marcion, who lived in the fecond century^ and had
the fame peculiar dottrines which are afcribed to Lucianus^ who
was a companion of Mar ci on % and therefore that he probably
was the very fame perfon as Lucianus, who was mojl certainly
a remarkable interpolator of the Canonical Gofpels^ and a forger
of Apocryphal Gofpeh f .
This conjecture, I confefs, fhews not only much learning
and ingenious criticifm, but at firft view feems very probable ;
but upon a ftri enquiry will, I believe, appear to be ground-
lefs: For,
In Dccret. * Ibid.
Epift. i. ad Syrapron. in init. f Vid. loc. plur. in hoc Capitt
Spicileg. Pair. torn. i.p. 78. citata.
Prolegom. in N. T. . 334.
I. Leucius,
CHAP. XXI. e tf)e Age of Lettcius.- 245
1. Leucius, of whom I am writing, the author of thefe
Apocryphal Acts now under confideration, was a Manichee;
fo he is exprefsly called by St. Auftin and Pope Gelalius, and
hisfpnrious writings contained the peculiar favourite docJrines*
of the Manichees : Now it is a matter well known, that the
Manichees were not in being till the b time of Aurelius Pro-
bus, or Dioclefian, i. e. not till the latter end of the third
century; wherefore it is evident, either that the Montanifts
were miftaken in faying Leucius was a favourite of their feet,
which are indeed the words of Pacianus (Phryges animates fe
a Leucio mentiri)^ or elfe the Leucius there mentioned muft
be a different perfon from him of that name, of whom we are
fpeaking ; or elfe, which perhaps may be the truth of the
cafe, the word animates means the reviving or encouraging
their principles^ and not, as Dr. Mill thinks, the firft fpreading
of them. Whichever it be, it is plain, Leucius did not live
before the latter end of the third, or beginning of the fourth
century after Chrift ; and confequently, that Leucius and Lu-
cianus were really different perfons, who lived at above an
hundred years diftance from each other.
2. Whereas Dr. Mill fays, Leucius was the follower of
Marcion as well as Lucianus, and therefore probably the fame
perfon, living in the fecond century, and for this cites Photius,
Cod. cxiv. This, I aver, is utterly falfe^ there being no fuch
thing faid in that place of Photius, nor the name of Marcioa
fo much as mentioned there. But that learned Doctor feems
to have been led into this miftake for want of confulting
Photius himfelf, and by mifunderftanding the following words
of Dr. Grabe c . Leucius^ Marcionis fuccejj[or y Secul. II. cujus
aflus fummatim perjtrinxit Photius^ Cod. cxiv. The reafon
of my mentioning this is, to give the reader a fpecimen of Dr.
Mill's negligence in citations, which is but too vifible in other
parts of his famous work on the New Teftament : As for in-
ftance, I remem-ber, fomewhere he collects a various reading
from the Syriack Verfion, whereas that moft perfectly agrees
* Phot. Bihl. Cod. 114. him, p. 141.
b Cyril of Jerufalem fays, the c Spicileg. Patr. torn. x. p. 78.
Mauichees arofe 70 years before
R 3 in
246 The Afts of Leucius Apocryphal. PART n.
in that place with our prefent Greek: but the Do&or, either
not understanding the Syriack language, or not confulting it,
made only ufe of the Latin tranflation of the Syriack, which
indeed is in that place faulty, and not only different from the
Greek, bat its original, viz. Syriack.
3. As to the agreement of the fentiments of Leucius and
Lucianus, which the Doctor urges to prove them to have been
the fame perfons, it is eafily anfwered, that Leucius adopted
into hisfcheme the principles of mo/} cf the former hereticks, as I
have above (hewed out of Photius, and will appear more fully
hereafter; and therefore nothing can be concluded hence to
prove Leucius to have been the fame with Lucianus, or to
have lived in the fecond century.
Leucius therefore living in the fourth century, we are from
the writers of that later age to take all our accounts of him ;
and indeed we do not find his name in anv one before Auftin,
Jerome, and Philaftrius, who all lived towards the latter end of
that age. He feems to me to have been the father of thofe
hereticks, who are called by St. Auftin 3 Seleuciani, from his
name Seleucus (which I above proved to be the fame name
with Leucius), who were alfo called Hermiani. They held^
that the world was not made by God, but co-eternal with him ;
that God did not make men's fouls > but Angels, out of fire and
air ; that Chrift does not Jit at the right hand of the Father in
a human body^ but that he lodged his body in the fun according
to that> Pfalm. xix. 4. He hath fet his tabernacle in the fun.
Tliey deny any future rejurreftion, and place it only in the daily
procreation of children. Thefe feem to have been the followers
of this heretick, and thefe his principles, if he may be faid to
have had any, who received thofe of all feels.
As to thefe A6h, publifhed by Leucius, there needs little
more to be faid to prove them Ipurious. They are aflerted to
be fo by all who mention them, and rejefled as monftrous
and impious forgeries : Apocryphal therefore by Prop. IV,
V, and VI. I-add alfo by Prop. VIJI, and IX. as containing
things falfe and fabulous, trifles contrary to truth; fuch are
1 Ds Hneref. Num. 59. T. Opp. 6.
thofe
CHAP. XXI.
Photius's Account of them.
247
thofe ftories of Maximilla and Iphidamia, in the fragment pro-
duced out of St. Auftin ; fuch especially is that in the fame
fragment , of God 1 s appearing in the form of a little boy, and
feigning the voice of a woman: fuch, laftly, is that mentioned
by Philaftrius, that the fouls of men were like the fouls of dogs
and beajls. Thus much may be fufficient concerning thefe
Apocryphal Ats ; of which I fhould now add no more, if I
did not think it would be as entertaining to my readers, as
myfelf, to tranfcribe the judgment of Photius concerning them,
who, though a writer of the Qth century, well deferves regard-
ing, not onlybecaufe he had read the book, but that his judg-
ment is always valuable. After he had faid he perufed thefe
A&s, and that they appeared to be wrote by Leucius Chari-
nus, he adds (Cod. cxiv.)
'Hot poaVi; ilg TO warnXw The ftyle of it is irregular and
inconfiftent. He ufes phrafes
and words fometimes. which
are not mean, but for the molt
HOT U.iV U'A f , i u J
r part fuch as are bald and com-
& TO TTA.r-
> <\ e > ,
iiv o fuayyfAixof TH
. ' ,
? toctuXu.oo&talati
r ' V/
yoj, a
* $t KX\
,
Ao-
F '
ava rov TWV
y.x\ xxov, t> :
R
leaft fign of an even free ftyle,
or of that beauty that attends
fuch a natural ftyle, in which
the writings of the Evange-
lifts and Apoftles are compof-
ed. It abounds with many
foolifh and filly contradic-
tions. For he fays, that the
God of the Jews, whofe Mini-
Jler Simon Magus was, was a
bad God, and that Chrift was
a different God from him, and
a good God: And then again
perverting and confounding
every thing, he calls the Fa-
ther and the Son one and the
fame : But he adds, that
248 Pnotiu? s Account of them. PART n.
xal <ruJ-W!/, xaA~ aJrov xal Chrift was not really a man,
srarspa xal vlov' Ai-yet $\, but only appeared to be fo, and
pW ia^m)Wi a'At,^^ that he appeared often in va-
-.-. \ *.,* ~ \ v rious /napes to his Difcipks,
aA/.a aoai xai TroAAa TroA-
Jometimes as a young man,
' : fometimes again as an old man,
vtov, xa isr^ffEuTi w*A*>, andfcmetimesasachild- y fome-
xat pa- f/Wj larger, fometimss lefs ;
xati p- fometimes fv tall, as that his
**. - Befides,hehasin-
M x N ~ vented many idle and ridicu-
Ot Xl TtTffll T fOi'JOK i ,, . , /-
lous ftones about the crofs ;
, aAX' fre^ov aW
aura, xal xxroiysXKv fix rx-
TO ruv r uf 8VTWV.
refotrivirou etv*-
<?e xal xar' axo'-
~ . / ,
TOK EixovcwayoK v raj?
r ^
but another in his
Jlead^ for which he laughed at
the crucifiers. He denies the
*/* ^/ ^/ a/ marriages, and
^es all generation to be evil,
and from the Devil. He fup-
r j ~ * ,
w another Creator of the
Jigioujlyabfurdfortofrefurrec-
//en, ^/A /"w<? and oxen, and
all cattle. He feems alfo in
*be Ads of John with the
(Iconomachi) enemiesof ima-
ges, to difpute againft the ufe
*_ . L
of them b . In a word, that
* Dr. Mill fuppofes a fragment
of thefe A6U extant in a manufcript
in the Bodleian, Cod. Barocc. n.iSo.
fol. in. For in that, Chrift is laid
fometimes to have appeared in the
form of a boy.
fc This paifage inclines me to con-
jefture> that thefe books were inter-
polated, feeing in the time of Leu-
cius, the controverfy about images
was unknown, it not arifing until
the eighth century. But perhaps
Photius, living in the time when thi$
difpute was hot, might imagine more
than Leucius intended. He only fays,
A.CX;I J. -/.a.} xaT tltwit:-,; &C.
CHAP. xxi. Other Places^ where they are referred to. 249
f' vuifyiuki KOU olir&ctvot childifh, incredible, ill-defign-
xai >c*xoVxr x*l vJ/Eixfi xi in S> "> foolifll > contradic-
\ \ w.. / tions, profane and impious
uuooe, KOU aAAoK uavouEva,
, ,=~ \ *ft / ftones ; fo that one may not
- iir>ty. . , ., , , /
5 r* unjuitly lay, he was the fource
ftndaHt hor of every herefy.
Befides the above-cited places of the Fathers, where thefe
Adls are exprefsly mentioned, they feem to be referred to in that
pafiage of Epiphanius above produced, Numb. XXV. where
fpeaking of the Ebionites, he fays, among other Apojlles 1 names
they counterfeited the names of Matthew, James, and alfo John \
as alfo in that of St. Auftm in his difpute againft the anony-
mous author (whether Marcionite or Manichee, or both, is not
certain) whom he calls, the enemy of the Law and the Pro-
phets : In that book, againft which he writes, he fays, the au-
thor *
De Apocryphis pofuit tefti- Made citations out of the A-
monia, quae fub nominibus pocryphal books under the
Apoftolorum Andreae Joan- names of the Apoftles An-
nifque confcripta funt; quas drew and John ; which, if
fi illorum efTent, recepta ef- they were really theirs, would
fent ab ecclefia, quae ab illo- have been received by the
rum temporibus per Epifcopo- Church, which has continued
rum fucceffiones certiflimas, under an uninterrupted fuc-
ufque ad noftra & deinceps ceffion of Bifhops, from their
tempora perfeverat. time to ours, &c.
There can fcarce be any reafon to doubt, but thefe were the
fame Adl:s which were compofed by Leucius, if we confider
what is above faid, as alfo that they are the iame mentioned in
the Decree of Pope Innocent I. b
* Contr. Adverf. Leg. &Proph. * Epift, adExxvper, 3. c. 7.
lib. T. cap, 20. T. Opp, 6.
Csetera
250 Leucius and Leonides the fame. PART II.
Czetera autem, quae fub no- But the other books under the
mine Petri & Joannis, quae a name of Peter and John,
quodain Leucio fcripta lunt, which were written by one
vel fub nomine Andrea?, quae Leucius, or under the name
a Nexocharide & Leonide of Andrew, which were writ-
philofophis j non folum re- ten by Nexocharides and Le-
pudianda, verum etiam nove- onides philofophers ; know,
ris efTe damnanda. that they are not only to be
rejected, but condemned.
I confefs, in this Decree the books of Andrew, and thofe of
Peter and John, are made different, as wrote by different au-
thors, viz. the latter by Leucius, and the former by Leonides
and Nexocharides : but nothing is more probable than the con-
jecture of Mr. Fabritius, that Innocent was miftaken in thefe
nameSy and that they were no other than the name of Leucius Cha-
rinus corruptly written. It feems to me to be accounted for,
by confidering the contracted way of writing formerly, which
has produced an infinite variety of fuch miftakes by ignorant
and carelefs fcribes, efpecially in proper names : for the name
Leucius being contractedly written thus L. or Lus. by one
fcribe, might by another fcribe be read, and accordingly writ-
ten in his copy, Leonides, by the eafy miftake of the letter u
for the letter n, which are much alike in many writings.
This we are fure was the cafe, in refpecl of the name Leon-
tius, which was another name for Leucius in fome copies, as
I have above obferved. As to the name Nexocharis, or, which
is the better reading, Xenocharis, I am inclined to think, that
it was by fome blundering fcribe formed from, or written for,
Charinus, the furname of Leucius, in the following manner.
Before the name Charinus, contractedly written in fome
Greek book thus %f", happened to be the appellative word
|eo? (perhaps to denote his ftrange doctrines, it being com-
monly ufed by the Fathers in that fenfe) or $ ; now an ig-
norant fcribe, not knowing the true name of the perfon there
fpoken of, might very probably join the words |=>o; and ^pY
together, and fo form the name wxa.f\$ Xenocharis, which
muft
CHAP. xxn. TChe falfe Gofpels of Lucianus. 251
muft afterwards be received as a true name. This feems to
me the more probable, becaufe,
1. I do not remember ever, befides here, to have feen this
name.
2. Becaufe it is certain, that in the antient way of writing
(as is evident by manufcripts extant) there was no diftinflion
or fpace between one word and another, but the whole line was
written as one continued word.
3. The word |/?o? ^vas very commonly prefixed to men's names ;
hence we read of feveral called Xenophon, as thofe two who
were the famous difciples of Socrates at Athens; Xenocrates,
a philofopher of Chalcedonia, and two more remarkable philo-
fophers of that name ; fo alfo Xenodochus, Xenodorus, Xe-
nodotus, Xenophanes, Xenophates, Xenophilus, &c. vid. Suid.
The word |/vo? being fo frequently prefixed, the miftake was
fo much the more eafy.
4. Such miftakes are very common, efpecially in the pro-
per names of perfons and places.
CHAP. XXII.
The falfe Gofpels of Lucianus^ a famous Critick and Martyr
under Dioclefian ; who publljhed an Edition of the Septua-
gint : a different Perfonfrom Lucanus, the Difciple of Mar-
cion. A Correction of a Place in Epiphanius. 'The Commen-
taries under the Name ofOrigen, upon Job, proved not to
belong to that Father.
Numb. XXXIV. The falfe GOSPELS of
LUCIANUS.
TO thefe I have, for method fake, given a diftinft title,
though they appear to have been only fame corrupted inter-
polated copies of our prefent Gofpels. They are only mentioned
by Jerome and Geiafius together with the falfe Gofpels of
Hefychius. The places are produced above, Chap. XIX.
Numb.
252 Lucianus and Lucanus tVM Persons. PART II.
Numb. XXIII. to which, and what is there faid, there feems
nothing neceflary here to be added, but Tome fhort account of
Lucianus, their author. He was undoubtedly that eminent
critick, whole labours in correcting the corrupt copies of the
Septuagint Verfion have made him famous. He was a pref-
byter of Antioch,andfufFered martyrdom under Dioclefian and
Maximian, viz. about the year of Chrift 296. He was fo re-
markable in his ftudy of the Scriptures, that the copies were
called by his name; and his edition of the LXX. was the
only one received in all the Eaftern part of the world, except
that which Hefychius publifhed in Egypt, and Eufebius and
Pamphilus publifhed from Origen *. That this was the fame
Lucianus with him who interpolated the Gofpels, is evident
from the exprefs teftimony of Jerome b , who fays the fame
Hefychius and Lucianus were employed in altering the LXX.
Verfion, and the Copies of the New Tejlament. Hence it is
plain, that Dr.Mill c isegregioufly miftaken, in fuppofmg this
Lucianus to have been the fame perfon as Martian's difciple and
follower^ mentioned by Tertullian* , and called Lucanus : for as
it is certain, that Marcion, and confequently Lucanus, lived
early in the fecond century ; fo from what has been faid, it is
no lefs certain that Lucianus fuffered martyrdom in the very
end of the third. It may not therefore be improper here to
obferve, that the hereticks called by Epiphanius e the Lucian-
ifts, and placed between Marcion and Apelles, called fo from
Lucian who ^was the difciple of Marcion, and fellow-pupil of
Apelles, were either falfely fo called by Epiphanius, or elfe
our printed copies of that author are corrupt, and we ought to
read Aaxarci inftead of Ayxroi, i. e. Lucanifts inftead of
Lucianifts, as proceeding from Lucanus, as he is called by
Tertullian in the place juft now cited, and alfo by Origen in
his book againft Celfus f , though in the old Latin tranflation
we meet with Lucianus, contrary to the Greek. I have no-
* This account I collected from e Prolcgom. in N.T. . 333.
Eufeh. Hift. Eccl. 1. 9. c. 6. Je- " De Praefcript. adv. Hsrctic.
rome Catal. vir. ilhiftr. in Lucian. c. 51.
& Piaefat. in Paralipom. & Suidas e Haeref. 43, 44..
inLttcian. f Lib. a. p. 77.
k Piaefat. in Evang. ad Damas.
thing
CHAP. xxiu. Booh under tie Name tf Matthew. 253
thing more to add here, but that by accident I obferved a paf-
fage in the Commentary under the name of Origen, upon the
book ofjob) where mention is made of Lucianus, with a very
glorious character a i but inafmuch as it is moft undeniable
that Origen died long before the time of Lucianus, viz. in
the year of Chrift 253, under the Emperors Gallus and Volufi-
anus b , there is no queftion to be made, but thofe books upon
Job were wrote by fome perfon long after Origen's time.
CHAP. XXIII.
Books under the Name of Matthew. The Gofpel of Matthias.
Tlie Traditions of Matthias. All its Fragments produced.
There never -was any Book under -this Title. l Hje Sentiments
of late Writers concerning thefe Traditions. Some Books
afcribed to Matthias. The Afls of the Manichees.
M.
Numb. XXXV. BOOKS under the Name of ST.
MATTHEW.
EPIPHANIUS, concerning the Ebionites, fays, they
forged feveral books under the Apoftles' names, and
particularly under St. Matthew's. The paflage is produced
above, Chap. XX. Numb. XXV. There being nothing
more faid by Epiphanius of thefe books, nor indeed by him or
any other author, of any fpurious books under this Apoftle's
name, befides the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ I have no more to
fay concerning thefe books, than that, as they are rejected by
this Father as fpurious, fo for that reafon they are Apocryphal,
as alfo by Prop. IV, V, VI, and perhaps what he here means
was no other than the Hebrew Go/pel of the Ebionites^ or Naza-
rents.
* Opp.Lat. T. z. fol. 27. "o Catal. vir. illuftr. in Origen.
Numb.
254 The Gofpel of Alatthias. PART n.
Numb. XXXVI. The GOSPEL of MATTHIAS.
ALTHOUGH there be not any remains of this Got
-E*- pel now extant, yet it is taken notice of by feveral of
the moft celebrated writers among the antients, viz. Origen,
Eufebius, Ambrofe and Jerome, as alfo in fome copies of
Pope Gelafius's Decree.
Origen mentions it among many other fpurious pieces thus';
Ecclefia quatuor habet Evan- The Church receives only
gtlia, hserefes plurima. Scio four Gofpels, the hereticks
Evangelium quod appellatur many. I know one, which is
juxta Matthiam, &c. called the Gofpel according to
Matthias. [See the paflage
at large above, Chap. VII.
Numb. V.]
Eufebius ranks it among the books publijhed by the here-
ticks, not received nor cited by any Eccleftajlical writer, but a
mere forgery^ to be rejected as impious and abjtird. [See the
place produced at large above, Chap. XX I. Numb. XXXIIL]
Ambrofe in like manner places it among thofe fpurious books
which the Church rejected as fuch. [See the paflage at large
above, Chap. VII. Numb. V.]
Jerome places it among the books which gave birth to the
herejics which troubled the Church^ and which were wrote with-
out thefpirit and grace of God. [See the place above produced,
Chap. VII. Numb. IV.]
Laftly, in fome copies of the Decree of Pope Gelafius, we
read
Evangelium nomine Matthias The Gofpel under the name
Apocryphum. of Matthias is Apocryphal.
* Hcmil. in Luc. i. in init.
From
CHAP. XXIII. T/je Traditions of Matthias. 255
From all this it is eafy to fee, what judgment we are to
form of this book, and to conclude it Apocryphal by Prop. IV,
V,and VI. The learned Dr. Grabe 3 , and after him Dr.
Mill b , fuppofe this Gofpel to have been the fame with the tra-
ditions of Matthias, but with very little reafon, as I (hall {hew
prefently in difcuffing that book.
Numb. XXXVII. The TRADITIONS of
MATTHIAS.
THESE are only mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus,
in whofe Stromata there are fome fragments of them
remaining, which the hereticks made ufe of. They are col-
lected by Dr. Grabe, and fhall be here produced, with the ad-
dition of two or three more places, where thefe traditions are
referred to.
The firft is as follows c .
Kai MarSYaf tv TK crapa- So Matthias advifes in his
a-*favi/, a.vpot<roit Traditions, (faying) Admire
making this to be the firft
Hep towards increafe of know-
ledge.
The fecond is d i
y xv y.xi The Nicolaitans accordingly
fay, that Matthias taught the
following doctrine, viz. That
we are to oppofe the flefl), and
fo to ufe it, as not to gratify it
in any excejfive pleafures, but
to enlarge the foul with faith
and knowledge.
* Spicileg. Patr. Secul. a.' p. c Lib. 2. p. jSo.
117. d Lib. 3. p. 436.
e ProK-gom. in N. T. . 337.
The
256 fragments of it. PART II.
The third is;
.fox roiW, oi f Si MoISiav Therefore when Zaccheus,
others fay it was Matthias,
a chief publican, heard our
, Lojd fay, That he was worthy
'" ",hefaid,
^a<nv,
re- wronged any one> I re/lore to
him four-fold.
The fourth is b ;
v TV v*fetMffffi But they fay flwww^ //;/ 7r<7-
TOI/ 'AirSfoXw tftto dltlon^ that Matthias the A-
rrS Po^e a mong other things
faid, Yy&flf if the neighbour of a
a*aflT>jc-i, vpocortv o , ,. - ,, . ? , ,
, x - , v believer fall into fin^ the be-
-
v aura TOV jSi'w
s TO /AT? a' t u,aa-
Twv ^'
MarS'j'a aup^w<7i
?,ja, STWJ d xai
Lib. 4. 0.488.
Strom, lib. 7. p. 748.
jr ? y ^/ f C0 ndiii had been
agreeable to reafon, (or the
word) his neighbour would
have regarded his life fo much,
as not to have fallen into the fin*
The laft is c ;
aVa Of the herefies fome are call-
ed by the name of their au-
thor J as that of Valentinus,
and Marcion > and Bafilides,
though indeed they boaft of
. . y
^ opinions of Matthias^ viz.
as favouring ^.^ But as
there was but one doarine
delivered by the Apoftles, fo
there can be but one (true)
Tradition.
wj
ains,
c Eodem Lib. p. 765.
Thefc
CHAP. xxin. Not a -written Book, 257
Thefe are all the accounts we have of thefe Traditions of
Matthias, concerning which I will endeavour to prove two
things, viz.
I. That they were not really any book, or written colleEHon^
but only fame oral Traditions.
II. That if there was any fuch book, entitled the Traditions
of Matthias, it was certainly Apocryphal.
I. That thefe Traditions of Matthias were not really any
book) or written collection, but mere oral Traditions. To
evince this, I obferve,
1. That, befides Clemens Alexandrinus in the places cited,
no writer of the four fir Jl centuries, nor indeed any other antient
writer, has fa much as mentioned the name of theje Traditions of
Matthias, ^his one can fcarcely imagine, if ever fuch a
book were r ally extant ; for then it could not but have been
frequently appealed to by the Valentinians, Marcionites, and
Baiilidesj and confequently muft have been mentioned by
IrenjEus, Tertullian, or Epiphanius, in theif difputes againft
thofe hereticks.
2. This feems clearly deducible from the pajjages themfehes
in Clemens Alexandrinus ; in no one of which he ufes either
the word (2i'>.o?, yiyraiP.u., or any word of that fort, which will
imply any thjng to have been written ; but, on the other hand,
in each of thefe places introduces his account with a plain in-
t-imation, that he looked upon them only as oral traditions.
So page 748, Aryaa-i it T<X<V "srctfctboffeo-t, i. e. They fay among
the Traditions, i. e. It is a common Tradition, or commonly
faid, that Matthias taught, CSV. And for this conftru&ion I
have the countenance of the Latin tranflator, who renders
Clemens thus, Dicunt autem in Traditionibus, inferting a com-
ma after the word Traditionibus, to evidence that Clemens
did not there fpeak of any written book. So likewife in that
place, page 436, Aiyxw y wv ^ TO Mr9i'* WTWJ &a!ai, &C.
They, i. e. the Nicolaitans, fay, that Matthias taught fo, &c.
Where, as there is no mention of any written book of Mar-
VOL. I. S thias,
258 Not a written Book. PART II.
thias, fo there is a plain intimation, that this faying attributed
to him by the Nicolaitans was a current Tradition among
them, as from hirri| in order t<? fupport their abominable doc-
trine of the communion of women. Once more page 765,
where he fays, feveral hereticks, MarS'm at^o-i &. boa/led
of the opinions of Matthias, as being agreeable to theirs, he
manifeftly (hews, they were only fome traditionary and fpu-
rious opinions of that Apoftle ; for elfe I know not how to
underftand that oppofition he makes between A&*<rxaXia and
fmfeAfifl the words are p. : .a. ^ ^tOlun yiyon run *A7rorsXi' uffirtf
&3WaXi, ovrvt; & xa r, wafa&c-*?, i. e. The doElrine of the dpef-
tles in their writings cannot be different from^ or contrary to,
any traditionary doclrines pretending to be theirs; in which
there is implied a good argument againft thofe hereticks; viz.
That their principles muft be erroneous, becaufe they were
only fupported by fome traditionary doctrines, which, being
contraiy to thofe which were written, muft of neceflity be
falfe, unlefs the Apoftles can be fuppofed to have preached
one thing, and wrote another quite contrary.
3. It is a thing very notorious in Chriftian antiquity, that
the hereticks, not being able to maintain their perverfe tenets
by the written Scriptures, nor to arifwer the arguments
brought againft them from them, continually applied not only
to Apocryphal forgeries, but unwritten Traditions. By this
means the unhappy Jews were deluded into the moft fatal er-
rors * : thus the Chriftians were deceived into a belief of the
neceffity of Judaifm, as we read in the Synodical Epiftle from
Jerufalem b : thus the doctrine of the Millennium firft gained
its reputation from the credulous Papias, who was fo fond of
Tradition c : thus, in a word, a thoufand ridiculous fables have
received credit in the Church, and even ftill are made ufe of
in the Church of Rome to maintain the abfurdeft doctrines of
it, as may be feen in almoft every writer againft Popery.
From all which, with what is faid above, it appears more pro-
bable, that thefe were fome unwritten Traditions, than any
written book of Matthias.
Mar. vii. 7. k Aft. xv. 24. c Eufcb. Hi*. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39.
Tm
CHAP, xxill. Not the fame with his Gofpel. 259
To this opinion I know nothing that can, with any reafon,
be objected; though I am fenfible, thefe Traditions have hi-
therto been always efteemed as a written book by thofe who
have taken any notice of it, as Sixtus Senenfis a , Dr. Grabe b ,
Mr.Toland % Mr. Fabritius d , Dr. Mill % and Mr. Whifton f ,
&c. But I hope what 1 have urged is fufficient to prove the
miftake. Dr. Grabe, Dr. Mill, and Mr. Whifton, have pro-
pofed their conjectures concerning it, which I (hall here brief-
ly examine.
Dr. Grabe fuppofes it to have been the fame book with
that 1 laft treated of, intitled, The Gofpel of Matthias. His
words are,
Inter Evangelia mala hcereti- Among the falfe Gofpels im-
corum fide nominibus Apof- pioufly forged under the A-
tolorum fuppofita, Matthise poftles names by the hereticks,
quoque adfcriptum aliquod Eufebius mentions one afcrib-
memorat Eufebius Lib. III. ed to Matthias ; which I fup-
Hift. Eccl. 0.25. Quod idem pofe to be the fame with the
puto efTe cum wa^^i^ Tra- Tr^a&sei,-, i. e. Traditions men-
ditianib-us a Clemente Alexan- tioned by Clemens Alexandri-
drinomemoratis; quia Evan- nits \ becaufe the Gofpels
gelia fcribebantur, Ka^ <ar- were written as they deliver-
{i}oeret oi a<?r f%!5? aCro/fa* ed, who were from the begin-
iirvfhett ywo^wn TU Aoya. n ' n g eye-witnefles, and mini-
fters of the word.
There is nothing can be more weak than this argument,
being only founded upon a word, which may be ufed in a very
large feafe. It needs no other confutation than putting it in
its proper light : it ftands thus ; the accounts of our Saviour's
life were compofed out of the Traditions of thofe whofaw his
actions ; therefore the Traditions of Matthias were an account
of our Saviour's life, or a Gofpel ; i. e. Chriit's life was
1 Biblioth. Sanft. I. 2. p. 83. ad p. 784., &:c.
voc. Matthias. Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. .
b Spicileg. Patr. Secul. II. p. 53, & 337.
117- ' Eflayon Conltitut. p. 37.
fc Amyntor p. 30. ' Loc. cit.
* Cod. Apccr/N. Tefbm. t. 2.
S 2
wrote
260 A r sr made before St. Luke's Gofpel. PART n.
wrote by Tradition, therefore there were no other Traditions.
This is ludere cum vocibus. But befides, as Mr. Fabritius
well obferves a , the contents of thefe Traditions were not
like the contents of a Gofpel, which are always fome fayings
or hiftories of Jefus Chrift, but the fragments of thefe Tra-
ditions are of another fort, as is evident by the moft curfory
view of them.
Dr. Mill "'follows Dr. Grabe, and fuppofes farther, that it
was one of thofe books, which St. Luke had refpeft to in the
preface of his Gofpel, compofed and publifhed in the follow-
ing manner.
Mini fane vulentur w^ww
iftas ex ore Matthiae in Judaea
piaedicantis initio exceptse fu-
lfil a Chriftiano quopiam, &
in libellum redacbe ; cui ad
majorem traditionibus irtis
conciliandam auftoritatem A-
poftoli nomen praefixit autor,
quifquis ille fuerit. Caeterum
cum libro ifti, perinde ac cae-
tcris &nys<7E(n inferta eflent,
ex errore cny$3, quaedam haud
tiytpa^r,, quaedam item dolri-
nas Chriftianas minus confona,
quibus, incaute animoquendn
malo fcriptis, abufi eflent Ba-
filidiani, Valentiniani, aliique
hasretici, ad fuos errores fta-
biliendos ; hinc poft editio-
nem Canonicorum Evangeli-
orum in defuetudinem abiit,
atque etiam inter libros hae-
rcticos numeratus eft.
It feems to me, that tbefe
Traditions of Matthias were
taken from bis mouth, when he
f.rjl preached in Judtsa, by
fame Chrijlians, and form-id
into a little book ; to procure
the greater refpeEl to which
'Traditions, the author^ whoe-
ver be was, prefixed the name
oftheApoftle. But as in that,
as well as other accounts, viz.
of Chrift, through the miftake
of the author, feveral things
were inferted, neither found,
nor agreeable to the Chriftian
do&rine, which though un-
guardedly wrote, and without
any ill intent, the Bafilidians,
Valentinians, and other here-
ticks, made a wrong ufe of,
to eftablifh their errors. It
became difufed after the pub-
lifhing of the Canonical Gof-
pels, and was reckoned among
the heretical books.
Lib. cit. p. 784.
Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. . 53.-
The
CHAP, xxiir. Books tinder the Name of Matthias. %($
The fame learned Dr. in another place a imagines this book
of Traditions to have been interpolated by Leucius, and to have
received the addition of many trifling and falfe Jlories from
his hand. But as his opinion about the original of the book
is not only propofed without any attempt to make it fo much
as probable, but appears, by what has been above faid, to
be falfe and groundlefs, fo alfo is his account of the inter-
polations of it, as I (hall fhew Numb. XXXVIII.
Mr. Whifton b , difcouriing about Philo's Therapeutae,
whom he takes for Chriftians in Egypt before the coming of
St. Mark, fuppofes not only the Gofpel of the Egyptians, but
alfo the Traditions of Matthias, to have been in ufe among
them: but of this conjecture he has affigned no reafon i and
therefore I think it fufficient to my defign only to inform the
reader of it.
What farther remains now is ;
II. To (hew, that if thefe Traditions were really a book,
they were Apocryphal, which is manifeft by Prop. IV, V, and
VI. but efpecially by Prop. VIII. as it contained the princi-
ples of the moft impious hereticks, viz. the Nicolaitans, Car-
pocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Bafilidians. &c.
Numb. XXXVIII. BOOKS under the NAME of
MATTHIAS.
IN the before-cited Decree>f Pope Innocent I. according
to one edition, we read c j
Caetera quae fub nomine Mat- Other books, fuch as that un-
thiae, five Jacobi Minoris der the name of Matthias, or
quae a quodam Leucio fcripta James the Lefs which were
funt non folum repudianda, written by one Leucius
verum noveris ^fle damnanda. know, that they are not only
to be rejected, but condemned.
1 Ibid. . 337. c Epjft. 3> a d Exuper. c. 7.
Eifey on Conftitut. p. 37.
S 3 Dr.
g62 The Ails of the Manichees. PART II.
Dr. Mill a , as I juft now faid, concludes from thefe words of
Innocent, that tbefe were the Gofpel or Traditions of Matthias^
quas falfis abfurdifque narratiunculis palim interfperfit hie
ipfe impoftor Leucius, in which the impoJJor Leucius fcattered
up and down feveral falfe and abfurd Jhries ; on the account of
which Qriren, Eufebius^ and y^rome rejeRed it. But in this
the Doctor is alfo much miftaken ; for Leucius, as has been
proved, did not live till the latter end of the third century b ,
and confequently Origen could not reject any book on ac-
count of his interpolations. Befides, the worJs of Innocent
are, that Leucius wrote a book under the name of Matthias, and
jiot that he interpolated one already written : from all which
it is evident, he fpeaks of fome book diftinct from the Gofpel
of Matthias, which Origen rejected, and fo from the Tra-
ditions alfo, which, according to the^Doclor, was the fame
book with the G- fpel. If I were to conjecture concerning
the books under the name of Matthias here mentioned, I
fhould fay, it feems probable, they were fome Ails wrote by
LeuchiS) under that Apoftle's name^ for thefe two reafons, viz.
I. Becaufe Leucius wrote the ARs of many other Apoftles, as
may be above feen, Chap. XXI. towards the beginning.
2- Becaufe in fome copies of the Decrees of Pope Gelajius we
find mention of the Apocryphal Acts under the name of Mat-
thias.
Whatever the book was, it was certainly fpurious and Apo-
cryphal (as Innocent determines) by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
Numb. XXXIX. The ACTS of the APOSTLES made
ufe of by the MANICHEES.
SE E concerning this in the A&s of Leueius Charinus
above Chap. XXI. where I have made it evident, thefe
were the fame with thofe fpurious A&s compofed by that noto-
rious impoftor.
Loc. denuo cit. t> C. 21.
CHAP.
CHAP, xxiv . 77>e Gofpel of Marcion.
C HA P. XXIV.
The Gofpel of Mar don no other than a Ccfy of St. Luke's Gof-
pel altered and interpolated by that Heretick. 'The Gofpel of
Merinthus the fame with the Gofpel of Cerinthus.
Numb.XL. The GOSPEL of MARCION.
IT would not be agreeable to that impartiality, which I
would willingly evidence in the whole of this work, if I
fhould omit the difcuaing any one book, which has been pre-
tended to be facred, and received as fuch in the firft centuries
after Chrift. Such the Gofpel of Marcion was, though really
no other than one of our prefent Gofpels^wretchedly corrupted and
altered by that filly heretick. We meet with very frequent
mention of this work ; I (hall only produce the places where it
is called the Gofpel of Marcion, and of thefe I find only two;
one of Tertullian, the other of Epiphanius.
Tertulliau mentions it thus a.
Contra Marcion, Evangelio On the contrary Marcion
fcilicet fuo, nullum adfcribit prefixes no author's name to
au&orem, quafi non licuerit his Gofpel) as if he might not
illi titulum quoque affingere, as juftly have forged a title,
cui nefas non fuit ipfum cor- as have corrupted the whole
pus evertere. body of the book,
A little farther : b
Ego meum dico verum. Mar- I fay my (Gofpel) is true;
cion fuum : Ego Marcionis Marcion fays, that his is fo :
affirmo adulteratum, Marcion I affirm, Marcion's is cor-
meum. ruptedj he fays that mine is.
Epiphanius e calls it more than once E$yfiXii> TO Trap* Mf-
xwws, The Gofpsi of Marcion.
Adverf. Marcion. 1.4. c. 2. c Hxref. 41. in Procem.
* Lib. cit. c. 4.
S 4 Now
^64 Merintbus and Cerinthus PART ir.
Now for the better understanding of this, we muft obferve,
that Marcion is no where faid to have compofed any new Gof-
pel, but only to have altered and changed fome other. T hat
which he changed and corrupted was the Gafpt! of St. Luke.
Of this we have very large accounts from the antients, efpe-
cially Irenasus, Tertullian, and Epipi^mus. He took a-way
entirely the two jirji chapters of Luke^ and many other parts,
as alfo inferted a great many things of his own, all wnich
was defigned for the propagating his filly principles. Hut
this matter belonging rather to the hiftory of the Text ' :an
the Canon, I (hall here wa< r e it; only obferve, that Epipha-
nius hath largely collected the alterations and interpolations
which Marcion made ; concerning whom and this work of
bis he may be fufficiently informed, who will confult the fe-
veral authors referred to in the margin *. I fliall o/.ly obferve
farther, that any thing that can be faid in favour of Marcion's
copies of St. Luke above our p:-ent copies, as far as they af-
fect the Canonical authority of that Gcfpel, mail be carefully
difcufied in its proper place, in the laft part of this work.
Numb. XLI. The GOSPEL of MERINTHUS.
H I S is mentioned only by Epiphanius, as one of thofe
J- fpurious Gofpels, which he fuppofes were written in the
Apoftles* time, and referred to by St. Luke, chap. i. i. as not
being a true and genuine account*. His words are,
'Eirci jiiVff 7D-oXAo iTrrxt'^- St. Luke, in the beginning of
plv lir x f ii- his Gofpel by thefe words,
\ \ ^ \ forafmuch as many have taken
ra? -viei J . >
.,, ,. s in band<> Cffc. does intimate,
Mufltvc/ov. xa' , , . .
there had been many under-
were Cerinthus, and Merin-
thus, and others.
* Iren. adv. Haeref. I. 3. c. n, of the Canon, vol. 2. ch. z. . 5.
12. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. 4. Dr. Mill's Prolegom. in Nov.Teft.
c. 4. &c. Epiphan. Hxref. 41. Fa- . 306, 328.
ther Simon. Crit. Hift. of the New * Hicref. 51. . 7.
Ttft. par. i. c. j i. Du Pin Hillory
I think
CHAP. xxiv. the fame Perfon, 265
I think there is very little reafon to queftion, but this Me-
rinthus was the very fame perfon with Cerinthus, of whom
and whole Gofpel I have above fpoken, Chap. XII Numb. X.
for though Epiphanius feems in this place, and in a few lines
before it, to make them two different perfons, yet in the herefy
of the Cerinthians a he profeffes himfelf uncertain, luhether they
"were not really the fame perfon. The Cerinthians^ fays he, are
called alfo Merinthians, as we fee by the accounts we now have ;
but whether this Cerinthus was alfo called Merinthus^ we can-
not certainly determine ; or tvhether there was feme other perfon
called MerinikuS) a fellow-labourer of his, God knows. Mr.
Fabritius fuppofes they were the fame, and that the name Ce-
rinthus was changed into Merimhus by way of banter or re-
proach, the word fignifying a fnare. And of fuch changes he
gives feveral inftances, as Eudoxius called Adoxius, Photius
and Photinus called Scotmus, Vigilantius called Dormitan-
tius, Fauftus Socinus called Infauilus, &c. But I think it
much more probable that this diverfity of name arofe rather
from the fault of fome fcribe, who read in his copy M^fios for
Kijp9o-, i. e. an M. for a C. which letters in the old way of
writing Greek were not fo much unlike, but that a fcribe may
be fuppofed to miftake them.
I need not therefore fay any thing more concerning this
book, than what is faid above, Chap. XII.
Hseref. aS. . 8.
CHAP.
266 The Gofpel of the Nazarenes. PART IT.
CHAP. XXV.
TJje Gofpel of the Nazarenes or Hebrews \ the m^Jl famous of
all the antient Gofpels : Referred to by St. Paul^ and many
of the primitive Writers of Chrijlianity. All the Places where
it is mentioned, and all the remaining Fragments of it pro-
duced at large. Several Hi/lories concerning Chrifty and
Sayings of Chri/l^ among thefe Fragments.
N.
Numb. XLII. The GOSPEL according to the NAZA-
RENES or HEBREWS.
OF all the various books of the catalogue in the ftrft part,
there is none which has been fo much treated of, either
by the antients or moderns, as this has. Many have wrote
concerning it; and many not only of the Romifh, but Proteft-
ant writers, have exalted it to a degree of authority very near
equal, I had almoft faid fuperior to fome, or even any, of the
Canonical books of the New Teftament, now received. The
difcuffing this, therefore, is not 'only of the greateft neceffity,
but requires the greateft diligence and exa&nefs. I {hill at-
tempt it with all the brevity and clearnefs I can, in the follow-
ing method.
I. I ihall produce all that is faid of it by, and all that re-
mains of it in, any writer of the four firft centuries.
II. I will give as fuccinft account as I can of the opinions
of later writers concerning it.
III. Prove that it was not received by any primitive writers
of the Church, as Canonical.
IV. That it was really a fpurious impious forgery, and fo
Apocryphal.
V. Give fome account of its nature, defign, and authors.
N. B. Firft, I have above proved the Gofpel according to
the Twelve dp*/?Ies y the Gofpel of Bartholomew, and
that
CHAP. xxv. Mentioned by St. Paul. 267
that of Cerinthus, to be the fame with the Gofpel of the
Nazarenes ; and therefore {hall not need here to pro-
duce the teftimonies of the antients concerning them,
but muft defire the reader to look back on Chap. VII.
Numb. V. Chap. X. Numb. VIII. and Chap. XII.
Numb. X.
N. B. Secondly, the Gofpel of the Ebionites, and that ac-
cording to the Hebrews, appear fo evidently to have been
in the greateft part the fame with this Nazarene Gofpel,
that as I have omitted faying any thing of them in their
proper places, in the Alphabet, fo I {hall here produce
what is faid concerning them, promifcuoufly with that
which is faid of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes.
This premifed, according to my method, I {hall
I. Endeavour to produce all that is faid of it by, and all that
remains of it in> any writer of the four firjl centuries.
I. St. Paul Gal. i. 6.
OT arw Tap^'w? JW.E- I marvel that ye are fo foon
Vo T8 xaAiWloj removed from him, that called
V1 X e .rS, lit m- ^ ou into the Grace of C hrift >
' r / \ > ./ v unto another Gofpel : which
coy iJ,uaJ'VA*oi>. o xx irn aAAo . *
, , , , , , is not another ; but there be
() ^ ^j
ofel of
rzs-ftya.1 TO Euayy^Aioi/ T Chrift. But though we, or
Xpiraf. 'AAAa xa) cav ij/A^f , an Angel from heaven, preach
3 "AyyAc,' eH a'gavJ, u'ayy- any other Gofpel unto you,
than ^^.^ P reached unto
you, let him be accurfed.
I have above a attempted to prove, that St. Paul in thefe
words had reference to the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ and by a
farther acquaintance with thefe Nazaren:s and their Gofpel,
am abundantly confirmed in that conjecture j as, I perfuade
Part i. chap. 2.
myfelf,
268 Fragments thereof. PART 11.
myfelf, every impartial reader will alfo be, that fhall compare
it with the following accounts.
2. By Hegefippus 3 , or rather Eufebius, fpeaking concerning
Hegefippus.
"Ex TI rs xa$' 'Eton's; EJ*f- He has alfo wrote (laid down)
uia*, KX\ f <> me things concerning the
brews* and Syrians* as alfo
concerning the Hebrew Ian-
guagCj fey which he evidences
that he was converted from
Judaifm to Chriftianity.
3. By Clemens Alexandrinus b .
K*\ ra jcaS-' Ef *a? EJay- And it is written in the Gof-
'' ^ according to the Hebrews,
ta WJ& admires (hall reign,
' ...
// ft wAj iw;w >tftf ^^ at
r
eaje,
4. By Origen c .
'Ei/ <? vwr!tTM Tt? TO xa^' But if any one will receive
t he Gofpel according to the
, \ vjour fays. The
u.i n MTUO uzy TO ayiov , , ' , ~
C r c r > / mother lately took me by one ef
j*s, xou **iyx ps it TO great mounta j n Thabor,
oc 05 TO piyot. aecD^, &C.
5. By the fame d .
Age, aliter traAemus hunc But let us treat this place a
locum. - Scriptum eft in little otherwife: It is writ-
Apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecc!. I. 4. p. 58.
c- " d Horn. S. in Matt. torn. 3. p.
" Stromat. lib. 2. p. 380. ai. Opp. Lat.
c Tom. a. Comment, in Joan.
Evangelic
CHAP. XXV.
Fragments thereof.
269
Evangelic quodam, quod di-
citur fecundum HJbraeos (fi
tamen placet alicui fufcipere
illud. non ad au&oritatem, fed
ad maniieftationem prop-".te
quseftionis) ; Dixit, inquit,
ad eurn alter divitutn, Magif-
ter, quid bonum faciens vi-
vam i Dixst ei, Homo, legem
cc prophetas fac : refpondit ad
eum, Feci ; dixit ei, Vade,
vende omnia quae poflides, &
divide pauperibus, & vcni, fe-
quere me. Ccepit autem dives
fcalpere caput fuum, & non
placuit ei ; & dixit ad eum
Dominus, Quomodo dicis, le-
gem feci & prophetas ? quo-
niam fcriptumeft in lege, Di-
liges proximum tuum ficut
teipfum ; & ecce multi fratres
filii Abrahas amifti funt fter-
core, morientes prse fame, &
domus tua plena eft multis
bonis, &nonegredituromnino
aliquid ex ea ad eos. Et con-
verfus, dixit Simoni difcipulo
fuo, fedenti apud fe, Simon,
fili Joannae, facilius eft came-
lum intrare per foramen aciis,
quam divitem in regnum cce-
lorum.
ten in a certain Gofpel, which
is intitled according to the He-
brci'js (if any one be pleaf-
ed to receive it, not as of
any authority, but only for
illuftration of the prefent
queition) ; A certain rich
man ;fiys that Gofpel) faid
to Cbnjl, Mafler^ what good
thing Jhall I do., that I may In-
herit life ? He faid to him,
O man^ keep the Law and the
Prophets : he anfwered him,
That I have done ; he faid to
him, G0, fell all things that
thou hafti and diftribute among
the poor , and come and follotu
me. The rich man hereupon
began to fcratch his head^ and
was difpleafedy and the Lord
faid to him^ How can you fay
that you have kept the Law
and the Prophets ? feeing it is
written in the Law y Thou
(halt love thy neighbour as
thyfelf; but behold, many of
thy brethren, children of Abra-
ham y are clothed with najli-
nefs^ and ready to perijh for
hunger^ while thyhoufe abounds
with all forts of delicacies^ and
nothing is fent out of it to them.
And turning about, he faid to
his Difciple Simon, who fat by
him, Simon, fon of Joanna, ic
is eafier for a camel to pafs
through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man, c.
I have
2/0 Fragments of the PART 1 1.
I have not obferved any other places befides thefe two, in
Origen's works, where this Gofpel is mentioned, though the
former pafiage is indeed cited elfewhere a j and Jerome fays,
Origen cited this Gofpel often 6 : but in this either he was
miftaken, or he means in fome other books of Origen's not
now extant.
6. By Eufebius e .
Enumerating many of thofe Apocryphal books which he
calls >c6Bj, i. e. fpurious,or forgeries, he adds,
"H<?>! <T tv TKTOK; n\>\q xal TO In this number fome have
- P' aced the Go fP* 1 according to
o,' '*" Hebrews, with which they
/ of the Jews, who profefs
i- ^* .*
Chriftiamty, are very much
delighted.
7. By the fame d , fpeaking of the Ebionites.
w fe /ucvw TU x3-' They made ufe only of that
uu xe w/ f* e " ol which is called, 77^ G^/ ^c-
K^i* WOWTO '"*"* /0 '*' ^*rt-j, very
little efteeming any others.
tyov. i
8. By the fame % fpeaking of Papias.
*Ex1'6Ta <& x.i aAXrv iro- ^ e mentions another hiftory
ia-1 TroA- concerning a woman accufed
f man y CrimCS befi> 5 C Ur
, x ~ Tr , rt v , Lord, which is contained in
7Tl T8 K'JJIS, )!/ TO XaJ ,/-,,- J- L TJ
the Gofpel according to the He-
This pafTage is generally underftood, as though Eufebius
had faid, that Papias made ufe of this Gofpel j fo Ufher, Si-
mon, Pearfon, Grabe, &c. But that this is a miftake, I {hall
fhew hereafter.
Homil. xv. in Jerem. d Ibid. c. 27.
Catai. vir. iliuftr. in Jacobo. f Ibid. c. 39.
Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25.
9. By
CHAP. xxv. Go/pel of the Nazarenes. 27 1
9. By Epiphanlus, who has preferved large fragments of
this Gofpel; moft of which are collected by Dr. Grabe.
I mail endeavour to produce all the places. The firH
is a .
v ^ao-i Si TO xara Ma,r$fx7ov They (i. e. the Nazarenes)
have the Gcfpel of Matthew
moji entire in the Hebrew lan-
guage among them: for this
truly is ftill preferved among
them, as it was at firft, in
CJx tjtx $, a Hebrew characters. But I
know not, whether they have
taken away the genealogy
from Abraham to Chriflr.
10. By the fame b .
Kai &%OVTKI fA.lv xai auroi They (i.e. the Ebionites) al-
TO XT MarS-aiW Eua/ys- * receive tne Gofpel accord-
/ x \ , > < ing to Matthew. For this
Xiov TUTU yao xa 'TOI, w? to
> ' ' N TT '. ,-<* ~.r?, both the y the Cennthians
make ufe of, and no other.
They call it the Gofpel accord-
ing to the Hebrews ; for the
truth is, that Matthew is the
only one of the New Tefta-
aacriv tv TV xotivw $io&w.'/i ment writers, who publifhed
his Gofpel and preaching in
the Hebrew language, and
Hebrew characters.
11. By the fame c .
VEwafyi- Tn that Gofpel which they
(i.e. the EbionitesJ have cal-
Matthew^ which is not entire
and perfect, but corrupted and
4 Epiphan. Hse'ref. 29. . 9. ^. 3.
* Hsief. 30. quae til Ebionit. c Ibid. . 13.
272
IK Ka?*gv**>
tt
OHM** i
v* T
xa -
TO rc/x* aura,
ZOK T):
, xai jW-wva, xa;
xai Qa^arov, xai
O^ Z*iAwT^v, xa) '
7T
r,KO~
Acaaj
J'fxa^J
tvSvfiot,
ov, >I 7>u<r?
a? sxl? sv
. "Iva
TOV Trif
Xo'yov t.'f
fragments of the PART II.
Si TZTO curtailed, and which they call,
r y- ^^ Hebrew Gofpel, it is writ-
ten ; " That there was a cer-
" tain man called Jefus, and
" he being about thirty years
" of age, made choice of us.
" And coming to Capernaum,
" he entered into the houfe of
" Simon called Peter, and
" opening his mouth, faid;
" When Ipajfed by the Lake
" of Tiberias, I chofe John
l( and James, the fans of Ze-
, and Simon, and An-
, and Thaddeus^ and
lc Simon Zelotes, and Judas
" Ifcariot; and thee. Mat-
t( thew, fitting at the receipt
tl of ciiflom I called, and thou
" didjl follow me. I will
" therefore that ye be my
" twelve Apojlles for a tejii-
" many to Ifrael. And John
" the Baptift was baptifing,
" and the Pharifees went out
" to him, and were baptifed,
u and all Jerufalem. And
u John had his garment of
" camels hair, and a leathern
" girdle about his loins, and
l his meat (according to that
" Gofpel) was wild honey,
" the tafte of which was like
rt manna, or as cakes made
i{ with honey and oil." Thus
they change the true account
into afalfebood, and for locvjls
CHAP.- xxv.
Gofpel of the Nazarenes.
. 'H JE
oV Euaf-yE-
'Iw-
K.SC.I
, c?
'Ao^wv 'TS 'I
[Afro.
uo ra
S'Ji/ Vo TX u'J'a-
TACTi5<TK Xi E7i
Ta 8 ; -2V8 Ay(7*
x>i<ra. Kai wa
/, 'Eyw
. Kat
ZjW.'4/ TOI/ TOTTOV
\s.yzi aurw, Sy TK EI,
tal uTAtl/ ^COVTJ ^
30? C&UTCI/, O'JTOf fH>
: o ayaTrnrc?, p cv
< Kai TOT, ^(riv, o
/;o<^ a . The beginning of
their Gofpel was this; " It
" came to pafs in the days of
" Herod, the king of Judea,
" that John came baptifing
" with the baptifm of repent-
'* ance in the river Jordan ;
*' who was reported to be of
" the family of Aaron, the
" High-prieft, the fon of Za-
t( charias and Elizabeth, and
" all people went out after
" him." And after fever al
other things, it is faid in this
" being baptifed, Jefus alfo
" went and was baptifed by
" John ; and as he afcended
ca ) " out of the water, the hea-
T ^ <c vens were opened, and he
" faw the Holy Spirit of God
, " in the form of a^ dove de-
< * <c fcending and entering into
iv ~ " him, and a voice was made
' " from heaven, faying, Thou
" art my beloved Son^ in whom
" I amiuellpleafed', and then
" another, / have this day
" begotten tbee ; and fuddenly
" there (hone around the place
ft a great light ; which when
" John faw (fays this Gofpel),
" he faid to him, r f^ho art
" thou. Lord? and then ano-
<{ ther voice from heaven
" came to him, Tins is my be-
They rend the word lyxpcaj inftead of aV.^l^?, Mat. iii. 4.
VOL. I. T 'i*'*n?5
274
Fragments of the
u7P6<nrt<j'JV auVu; Af-
<y 5 AeojtAai (rou,
/} / tfi
$t
Aoa,
xat ahpiaw
a. 'O /*
xal Kao
oa?
T-/K y&sotXoytxs (SsAovlai -sra-
trai/ X (TTr^uaTt^ 'Ik'S^p
\ . . / T
OUTOJ (? aAAa rn/a
rf? ya ?
T ? *'
Try
WJ TC"PO
OJ fc-x8<ri
PART II.
" /0zW 55, / W/JOOT / am
" well pleafed. Hereupon (ac-
t cording to this Gofpel)
" John fell down before him,
* l and faid, O Lord^ I pray
" thee, baptife me: but he
*' hindered him, faying, 'That
" it is fo fit, that all things
" Jhould be fulfilled." See
how their falfe dodrine ap-
pears every where, how all
things are imperfect, diforder-
ed, and without any truth or
order ! So allb Cerinthus and
Carpocrates, ufing this fame
Gofpel of theirs, would prove
from the beginning of that
Gofpel according to St. Mat-
thew, viz. by the genealogy,
" That Chrift proceeded from
" the feed of Jofeph and Ma-
" ry." But they (viz. the
Ebionites) have quite other
fentiments ; for they have
taken away the genealogy
from Matthew, and accord-
ingly begin their Gofpel, as
I above faid, with thefe words:
It came to pafs in the days of
Herod) king ofjudea y &c.
12. By the fame 3 .
IY. S- Ila- They do not fay (viz. the E-
bionites) that he (Chrift) was
begotten of the Father, but
made as one of the Angels ;
but being greater than them,
iaj,
? ivy, TWI> a.^ya,y-
,o>a $\ aeoTtn ovia*
CHAP. XXV.
Gofpelofthe Nazarenes.
275
uvrov ft xu.u'v xal ayH- He has dominion over them,
- and a11 the WOrks f the AU
\ mighty ; and that he came
xaa => J .
and taught that which is con-
fcjf TO "SSOt.0 flCUTCif '.
r0p, OTl
xaraAutrai ra?
jav JIAII isravG'rKrS's ra
a I came to abolijh facrifices,
fl andunlefsye ceafetoofferfa-
" crifices, the wrath (of God)
" Jhall not ceafe from you.' 9
And fuch as thefe are their
tenets.
13. By Jerome : This learned writer has left us the cleared
and largeft account of this Gofpel, that is now extant,
with many fragments.
The firft and principal place is that in his account of St. Mat-
thew a .
opyrj. Kai raura, xsa TO-
aura. Tiva tr*, TOI TST^P OSUTOJ?
Matthaeus qui & Levi, ex
Publicano Apoftolus, primus
in Judaea, propter eos, qui ex
circumcifione crediderant, E-
vangelium Chrifti Hebraicis
literis verbifque compofuit ;
quod quis poftea in Graecum
tranftulerit, non fatis certum
eft. Porro ipfum Hebraicum
habetur ufque hodie in Czefari-
enfi bibliotheca, quam Pamphi-
lus Martyr ft udiofiflime confe-
cit. Mihi quoquea Nazarseis
qui in BerfabejeBeroza b , urbe
Syrise, hoc volumine utuntur,
defer ibendi facultas fuit j in
Matthew, alfo called Levi,
who became from a Publican
an Apoftle, was the firft who
compofed a Gofpel of Cbrt/? t
and, for the fake of thofe who
believed in Chrift among the
Jews, wrote it in the Hebrew
language and letters ; but it is
uncertain, who it was that
tranflated it into Greek.
Moreover the Hebrew (copy)
itfelf is to this time preferved
in the library of Caefarea,
which Pamphilus, the martyr,
with much diligence collected.
The Nazareans, who live in
Catal. vir. illuftr. in Matth. b So it is \n my Edition for Beraea.
T i H uo
Fragments of the
quo animadvertendum, quod
ubicunque Evangelifta five ex
perfona fua, five ex perfona
domini Salvatoris veteris fcrip-
turae teftimoniis utitur, non
fequatur feptuaginta tranfla-
torum autoritatem, fed He-
braicam; e quibus ilia duo
funt ; Ex ^gypto vocavi fi-
lium meum, &, Quoniam Na-
zaraeus vocabitur.
PART II.
Beraea, a city of 3yria, and
make ufe of this volume,
granted me the favour of
writing it out, in which (Gof-
pel) there is this obfervable,
that wherever the Evangelifl
either cites himfelf, or intro-
duces our Saviour as citing any
paj/age out of the Old Tefta-
menty he does not follow the
tranJJation of the LXX. but
the Hebrew copies, of which
there are thefe two inftances,
viz. that a Out of Egypt I
have called my Son ; and that b
He Jhall be called a Naza-
14. By the fame in his Life of James c , where having
related many furprifmg accounts concerning him, he
adds;
Evangeliqm quoque quod ap-
pellatur Secundum Haebrseos,
& a me nuper in Graecum
Latinumque fermonem tranf-
latum eft, quo & Origenes
faspe utitur, poft refurrec~Ho-
nemSalvatorisrefert; Domi-
nus autem, cum dediflet fm-
donem fervo facerdotis, ivitad
Jacob um, & apparuit ei j ju-
raverat enim Jacobus fe non
comefturum panem ab ilia ho-
ra qua libarat calicem Domini,
donee videret Dominum re-
furgentem a mortuis j rurfuf-
* Mat. ii. 15.
Ver. aj.
The Gofpel alfo which is cal-
led According to the Hebrews,
and which I lately tranflated
into Greek and Latin, and
which Origen often ufed, re-
lates, " That after our Sa-
lc vlour's refurreflion, when
** our Lord had given the li-
nen doth to the Priejl'sfer-
(f vant, he went to James and
ft appeared to him ; for James
" had fwore, that he would
f * not eat bread from that
* f hour, in which he drank
" the cup of the Lord, till
* Caul. vir. illuftr. in Jacobo.
que
CHAP. xxv. Gofpel of the Nazarenes.
277
que pod paululum ; Afferte,
ait Dominus, menfam & pa-
nem ; ftatimque additur, Tu-
lit panem & benedixit, & fre-
git, ac dedit Jacobo Jufto, &
dixit ei, Frater mi, comede
panem tuum, quia refurrexit
hlius hominis a dormientibus.
" he ihould fee the Lord rifen
" from the dead. And a little
" after, the Lord faid, Bring
" the table and the bread\
" and then it is added, He
" took the bread, and blefled
" it, and brake it, and gave it
" to James the Juft, and faid
" to him, My brother, eat
" thy bread; for the Son of
f( man is rifen from the dead."
15. By the fame a .
In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, In the Gofpcl according to the
quod Chaldaico Syroque fer-
mone, fed Hebraicis literis
fcriptum eft, quo utuntur uf-
que hodie Nazareni, fecun-
dum Apoftolos, five ut pleri-
que autumant juxta Matthae-
um, quod in Caefarienfi habe-
tur bibliotheca, narratur hif-
toria ; Ecce mater Domini &
fratres ejus dicebant ei, Joan-
nes Baptifta baptifat in remif-
fionem peccatorum, earn us &
baptifemur ab eo ; dixit au-
tem eis, Quid peccavi, ut va-
dam &baptifer ab eo? nifi for-
te hoc ipfum quod dixi igno-
randa eft. Et in eodem volu-
mine, Si peccaverit, inquit,
frater tuus in verbo, & fatis
tibi fecerit, fepties in die fuf-
cipe eum. Dixit illi Simon
difcipulus ejus, Septies in die ?
refpondit Dominus & dixit ei,
Hebrews, which is written in
the Chaldee and Syriack lan-
guage, which the Nazarenes
ufe^ (and is) That according to
the Tivelve dpojiles ; or as moft
think, according to Matthew:
which is in the library of
Caefarea, there is the follow-
ing hiftory: " Behold, the
" mother and brethren of
" Chrift fpake to him ; John
" the Baptift baptifes for the
" remijjion of fins , let us go
" and be baptifed by him : He
" faid to them, In what have
" I finned, that I have any
" need to go and be baptifed by
" him? unlefs my faying this
" proceed perhaps from igno-
ranee. And in the fame
u volume it is faid, Jf thy
" brother offend thee by any
w word, and make thee fatif-
Adverfus Pelngian. i. 3. in princip.
T 3
Etiam
Etiam ego dico tibi, ufque ad
feptuagefies fepties.
278 Fragments of the PART n.
" faSlion^ though it be feven
" times in a day, thou muft
" forgive him. Simon, his
" Difciple, faid to him,
" IVhat! Seven times in a
" day ! The Lord anfwered
" and faid to him, / tell thee
" a/fo, even till feventy times
"feven."
the fame '.
According to their Gofpel,
which is written in the He-
brew language, and read by
the Nazarenes, the whole
fountain of the Holy Ghoft
defcended upon him Befides,
in that Gofpel juft mentioned
we find thefe things written :
" It came to pafs when the
" Lord afcended from the wa-
" ter, the whole fountain of
" the Holy Ghoft defcended
" and refted upon him, and
" faid to him, My Son, among
" (or during all the time
of) all the Prophets, I was
" waiting for thy coming, that
" / might reft upon thee j for
<c thou art my reft ; thou art
" my firft begotten Son, who
" Jhalt reign to cverlafting
ages."
17. By the fame b .
Sed & in Evangelio, quod But it is written in the Gof-
juxta Hebraeos fcriptum Na- pel according to the Hebrews,
Lib. 4. Comment, in Jefai. b Lib. n. Comment, in Jefai.
c. xi. z. xl. n.
zarsei
1 6. By
Juxta Evangelium eorum,
quod Hebraeo fermone con-
fcriptumlegunt Nazarae: ; de-
fcendit fuper eum omnis fons
Spiritus fan<5ti Porro in E-
vangelio cujus fupra fecimus
mentionem, haec fcripta repe-
rimus: Fa&um eft autem
quum afcendiflet Dominus de
aqua, defcendit fons omnis
Spiritus San&i, & requievit
fuper eum, & dixit ei: Fili
mi, in omnibus prophetis ex-
fpe<5tabam te ut venires, & re-
quiefcerem in te; tu es enim
requies mea; tu es filius meus
primogenitus, qui regnas in
fempiternum.
CHAP. xxv. Go/pel of the Nazarenes. 279
zaraei leclitant, Dominus lo- which the Nazarenes read,
quitur : Modo tulit me mater " The Lord faid, TJ)e Holy
mea Spiritus Sanctus. " Gbojl, my Mother^ juft now
" laid hold on me."
1 8. By the fame 3 .
Qui legerit Canticum Canti-
corum, & fponfum animae Dei
fermonern intellexerit, credi-
deritque Evangelic, quod fe-
cundum Hebraeos editum nu-
per tranftulimus, in quo ex
perfona Salvatoris dicitur,Mo-
do tulit me mater mea Spiri-
tus San&us in uno capillorum
meorumj non dubitabit dicere
Sermonem Dei ortum efle de
Spiritu, & animam, quae fpon-
fa Sermonis eft, habere focrum
Spiritum Sanctum, qui apud
Hebrasos genere dicitur foe-
minino.
Whoever reads the Book of
Canticles, and will underftand
by the fpoufe of the foul the
word of God b , and will be-
lieve the Gofpel which is in-
titled, 'The Gofpel according
to the Hebrews^ which I late-
ly tranflated, in which our Sa-
viour is introduced, faying,
" 7 u ft now m y mother, the
Holy Ghojl, laid bold on me
u by one of my hairs, ' will
not fcruple to fay, the word of
God (i. e. Chrift) was born
of the fpirit, and the foul,
which is the fpoufe of the
word (Chrift), has the Holy
Ghoft for its mother in law>
who in the Hebrew language
is exprefTed in the feminine
gender.
19. By the fame c .
In Evangelic, quod juxta He-
braeos Nazaraei legereconfue-
verunt, inter maxima ponitur
crimina, qui fratris fui fpiri-
tum contriftaverit.
In that which is intitled, The
Gofpel according to the He-
brews^ it is reckoned among
the chief of crimes, for a per-
fan to make forrowful the heart
of his brother.
Lib. 2. Comment, in Mic. Chrift, called fo often the jwy-.
vii. 6. - Lib. 6. Comment, in Ezek.
b I fuppofe, byfermo is meant xviii. 7.
T 4 20. By
Fragments of the
PART II,
20. By
In Evangelic, quod appcllatur
fecundum Hebraeos, pro fuper-
fubftantiali pane reperi inD,
quod dicitur craftinum, ut fit
fenfus ; panem noftrum craf-
tinum, i. e. futurum, da nobis
hodie.
the fame a.
In the Gofpel, intitled, ac-
cording ty the Hebrews, I
find inftead of fuperfubftantial
bread, ->na (Machar), which
fignifies the morrow j fo the
fenfe is, Give us this day the
bread necejjaryfor the morrow^
i. e. for the future.
21. By the fame b .
In Evangelic, quo utuntur
Nazareni & Ebionitae (quod
nuper in Graecum de Hebraso
fermone tranftulimus, & quod
vocatur a plerifque Matthaei
authenticum) Homo ifte, qui
aridam habet manum, caemen-
tarius fcribitur, iftiufmodi vo-
cibus auxilium precans ; Cae-
mentarius eram, manibus vic-
tum quaeritans; precor te, Je-
fu, ut mihi reftituas fanitatem,
ne turpiter mendicem cibos.
In the Gofpel, which the
Nazarenes and Ebionites ufe
(which P lately tranfiated out
of Hebrew into Greek, and
which is by moft efteemed the
authentic k Gofpel of Matthew)
the man who had the wither-
ed hand is faid to be a mafon,
and prayed for relief in the
following words : " I was a
u mafon^ who got my livelihood
*' by my hands \ I befeech thee y
<l 7 e f us> > ^ at t ^ ou wou ldft rf ~
<c Jlore me to myjirength^ that
** / may no longer thusfcanda-
" louJJybegmy bread."
22. By the fame c .
In Evangettq, quo utuntur In the Gofpel, which the Na-
Nazareni, pro filio Barachiae, zarenes ufe, for the fon of Ba-
filium Joiadae reperimus fcrip- rachiah I find written the fon
turn. ofjoiada d .
Lib. i. Comment, in Matth.
vi. ii.
k Lib. 2. Comment, in Matth.
xii. 15.
Lib. iv. Comment, in Matth.
d See Matt, xxiii. 35.
23. By
CHAP. XXV.
Gofpel of the Nazarenes;
a8i
23. By the fame
Ifte (BarabbasJ in Evangel io
quod fcribitur juxtaHebrsos,
films magiftri eorum interpre-
tatur, qui propter feditionem
& homicidium fuerat condem-
natus.
In the Gofpel, intitled, accord-
ing to the Hebrews, he (Ba-
rabbas) is interpreted The Son
of their Majter b , who was
condemned for fedition and
murder.
24. By the fame c .
In Evangelic, cujus faepe feci-
mus mentionem, fuperlimina-
re templi infinite magnitudi-
nis fra<5tum efle atque divifum
leeimus.
In the Gofpel, wliich I have
often mentioned, we read, that
a lintel of the Temple of an im-
menfe fize was broken and rent
(viz. at our Saviour's cruci-
fixion. )
25. By the fame d .
In Evangelic autem, quod
Hebraicis literis fcriptum eft,
legimus non velum templi
fcifium, fed fuperliminare tem-
pli mine magnitudinis corru-
ifle.
In that Gofpel) which is writ-
ten in Hebrew letters^ we
read, not that the veil of the
temple was rent, but that a
lintel (or beam) of a prodigi-
ous fize fell down.
26. By the fame".
In Hebraico quoque Evan-
gelio legimus, Dominum ad
difcipulos loquentem, & Nun-
quam, inquit, laeti fitis, nifi
cum fratrem veftrum videritis
in charitate.
* Lib. 4. Commrnt. in Matth.
xxvii. 1 6.
b So Barabbas fignifies, being de-
rived from -m -Q the Son of a
Rabbi, or Matter.
In the Hebrew Gofpel we read,
that our Lord faid to his Dif-
ciples, " Be ye never chterful t
" unltfs when you can fee your
" brother in love."
< Id. ibid.
" Epift. ad Hedib. cxlix.
e Lib. 3. Comment, in Epift. ad
Ephei'. c. 5. v. 4.
27. By
28i Fragments of the Gofpelofthe Nazarenes, PART n.
27. By the fame 3 .
Cum enim Apoftoli eum pu-
tarent fpiritum, vel, juxta -
vangelium quod lectitant Na-
zaraei, incorporale Daemon! -
um, dixit eis, Quid turbati
eftis, &c.
For when the Apoftles fup-
pofed him to be a Spirit, or,
according to the Gofpel which
the Nazarenes read> an incor-
poreal Dcemon, he faid to them,
are ye troubled, sV.
28. By the fame, concerning Ignatius.
In Epiftola ad Smyrnaeos de
Evangelio quod nuper a me
tranflatum eft, fuper perfona
Chrifti ponit teftimonium di-
cens, Ego vero & poft refur-
re&ionem in carne eum vidi,
& credo quia fit : et quando
venit ad Petrum, & ad eos qui
cum Petro erant, dixit eis,
Ecce palpate me, & videte,
quia non fum Daemonium in-
corporale; & ftatimtetigerunt
eum, & crediderunt.
In the Epiftle to the Smyrne-
ans, he takes a teftimony from
the Gofpel which I lately
translated, a sfpoken by Chrift;
he fays, I faw Chrift in the
flefli after the refurreclion,
and believe that it was he;
and when he came to Peter,
and to thofe who were with
Peter, he faid unto them, Be-
hold, feel me, and fee that I am
not an incorporeal Spirit ; and
prefently they touched him,
and believed.
Thefe are all the places I have met with in the writers
within the limits of my time, except that Epiphanius tells us,
that a certain Jew, called Jofeph, found in a cell at Tiberias,
in the time of Conftantine, TO y.cna. Mai-Sa^* 'EaVxo <pvTe* t
viz. the Hebrew Gofpel afcribed to Matthew b .
Praefat. lib. xviii. Comment,
in Jefai.
b H*ref. 30. Ebion. . 6.
CHAP.
CHAP, xx VI. Sentiments of later Writers. 283
CHAP. XXVI.
< The various Sentiments of later Writers concerning the Gofpel
of the Nazarenes. The Opinions of Beda, Sixfus Semnjis^
Cardinal Baronius, Cafaubon^ Grotius, Father Smart ^ Du
Pin, Dr. Grabe^ Mr. Toland, Mr. Nye, Mr. Richardfoa 9
Dr. Mill, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Fabritius, Mr. Le Clerc^ and
Dr. Mangey.
HAV IN G in the preceding chapter produced the antient
Teftimonies and Fragments of the Hebrew Gofpel cf
the Nazarenes, I proceed as I propofed j
II. To give as fuccinfl an account as I can of the opinions of
later writers concerning it. And to this I am the rather in-
duced, becaufe feveral men of learning have ent?rtained fo
high fentiments of this antient book, as not only to make it (Ca-
nonical) but thereby alfo more valuable than our prefent Greek
Gofpel of St. Matthew, which in confequence mult be rejected
as Apocryphal. I defign here all poffible brevity, and there-
fore fhall not produce the authors' words at large, as in the
former chapter, but only give a compendious abftracl: account
of what they have faid ; for the juftnefs of which I fhall refer
the readers to the books themfelves, as cited at the bottom of
the page. The authors which I have fele&ed I have placed in
the following order, according to the time of their writing,
viz. Beda, Sixtus Senenfis, Baronius, Cafaubon, Grot: us,
Father Simon, Du Pin, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Toland, Mr. Nye,
Mr. Richardfon, Dr. Mill, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Fabritius, Mr.
Le Clerc, and Dr. Mangey.
I. Beda a , a writer of the feventh century, faith, that the
Gofpel according to the Hebrews is not to be eJJeemed among the
but Ecclefiajlical hijlories, becaufe "Jerome himfelf t
Comment, in Luc. i. apud Sixt. Senenf. p. 64..
5$4 Later Writers Sentiments concerning PART IT,
who tranjlated the facred Scriptures, has taken many tejlimoniet
out of it, and tranjlated it into Greek and Latin.
2. Sixtus Senenfis, in his excellent Bibliotheca a, is of
opinion, that the Gofpel of the Ebionites was only the Gofpel
of Matthew in Hebrew interpolated and corrupted by tbofe he-
r sticks, and that the Nazarene Gofpel was received by the mojl
antient Fathers among other facred (venerandas) Scriptures, for
the edification of the Church.
3. Baronius (as Cafaubon interprets his words) faith b , The
prefent Greek text of St. Matthew is* of no value nor authority,
unlefs it were to be compared with the Hebrew Gofpel of the
Nazarenes, which he looks upon as the true original.
4. Cafaubon c affirms and proves the contrary, viz. That
if the Hebrew Gofpel were ftill extant, it were not to be looked
upon as the original authentick text of St. Matthew, becaufe it
was only made ufe of by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, he-
reticks, and a work full of fables and corruptions of various
forts.
5. Grotius fuppofes this Gofpel to have been made out of the
original Hebrew of St. Matthew, and that in it were fome ac-
counts not written by him, but fuch as the Nazarenes received
by tradition, and by degrees inferted into their copies ; from
whence the difference arofe between the Greek and Hebrew
bocks d .
6. Father Simon has carried the authority of this Gofpel
to a very great height ; and fpent two whole chapters e in en-
deavouring to fupport it. The fubftance of what he fays is ;
That St. Matthew firft wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew ; that it
* Biblioth. Sanft. lib. z. p. 63, c Loc. jam citat. &: exercit. 15.
64.. C. 12.
b Annal. ad Ann. C" . XXXIV. d Annot. in Titul. Matth.
Num. clxxv. and Cafaub. adverf. e Critic. Hiltor. of the New
Baron. Annal. excrcit. xvi. c. 1 1 5. Ttft. part i. c. 7, 9.
was
CHAP. xxvi. the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. 285
ivas composed for the primitive Chrijtians of Palejline, called.
Nazarenes, who are not to he looked upon as hereticks ; that if
this their Hebrew copy were extant, it were to be preferred to
the Greek Verfion which we now have; that it is not to be
looked upon as Apocryphal, or a falfe book, nor to be compared
with the G of pel according to the Egyptians, the Afts of Barna-
bas, the Prophecy of Cham, and other books that have been forg-
ed by impojlors, but really a compofure of St. Mattheiv ; and as
for the additions afterwards inferted in it, they are not falfe, but
annexed by the Nazarenes, as what they had from good and un-
doubted tejlimonies, and therefore not to be rejected. He heartily
wijhes> it were now extant, even with all the interpolations of
the Nazarenes and Ebionites j and adds ,that even thus it Jhould
not be reckoned among the forgeries of impojlors, but as the mojl
antient Act of the Chriftian religion, and confequently preferable
to our prefent Greek copies of St. Matthew, which are not a very
jiifl tranjlation.
7. Mr. Du Pin a has very much the fame fentiments with
Father Simon, only with this difference (which is indeed every
where vifible in the writings of thofe two French critidcs),
that he delivers his thoughts with a more becoming foftnefs
and modefty.
8. Dr. Grabe b feems to have treated the fubject with more
accuracy, and fuppofes, that the Gofpel of the Nazarenes was
not aforgtry of thofe hereticks, becaufe it was not only tranflated
by Jerome, but appealed to or cited by many of the old Chriftian
writers, Ignatius, Papias, Jujlin Martyr, &c. That it was
not any Gofpel of St. Matthew's altered, corrupted, and interpo-
lated ; but an honeft compofure of the Jewijh converts at Jeru-
falem, foon after our Saviour's afcenfeon, and fame time before
any of our prefent Canonical Go/pels were written; that it af-
terwards had affixed to it the title of Matthew by the artifice of
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who knowing St. Matthew's
Hift. of the Canon. Vol. II. b Spicileg. P.atr. Secul. I. p. 15,
c. 2. . 3. Sec.
Gofpel
286 Later Writers Sentiments concerning PART If.
Gofpel was wrote in Hebrew, thereby more eojily imposed their
own upon the world, which was written in that language under
bis name.
g. Mr. Toland tells us, the Ebionites or Nazarenes, whs
were the oldejl Ghrijiians, had a different copy of St. Matthew 1 !
Gofpe^ and that this is by fever al maintained to be the original
of St. Matthew^. This author has given us his opinion more
largely in a late difingenuous Tra6t againft the Chriftian re-
ligion c . Having defcribed his Nazarenes (who denied the
Godhead of Chrift) as the original and only true Chriftians,
and fuch as could not be miftaken, he mentions their books' 1 .
Among others they had (fays he) a Gofpel of their own, feme-
times called by Ecclcjiajiical writers, The Gofpel of the He-
brews, and fometimes The Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles,
but ignorantly mijiaken by Irenaus, Epiphanius, and others, for
the Gofpel of Matthew interpolated. This Gofpel was publickly
read in their Churches, as authentic^, for three hundred years ;
which might very well be for the mojl part, and yet the other
Gofpels be never the lefs authentick alfo. It might be one of
thofe many mentioned by St. Luke, as written before his own,
and which he does not rejeft as falfe or erroneous, or for any
other reafon Diverfe pious and learned men regret highly
the lofs of it // was tran/lated into Greek and Latin by Je-
rome, who very often makes ufe of it, as likewife did Origen and
Eufebius, not rejecting it as Apocryphal, nor receiving it as Ca-
nonical, but placing it among what they called Ecclefiaftical
books, i.e. books whofe antiquity they were not able to deny,
but whofe authority they were not willing to acknowledge. Long
before thefe, the Gofpel of the Hebrews was by Papias, Igna-
tius, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others, alledged as a true Gof-
pel. So itfeems to have been by JujHn Martyr. So it was by
Hegefippus, &c.
10. Mr. Nye fuppofes e not only that the Ebionites and
Amyntor. p. 64.. d Chap. XX.
k Ibid. p. 35. * Anfwer to AmjTitor. p. 76,
c Nazarcnus. &c.
Nazarenes
CHAP. xxvi. the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. 287
Nazarenes were different fe Sis, but that they bad different Gof-
pels. He blames Epiphanius for calling the things added in
this Gofpel, Adulterations. That they are preferred by Eufe-
bins, ^Jerome, Aujlin, Photius (which by the way is fo very
falfe, that neither Auftin nor Photius have once mentioned
this Gofpel, nor Eufebius preferved one fragment) : That it
were highly to be valued, if extant. He adds a conjecture con-
cerning the difference between St. Matthew's and the Ebio-
nites copies, more ingenious than well-grounded, viz. That
St. Matthew publijhed two editions of his Gofpel. In the firft
he began at the baptifm of John, which is now chap. 3. In
the fecond he began, as our prefent copies, with the genealogy.
The Ebionites made their copies from the firft edition, and
thence proceeded the difference.
1 1 . Mr. Richardfon a . Tlje Gofpel according to the Hebrews
was (as we may learn from Epiphanius and Jerome) the Gof-
pel cf St. Matthew in Hebrew, but with feveral interpolations
and additions of their own, though without making any altera-
tions in what they found in the authentick copies before. The
Ebionites corrupted the Gofpel of Matthew in feveral more
particulars than the Nazarenes, ^vho only added fame hijlorical
paffages from tradition, feveral of which might be true, and
if not pretending to be wrote by St. Mattheiv, ought not to be
called fpurious, or a forgery.
12. Dr. Mill b has borrowed his fentiments of this Gofpel
from Dr. Grabe, viz. that it was not at all the fame with the
true Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, but made before it by
fame Jevji/h Chrijiians at "Jerusalem. Only there feems this
difference, that as Dr. Grabe imagines it to have been abufed
by the Nazarenes afterwards, Dr. Mill fuppofes not only this,
but feveral erroneous and heterodox things to have been in it at
its firjl writing.
Canon vindicated, pag. 69, b Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. . 42.
&:.
13. Dr.
288 Later Writers Sentiments concerning PART II.
13. Dr. Whitby a , attempting to prove that St. Matthew's
Gofpel was originally wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew,
concludes concerning this Gofpel of the Hebrews, That it
was not the true authentick Gofpel of St. Matthew, that it was
not a cop-; of St. Matthew's Gofpel free from interpolations and
additions, but St. Matthew's Gofpel tranjlated out of Greek into
Hebrew, with the fame liberty as the Chaldee paraphrafes of the
Old Tejlament, viz. with the addition of fever al things from
tradition ; which Per/ion the primitive Chrijlians, luho were ig-
norant of that language , finding in their hands, they from the
likenefs of the thing, and the prctenjions of the Jews, might
think it an original, written for their ufe.
14. Mr. Fabritius b cenfures Mr. Toland, for his having
too highly extolled this Apocryphal Gofpel, as well as for the
whole defign of his Nazarenus ; and a little after adds c ; By
all the fragments of this Gofpel it is evident, that it was very
different from the Canonical one of Matthew.
15. Mr. Le Clerc * is of the fame opinion with Dr. Whit-
by, as above.
1 6. Dr. Mangey % fpeaking of the Nazarenes, obferves,
that they ufed no? the Gofpd of St. Matthew, but a particular
Gofpel of their own: and in another place afterwards f , They
pretended, in order to gain better terms from the other believers,
to ufe an Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew (which, by the way }
probably caufed the erroneous opinion of that Gofpel being
originally wrote in Hebrew) : but this was a falfe pretence j
for the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, which they followed,
was very different from ours of Si. Matthew, as appears not
only by the remaining fragments of it, but from the teflimony cf
Jerome, who affirms that he tranflated it both into Greek and
Pn.fr.ce to the Gofpels, p. 46, d Diflcrt. III. annexed to his
47. ILirm. of the Gofpel.
* Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. e Remarks oa Nazarenus, chap,
torn. ?. p, 541. vi. p. 35.
6 P. 546. f Ibid. chap. viii. p. 58, 59.
Latin.
CrtAP. xxvii. The Gofpel of the Nazarenes. 289
Latin. They fubmitted not to the received writings of the
Apojlles, but followed a chimerical forged Gofpel of their own.
Thus I have collected the moft confiderable opinions, if
not all of any value, that have been publifhed by later writers,
concerning the Gofpel of the Hebrews.
CHAP. XXVII.
The Gofpel of the Nazarenes highly efteemed by many Writers^
becaufe they imagined it was cited by the primitive Chrijiians
in their Writings -. This proved to be a Mi/lake. No Chrif-
tian Writer of the fir Jl four Centuries has cited or appealed
to this Gofpel) believing it to be of any Authority. A notorious
Inadvertency of many learned men, whereby they fuppofed that
Papias cited it. A Character of Papias. No Verjion made
of the Nazarene Gofpel before that of Jerome. Another Mif-
take of Jerome and other learned Men^ infuppofing that Ig-
natius ufed this Go/pel.
HA V ING given fo large an account in the preceding
Chapter of the fentiments of learned men concerning
the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, I proceed here to confider the
real value and authority of it. I defign not to enter into any
large criticifm upon thefe various opinions, nor yet to inter-
pofe my own ; my bufmefs being not fo much to do this, as
to fet forth its true authority. I proceed therefore in the
method which I propofed j viz. to Ihew,
III. That the Gofpel of the Nazarenes was never received
by any primitive Writer as Canonical, neither cited nor appeal-
ed to, as of any authority, by any one writer of the firfl four
centuries.
I am very fenfible, that I here am about to oppofe the fen-
timents of many learned men, who have unwarily been be-
trayed into an extravagant opinion of this Gofpel, by a
VOL. I. U groundlefs
299 The Gofpel of the Nazarenes Apocryphal. PART II.
groundlefs prefumption, that the Fathers have cited it, without
a due enquiry into the matter. Thus the learned Sixtus Se-
nenfis fays, it was received by the mojl antient Fathers among
other fared Scriptures, for the edification of the Church. See
above, Chap XXVI. Numb. II. Baronius and Simon judge
it for the fame reafin preferable to our prefent Greek copies of
St. Matthew. The mo/1 antient Ecclefiajlical writers (fays
Simon 3 ) have cited it as the true Gofpel of St. Matthew. Dr.
Grabe was for the fame reafon induced to his high opinion of
it, viz. becaufe he thought it was cited by Papias, Hegefippus,
Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Qrigen, and others, even for
the confirmation of the great articles of Religion b . But no one
has been fo extravagantly pofitive, and unpardonably miftaken
in this matter as Mr. Toland c , who tells us, It was read in
the Chrijlian Churches for three hundred years^ not rejected by
Origen and Eufebius, but alledged as a true Gofpel by Papias,
Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Juftin Martyr, Hegefippus,
and others. This therefore being the main foundation of this
Gofpel's credit, will require a more critical enquiry; and
this I fhall attempt by (hewing, that not one of thefe Fathers
received it with any authority, but almojl every one exprefsly re-
jecled it as Apocryphal.
The firft is Papias, who is generally ejieemed by all thofe who
have wrote on thefe fubjefts to have made itfe of the Gofpel of
the Hebrews. Thus thought the learned Archbifhop Ufher d ;
thus Dr. Grabe e , Fabritius f , Bifhop Pearfon", and others.
Father Simon and Toland are more egregioufly miftaken ;
the former ailerts h , 'That Papias, who lived with the difciples
of the Apojlles, faith , that the hi/tor y of the woman accufed of
many fins before our Saviour is to be read in the Gofpel that
was called according to the Hebrews ; the latter ', that Pa-
pias alledges it as a true Gofpel. But in this thefe writers are
* Critic. Hift. of the NeW T\ft. e Lib. cit. p. 17.
par. i. c. 7. p. 61. f Cod. Apoc.Nov. Teftam. t. i.
" Spkileg. Patr. Saecul. I. p. p. 356.
24.. e Vindic. Ignat. Epift. par. i.
c Nazaren. chap. 10. p. 78, &c. c. 9. p. 102.
d In Epilt. ad Sinyrn. Jgiut. h Loc. jam cit. p. 67.
Not. ^\. p. 4-8. J Loc. jam cit.
all
CHAP. xxvn. Not cited by Papias. 291
all plainly miftaken; for there can be nothing more evident,
than that they did not rightly confider the words of Eufebius,
which are the foundation of their opinion ; he mentions indeed
fuch a hiftory as expounded by Papias, but then adds in his
own words a , // is contained in the Gofpel of the Hebrews ;
and does not fo much as intimate that Papias took it thence.
Nothing therefore feems more probable, than that this hiftory
was related by Papias, not out of any book, but as what he
had received by tradition. To confirm which I obferve,
I. That he is called by Irenfeus b , a difciple of St. John, a
friend of Polycarp, and an antient author, and confequently
might be very likely to receive many true accounts and hifto-
ries of our Saviour, which are not in our prefent Gofpels,
fuch as his mafter St. John fpeaks of, chap. xxi. 25.
2. Papias himfelf declares *, that he received his accounts of
Chri/lianity from thofe ra fy.t'on yiufaut, who were intimately
acquainted with the Apojlles, and that thefe accounts, which he
thus received from the older Chrijlians, and had committed to
memory, he would infer t in his books.
3. Add to this what he farther fays d , that he was very feli-
citous to be informed of every thing he could by tradition, and
f pared no pains to know what the Apojllcs hadfaid and preached^
valuing fuch information (as he fays) more than what was
written in books.
From all this it is manifeft, not only that Papias did not cite
the Nazarene Gofpel, but that he related this hiftory of^the
woman accufed before Chrift, only as a fact that he had heard,
or received by tradition. I might add here, that Papias can-
not be fuppofed to have made ufe of this Hebrew Gofpel, be-
caufe he did not underftand the language in which it was
written, as it feems not unreafonable to conclude from his be-
ing Bifhop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, where every one knows
the Hebrew could not be underftood.
It may indeed be objected, that Papia$ made ufe of a Greek
Verfion, andfo could make his citation thence ; and accordingly
1 Hift.Eccl. 1. 3-c. 39-infine. Hift. Fed. 1. 3. c. 39. In injt.
b Adv. Haeref. 1. 5. c. 23. d Ibid.
Praetat. in Opp. apud Eufeb.
U 2 I obferve,
2$2 JVfl rerfwn of it till Jerome. PART If*
I obferve, that Father Simon fuppofes a , that our Greek Verfion^
as he calls it, of St. Matthew, and many others, were made out
of this Hebrew Gofpel very early b , even before the Nazarene
interpolations. But in this he is miftaken ; it being much
more probable, no Greek Verfion was made of this Nazarene
Gofpel before Jerome's time ; which, as it will be of fome
importance in the following controverfy, I fhall endeavour to
fupport by the following remarks, viz.
Firfti There is not the leajl intimation in all antiquity of any
fuch Verfion before that made by Jerome.
Secondly, Had there been one made before Jerome's, there
feems to have been no reafon for bis being made, at lead it is
probable he would have mentioned it as an imperfect tranf-
latiop ; as he ufually does in other cafes, where he fpeaks of
his own tranflations.
Thirdly, It is probable enough, the Jewijb Cbrijlians would
le cautious to prevent their Gofpel being made publick: as their
forefathers were of the books of the Old Teftament, who,
if I miftake not, kept an anniverfary day of humiliation on
account of the LXX. Verfion being made. And hence
Jerome intimates c, that the Nazarenes at Beroea favoured-
him, when they allowed him to take a copy of it. Mr. Fa-
britius therefore too haftily cenfured Jerome for making a
tranflation of a book already tranflated; which, fays he, Ori-
gen and others read before in Greek d ; for as I think it at
leaft probable from what is faid, that there was no Verfion of
it made before Jerome's, fo it does not appear, that either
Origen or others read it in Greek, or cited it j which, as I
have fliewn of Papias, I proceed to (hew of them.
The fecond, who is faid to have made ufe of this Gofpel, is
Ignatius, Bifliop of Antioch, who lived in the beginning of
the fecond century. The paflage, fuppofed to be by him
taken out of it, is as follows e .
Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Ttft.
part i. c.-. p. 67. t. i. p. 365.
b Ibid. c. 9. p. 78. e Epilh ad Smym. c. 3.
c Above, chap. xx. n. T-;.
CHAP. XXVII. Not cited by Ignatius. 293
Kai O'T 7ZTo? T*j -BTi rev And when he came to thofe
??n JTCK, who were with Peter, he faid
x unto them, Take^ handle me y
and fee that I am not an mcor-
porealDamon . and pre f ent ly
v' XK\ fJS-j aura they touched him^ and believed,
xai fBisnu0 > 4P) x^a- being convinced by his jlejh and
TV; ragxi aura: iut fpirit*
This is generally faid by the criticks to have been taken by
Ignatius out of this Gofpel. So judged Baronius % Drufius b ,
Valefius c , Dr. Grabe d , and many others ; whence they have
formed a more high opinion of the book. That which per-
fuaded them to fuppofe it taken thence is the exprefs af-
fertion of Jerome to this purpofe: (fee above, Chap. XXV.
Numb. XXVIII.) but this will appear very improbable;
for,
I. Ignatius does not make any mention of this Gofpel either in
this) or any other place of thofe Epijiles^ which go under his
name ; and therefore it may as well be fuppofed he cited what
he had heard, as what he had read, efpecially if we confider
him as one who lived very near the Apoftles' times, if not in
them, and at this time in a troublefome journey under a guard
of foldiers, and fo deftitute of his books e . Can any one ima-
gine, that in this journey Ignatius carried the Gofpel of the
Nazarenes, wrote in a language which he could fcarce under-
ftand, along with him from Syria to Rome ? And if he did
not, is it not more probable, he cited a paiTage which he had
heard by tradition, than quoted it out of this Apocryphal Gof-
pel ? Nor am I alone in this conjecture. The great Cafau-
bon in the place cited, and Bifhop Pearfon f , fuppofe the very
fame, viz. That Ignatius did not take the pa/jage out of the
Nazarene Gofpel^ but referred to fame unwritten tradition^
1 AptidCafaub. Exerc. p. 497. e Eufeb. Hill. Eccl. lib. 3. c.
b Oofervat. Sacr. lib. 4. c. 22. 36.
e Annot. in Eufcb. lib. 3. f Vindic. Epilt. Ignat.pjr. a. c.
C. 36- 9. p. 105, 104.
* Loe. fup. cit.
U 3 which
294 Wot cited by Ignatius. PART II.
which was afterwards inferted into the Hebrew Gofpel attri-
buted to Matthew. But if this be not fufficient, I obferve, as
what feems indeed moft probable j
2. That the paflage above produced is fo very little differ-
ent from the words of St. Luke, chap. xxiv. 39, that thefe
feem to have been intended or referred to by Ignatius, and
no other. This will appear by the comparing of them.
The words ofChrift, as they
are in St Luke's Gofpel.
The words of Chrijl^ as they
are in Ignatius'* Epijlle.
jug,
HAS,
yu sjui*
xai i'tJsTE,
xat oria
77;^ ,///& ef St. Luke's
words.
Behold my hands and my
feet, that it is myfelf j handle
me, and fee, for a fpirit hath
net -fieflr and hones, as you
fee me have.
We Englijh of Ignatius'*
words.
Take, handle me, and fee,
that I am not' an incorporeal
fpirit (or Daemon).
Thefe two fentences are fo extremely alike, not only as to the
whole fenfe and defign of them, but even as to the very words,
that if there were no other argument, this would of itfelf be
fufficient to prove the point I am contending for. But this
will be much corroborated, if we confider,
Firft, That the Chrijlian Fathers^ efpecially the oldejl, were
continually wont to cite the Scriptures memoriter, /. e. by their
memories, without consulting their copies^ and fo not expreffing
the very words ff the facred writer whom they cited^ thought it
fufficient to exprejs ihe fenfe or defign of the place. This is evi-
dent by a thoufand inftances, and is very well urged by Dr.
Whitby a againft Dr. Mill, who has very unfairly made their
Examen variant. Leftion. D. Millii. c.
. i, a, &c.
memoriter
CHAP, xxvil. Not cited by Ignatius. 295
memoriter citations fo often to be various leftions^ or to proceed
from different copies. Nor can it feem ftrange, that the Fa-
thers did cite thus, when we fee the fame daily pradlifed by
the beft writers. Befides, the form of their volumes was
fuch, as occafioned much greater difficulty to find any paflage
in them, than it now is in ours a . I might add farther, that
they had not as yet their books diftinguimed into chapters and
verfes, as ours now are, &c.
Secondly, That Ignatius (as I have obferved) was now on
a journey^ under a ftritt guard of foldiers, and therefore as he
probably bad not his books with him, it is not grange he Jhould
give only the fenfe of St. Luke's words^ and not all the words
themfelves. And this he, who will be at the pains to obferve,
may perceive in many other citations in the Epiftles of Ig-
natius.
Thirdly, I obferve, the Epiftles of Ignatius are ftrangely
corrupted and interpolated fince their firft writing. This is
well known, and Archbifhop Ufher has abundantly proved it,
and particularly in this fame place h j from whence I conclude,
that the words here were formerly perhaps more like thofe of
Luke than they are now.
To conclude, many learned men have imagined all thefe
Epiftles of Ignatius to be fpurious, and the celebrated Mr.
Daille has endeavoured, from this very place, to prove that
they are fo c .
a See my account of the antient b Edit. Epiftol. Ignat. in Proleg.
ways of writing and form of vo- c. 3, 4..
lumes. Vindic. of St. Matt. Gofp. e Cohtr. Epift. Ignat. lib. 2. c.
c. 15. p. 151, &c. 17. p. 339, 340.
U 4 CHAP.
"296 Nat cited by Juftin Martyr. PART II.
CHAP. XXVIII.
A particular Proof that neither Juftin Martyr, Hegefippus^
Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, nor "Jerome have
appealed to the Gofpel of the Nazarenes as of any Authority ,'
but on the contrary rejected it, as not Canonical.
TH E next who is fuppofed to have taken any thing out of
this Gofpel is Juftin Martyr a , viz. an account of a fire
kindled in the river Jordan, when Chriji was baptifed. Thus
thought a learned friend of Mr. Dod well's, whom he has.
mentioned in his Diflertations on Irenreus b . But of this
there is fo little probability, no Gofpel being named by Juftin,
nay the paflage in Juftin being different from that in the Na-
zarene Gofpel, that I think it needs no farther notice, than to
be confidered among thofe uncertain fayings and hiftories of
Chrift, which will be collected in the Appendix to this volume.
Hegefippus (an early writer of the fecond century) is the
next who is fuppofed to have ufed it, and, according to Dr.
Grabe, to have had frequent recourfe to it c ; and Mr.Toland d ,
to have alledged it as a true Gofpel. This they gather from a
miftaken tranflation of thefe words of Eufebius, 'EX. & rS xaS*
tpatKf Etia^JtAjs, xa rS ZfpaxS, xat ictius In rr>f 'E^atSoj ^aXtxra
T.a rUhrm e ; thus tranflated by Valefius ; Nonnulla item ex
Hebresorum Evangelio^ & Syriaco y & ex Hebraicd lingua pr$-
fert in medium, &c. But I think much better rendered thus
in Englifh, tie has difcourfed or faid fame things concerning the
Hebrew Gofpel, and the Syriack and Hebrew language ; for to
cite things out of the Syriack and Hebrew dialeft feems a very
bald and incongruous expreffion. Hence Ruffin has tranflated
It, Di/eruit de Evangeliofecundum Hebraos, &c. And there-.
a Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. c Lib. cit. Saecxil. i. p. 16, 24..
p. 315. d Nazar. c. 20.
DiflTert. II. . 9. p. 106. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 22.
fore
CHAP, xxvin. Nat cited by Clemens Alexcmdrlnus. 297
fore Eufebius's words do not imply that Hegefippus cited it.
But fuppofe they did, and he really did cite it, it does not ap-
pear after what manner he cited it ; and I may as well fuppofe
he cited it to confute it, as they do that he cited it for autho-
rity, juft as Eufebius tells us in the next words, that he men-
tioned fome of the traditions of the Jews. But if it fliould
not be tnus, I would fay Hegefippus was a Nazarene (as Mr.
Toland -ould have him to be), becaufe he was originally a
Jew a ; and 1 cannot fee any authority or credit will be pro-
cured to this Nazarene Gofpel, becaufe a Nazarene made ufe
of it.
Clemens Alexandrinus is another, from whofe citation of
this Gofpel the abovementioried authors would gain credit to
it ; but though it is indeed cited in his works b, yet this will
prove no more favourable to their fcheme, than the former
inftances ; for,
1. He has mentioned it only once in all bis worts; viz.
lib. 2. p. 380. Mr. Toland c refers indeed to a place in the
firft book; but 1 dare aver it is not there mentioned : but I
eafily fee how Mr. Xoland made this miftake ; he followed
the falfe print of Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium, p. 26. But this is
no uncommon thing with him to follow the miftakes of the
prefs. I more wonder Mr. Fabritius fhould be guilty of the
fame in this very inftance. But to return ; if Clemens cited
this Gofpel but once, it, is plain he had no high opinion of it,
pr not fo high as of our prefent Gofpels, which he appeals to
in almoft every page. But to put an end to the difpute,
2. Clemens in fo many words denies the authority^ and ab-
folutely rejefts all Gofpels beftdes tbofe four now received. This
he does more than once ; fo in the third book of his Stromata^
p. 465 ; and in the fragment of his books de Hypotypos, pre-
ferved by Eufebius d , if thefe laft be his.
3. 1 mi;ht here add, that Clemens did not under/land the
Hebrew language^ in which the Nazarene Gofpel was written ;
a See Eufeb. loc. cit. as to this paflage, in his Nazaren.
b See above, chap. xxv. No. 3. p. 78.
c Amyntor. p. 35. He has u Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 14.
committed the very fame blunder.
' j ,
and
298 Not cited by Origen. FART II.
and fo could not cite it ; nor could he ufc a Verfion, there
being none at that time made, as has been proved.
After Clemens they reckon Origen his fcholar, as having
cited this Gofpel with regard to its authority. So Dr. Grabe
would perfuade us a, 'that be took tejlimonies out of it to prove the
articles of our faith ; and Mr. Toland b , that he alledged it as
a true Gofpel. But in this they are more notorioufly miftaken
than in the former inrtances : For,
1 . The Gofpel of the Nazarenes was certainly the fame with
that according to the Twelve Apoftles. This Dr. Grabe and
Mr. Toland both aflert ; but the Gofpel according to the
Twelve Apoftles is exprefsly rejected by Origen, as Apocry-
phal, and placed among the books of the hereticks ; which
were not to be received. See the place at large above, Chap.
VII. Numb. V. Therefore Origen could not appeal to the
authority of this Gofpel.
2. There are feveral places in the works of Origen, where-
in he aflerts, there ought only four Gofpels to be received in the
Church, viz. thofe which we now receive. See the places
cited in the notes at the bottom of the page c .
3. In both the places where he produces paflages out of
this Gofpel, he plainly intimates, that he looked upon it as of
very little credit. Hence he introduces them both in the fame
manner; the firft thus; If any one will admit or receive the
Gofpel according to the Hebrews, &c. The fecond ; It is writ-
ten in a certain Gofpel, intitled, according to the Hebrews, if
any one be pleafed to receive *V, not as of any authority, but only
for illujlratlon of the prefent queftion, ts'e. See the place at
large above, Chap. XXV. Numb. IV, V. From all this it
is evident, Origen did not efteem this Nazarepe Gofpel as of
any confiderable value or authority in the Church, but reject-
ed it as Apocryphal.
Eufebius is the next called in to fupport the credit of this
* Lib. cit. p. 24.
b Nazaren. c. zo. p. 80.
c Comment, in Matth. lib. i.
* Lib. cit. p. 24. apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 25.
b Nazaren. c. ao. p. 80. & in Philocal. c. 5. p. 29.
Gofpel
CHAP. XXVIII. Not cited by Eufebius. 299
Gofpel : He very often makes ufe of it, fays Mr. Toland a, as
on the contrary I affirm, he never once has made ufe of it.
He places It in the rank of dubious Scriptures, fuch as not only
the Epiftles of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, faith
Dr. Grabe b ; but the Epijlles of James, Jude, and other Apof-
tles : On the contrary I affirm, he exprefsly dijiinguijhes thefe
from it, placing them among the Scriptures which he calls
amJuyc^eva?, i. e. doubted of by fame ; but this among thofe
which he call i&s?, i. e. fpurious, and to be utterly rejected'. I
confefs, he a little after places them all under the general title
bLwTiAtz&ftuat; but the word muft there be taken in a more
extenfive fignification than in the former place, elfe Eufebius
will not be confident with himfelf.
But if all the reft fail, Jerome muft make it out. He fre-
quently, fay they, appeals to this Gofpel, and not only fo, but
tranJJated it into Greek and Latin: notwithftandingall which,
a little obfervation will inform us, Jerome had no higher opi-
nion of it than the forementioned writers. For,
I. He exprefsly faith, It was the fame with the Gofpel, in-
titled, according to the Twelve Apoftles, above, Chap. XXV.
Numb. XV. but this he exprefsly rejefts as Apocryphal, in
another place, (viz. above, Chap. VII. Numb. V.) and as a
book of the hereticks, wrote by men dejlitute of the fpirit and
grace of God, without a due regard to truth. See the paflage
at large above, Chap. VII. Numb. IV.
2. The fame appears from the manner of his citing it in fe-
veral of the places above, Chap. XXV. For inftance, in that
there produced, Numb. XVIII. he introduces his citation thus,
He who will believe the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, &c*
And after the citation of it in another 'place, as alfo a paflage
of Ignatius, he fubjoins, )uibu$ tejlimoniis fi non uteris ad
aucloritatem, utere faltem ad antiquitatem, &c. " Which tef-
" timonies though you are not to receive as of any authority,
" yet may be regarded for their antiquity, &c. d
a Loc. jam cit. d Lib. 3. adv. Pelag. in prin-
b Lib. jam cit. p. 16. cip.
c Eufeb.Hift.EccJ. 1. 3. .25.
From
300 The Gofpei of the Nazarenes PART n.
From all this it is evident, how unjuftly it has hitherto been
afTerted, that thefe Fathers cited or appealed to this Gofpei ;
and with what unpardonable falf^hood Mr. 'Poland afferted its
being appealed to by them in their writings frequently, as a
true Gofpei. Let him henceforth for ever ceafe his ace illations
againft the clergy, or prieils, as he calls them, for unfair deal-
ing and falfe quotations, as alfo his attempts againft Chi ift-a-
nity, unlefs he can produce fome better arguments, and pro-
ceed in fome more honeft method to fupport them.
CHAP. XXIX.
Po/itive Proofs that the Gofpei of the Nazarenes was Apocry-
phal. It is found in none of the antient Catalogues of f acred
Books* Never was cited^ as of Authority. Never read in
the Churches. It contained many things apparently falfe j as t
that Qirijl was a Sinner ; was unwilling to be baptifid^ &c.
It contained federal idle Stories ; as the Holy Ghoji taking
Chrijt by one of his Hairs into a high Mountain^ &c. The
rich man fcratching his Head^ &c. Tilings in it later than
the Time of their being faid or done. The Dejlgn of it. Made
tut of Matthew. Its Age. Not equal in Authority with the
>prefent Greek. Made by Jews. Of the Nazarenes.
AFTER having fo largely fhewn, what were the fenti-
ments of the old Chriftian writers concerning this He-
Brew Gofpei of the Nazarenes^ there may feem but little necef-
fity of faying any thing farther to invalidate its authority.
But inafmuch as there is no other Apocryphal piece which
hath been fo highly extolled as this, and it has been fo often
preferred to our prefent Greek copies of St. Matthew, it can-
not be improper, that, according to my firft propofalj I pro*
ceed,
IV. To demonftrate in a more pofitive manner, that it
really was afpuricus and Apocryphal piece.
CHAP. XXIX. proved to be Apocryphal* 301
This is clear by Prop. IV. as not being mentioned in any of
the antieni Catalogues'^ by Prop. V. as not being cited by any
of the antient writers; by Prop. VI. as not being read In any of
the ajfemblies of the primitive Chrijiians. And I here cannot
but take notice of a moft notorious and villainous impofture
of Mr. Toland a , who with all the aflurance imaginable aflerts,
That this Gofpel was publickly read in their Churches as authen-
tick^for above three hundred years. For this he cites two paf-
fages of St. Auftin i> ; in neither of which there is the leaft dif-
tant intimation or infmuation of what he aflerts : all that he
fays is, that in his time there were fame very few hereticks called
Nazarenes, or Symmacbians, who admitted both the circumcijion
of the Jewsy and the baptifm of the Chrijiians.
I add now farther, that this Gofpel of the Nazarenes is to
be efteemed Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. *as containing feveral
things contrary to certainly known and undoubted truths \ by
Prop. IX. as containing things trifling and filly j by Prop. X.
as containing things later than the time in which it pretends to
have been written.
I fhall prove each of thefe feparately :
I. The Gofpel of the Nazarenes was Apocryphal, becaufe it
contained feveral things contrary to certainly known and un-
doubted truths, by Prop. VIII. I might here inftance in a
great number of particulars contrary to one or other of our
prefent Gofpels : but having not yet proved their authority,
I fhall omit thefe ; and to be as juft in my proof as I can, I
lhall only felect thofe inftances, which are contrary either to
the generally agreed articles of the Chriftian Religion, which
have been proved true above, Cor. II. Prop. II. or to more
than one or two of our prefent Gofpels ; whofe agreement I
think may be fairly enough urged (confidered only as any other
common hiftory) againft the afTcrtions of any one particular
book.
a Loc.jamcit. p. 78. t>el in ipfa paucitate ferdurant.
k Contr. Fault. Manich. lih. Contr. Crefc. Gram. 1. i. c. 31.
19. c. 18. T. Opp. 6. /// exigua T. Opp. 7.
I.) The
302 The Gofpeiofthe Nazarenes PART n.
i.) The firft inftance of this fort whichlaffign is that in the
paflage of Jerome above produced, Chap. XXV. Numb. XV.
where it is faid, The mother and brethren of Chrift fpake to him,
and faid, "John the Baptijl baptifes for the remijjion of fins, let
us go and be baptifed by him : He faid to them, In what have I
Jinned, that I have need to go and be baptifed by him ? unlefs my
faying this proceeds perhaps from ignorance. The meaning of
this paflage will be beft perceived from a parallel one in ano-
ther Apocryphal book, intitled, The Preaching of Peter, here-
after to be produced : in which it was related a , that Chrijl
confejfed his fins, and was compelled, contrary to his own incli-
nations, by his mother Mary to fubmit to the baptifm of John.
Now hence it follows,
Firft, That Chrift ivas a fmner ; at leajt, was doubtful
whether he was not fo : but this is contrary to the whole de-
fign of the Chriftian fcheme, vhich is entirely founded upon
the fuppofition of Chrift being free from all manner of fin, in
order to his making atonement and the neceffary fatisfa&ion.
See 2 Cor. v. 21. i Peter ii. 22. I John iii. 5.
Secondly, That Chrift was unwilling to fubmit to the baptifm
of John. But this is contrary to the certain notions we have
of Chrift and his conduct, who never was backward to obey
any of the divine commands. Befides, St. Matthew fays,
(chap. iii. 15.) he compelled John to baptife him; fo far was
he from being unwilling. To which it may be worth adding,
that after this Gofpel had related the baptifm of Jefus by John,
it a little after adds, that John was defirous to be baptifed by
Jefus, and then confounding St. Matthew's words, fays that
of ChriiTs denying John baptifm, which St. Matthew fays of
John's denying Chrift baptifm, and makes Chrift to give that
as a reafon for his not baptifmg John, which St. Matthew
fays he gave as a reafon for his being baptifed by John. For
fo the words of it are related by Epiphanius, (above, Chap.
XXV. Numb. XI.) Join fell down before him and f aid, O
Lord, I pray thee baptife me : but he hindered him,-faying, that
it is fo Jit all things Jho'uld be fulfilled; on which that
1 Traft. rfe non iterand. Baptifm. ad calc. Opp. Cypriani.
Father
CHAP. xxix. proved to be Apocryphal. 303
Father juftly cenfures that Gofpel for fa !fe hood, diforder, and
confujton.
2.) The next inftance of falfehood t obferve in that Gofpel
is that hiftory related by Jerome, (above, Chap. XXV. Numb.
XIV.) concerning James's oath, that be would not eat bread
from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, till he
jhould fee the Lord r if en from the dead, &c. This is not only
an idle fable, but contrary to known fact ; for it has been long
a very juft obferyation, that as our Lord's Difciples feem to
have had few higher expectations from him than the advance-
ments of a temporal kingdom a j fo they either did not believe, or
but faintly believe, that he Jhould be put to death, and rife again
As to their difbelief of his refurrecYion (which is all I have to
do with now), the matter is very eafily gathered from the whole
conduct of the Apoftles before his crucifixion, but efpecially
from the relations of our Evangelifts of what happened after-
wards. So Mark tells us, that when Mary Magdalen had
feen him after his refurreSlion, Jhe told his Difciples that he was
alive, and had been feen of her \ but they believed her not b ; as
alfo, when two of the Apojlles had feen him, and affirmed it to
the reji, they did not believe them c ; and that upon Chrijl's ap-
pearing to them all afjembled, he upbraided them for their un-
belief and hardnefs of heart, becaufe they believed not them
which had feen him after he was rifen d . St. Luke exprefles
this fomewhat more ftrongly, viz. that when report was made
to the Apoftles of Chnft's refurre&ion, 77:e words of them
(who related it) feerned to them as idle tales, and they believed
them not e . And St. John, fpeaking of himfelf and Peter f , faith,
They knew not the Scripture as yet, that Chrift muft rife again
from the dead. Now after fuch plain teftimonies, there is not
any room left to queftion the truth of the facT:, which by con-
fequence demonftrates the falfehood of the Nazarene Gofpel,
which fuppofes the Apoftle James, not only before Chrift
died, to be perfuaded of his death, but alfo to be very pofitive
See my Vindic. of Matthew, d V. 14.
c. 12. p. 117, 118. ' Ch. xxiv. ii.
b Chap. xvi. 9, 10, 11. ' Ch. xx. 9.
e V. iz, 13.
304 T7j Gofpelofthe Nazarenet PARTITA
in his belief, both before his crucifixion and -afterwards, that
he fhould rife again.
3.) To the two former may be added the account Jerome
more than once gives us out of it, that at our Saviour's cruci-
fixion a lar^e lintel, or beam of the temple (fee above, Chap.
XXV. Numb. XXIV, XXV.) was rent and fell down, con-
trary to three of our Evangelifts, who fay, this happened to
the veil of the temple a at that time.
2. I argue farther, that this Hebrew Gofpel was Apocry-
phal by Prop IX. as it contained Jeveral ludicrous and trifling^
AT filly and fabulous relations. Such certainly is that (referred
to by Origen above, Chap. XXV. Numb. IV. and Jerome,
Numb. xVlII. as alfo Numb. XVII.) concerning Cbrifl's
faying, that his mother, the Holy Ghojl, laid hold of him by one
of his hairs, and carried him into the great mountain Thabor^
&c. And that of the Holy Ghoft's faying, My Son, during
all the time ofjhe Prophets I was waiting for thee, that I might
reft upon thee, for thou art my reft; mentioned by Jerome,
Numb. XVI. Such is that of the rich man's fcratching his
head, when Chrift bad him fell all, and give to the poor, men-
tioned by Origen, Numb. V.
3. It may be farther proved Apocryphal by Prop. X. as it
contained things later than the times of their being faid, or in
which it pretended to be written. Such feems to me that de-
claration faid to be made by our Saviour above, (Chap. XXV.
Numb. XII.) that he came to abolijh all facrifices, and denounce
the wrath of God upon all thofe who did fac rifice. It is certain
from the whole of our Saviour's conduct, that he was more
careful than to give any fuch offence to the Jews, and purpofe-
ly declined all fuch exprefs oppofition to, and abolimment of,
the Mofaiclc ceconomy, as in feveral other inftances is obvious
to obferve. I take this therefore to be the forgery of a perfon,
who lived not only after our Saviour's time, but even after
the time of St. Matthew's writing, when the controverfy was
hot between the Gentile and Judaifing Chrift ians. Such alfo
1 Mat.xxvii. 51, Mai k xv. 38. Luke xxiii. 45.
feems
CHAP. xxix. made out of St. Matthew's. 305
feems to me that compellation, with which our Saviour ad-
dreffes himfelf to James ( in that paflage of Jerome, Numb.
XIV.) Mi frater, my brother, a tide not known to be given
by our Saviour, nor in thofe early times when St. Mat-
thew wrote, but afterwards very common among the Chrif-
tians.
Thus much may fuffice to prove the Gofpel of the Naza-
renes Apocryphal j I fhall conclude with a fhort account,
V. Of what feems moft probable to me, of the nature and
defign of this famous book^ with fome Jhort account of the hereticks
who received it.
I take it to have been an early tranjlation of the Greek Gof-
pel of St. Matthew into Hebrew, with the addition of many fa-
bulous relations and erroneous doflrines, compofed in the name of
the Twelve Apojlles, by fome convert or converts to Chrijlianity
among the Jews^ who with their profejjion of Chrtfl retained
their zeal and affection for the law of Mofes^ with the mojl fre-
pojterous and abfurd notions concerning Chrijl and the Chriftian
religion.
The feveral parts of this hypothefis will appear by the
following aphorifms.
1. The Gofpel of St. Matthew was originally written in
Greek) and not In Hebrew. This I having fo largely proved
in another book (hall take here for granted. See Vindication
of St. Matthew's Gofpel, Chap. XVII, XVIII, XIX.
2. TJjat the Nazarene Gofpel was compiled out of St. Mat-
thew's is very evident, becaufe it is fo frequently called by his
name (as above), which cannot be imagined to have happened
upon any other fuppofition, fince there was another Gofpel ex-
tant under his name. One remark I have made out of a Frag-
ment of it in Epiphanius, Chap, preced. Numb. XL which
feems to me to demonftrate, that it was made out of St. Mat-
thew's Greek. For whereas in this we read, chap. iii. 4.
That John the Baptiji's food in the wildernefs uas axp.'Jsf x
/** ygo, i. e. locujts and wild honey j inftcad thereof in the
VOL. I. X Nazarene
306 ltl;y called that of the Twelve Apojtles. PART II.
Nazarene Gofpel we read, bis food was p<>i ay^ O v ytver^ l
TW Mava i; tyxp's, wild honey, whofe tajle was like manna, or
cakes made with honey and oil. Now forafmuch as it is cer-
tairio that locufts were a very common food in thofe Eaftern
countries, as is undeniably proved by Bochart ", and fuch food
feems very agreeable to the reft of John's w^y of life, it is
but reafonuble to conclude our prefent Greek reading (viz.
a*f&) to be the true and authentic one ; and if fo, then it is
evident that this Nazarene Gofpel was a tranflation of St.
Matthew's Greek, and that the Tranflator read lyxpi^ i.:ftead
of axpi^if, and being a Jew, accuftomed to the ufe of the Sep-
tuagint Greek Bibles, very probably was led thereto by the
Septuagint tranflation of thofe words, Exod. xvi. 31. TO $
yivpa. avrS us iyxgli; In /^j'Xm, Or as it is in Num. xi. 8. Kai r,v i)
Wori ctvr* us-el yivpa, lyxfi<; If Ixia. And this by the way feems
a very demonftrative proof, that St. Matthew's prefent Greek
was not a tranflation out of Hebrew, feeing there was no pof-
fibility of fuch a miftake in reading the Hebrew word, as to
translate it a'x^?, where it ought to have been tranflated
3. That it pretended to be made by the Twelve Apoftles,
is evident from its hearing that title ; as alfo from a paflage of
that Fragment in Epiphanius, (which is above, Numb. XI )
where we read, there was a certain man named Jefus^ about
thirty years of age, who chofe us to be his Apojlles : where it
is plain the writer fpeaks in the name of them all, or at leaft
of feveral ; juft as in the pretended Conftitutions of the Apof-
tles, we continually read of exhortations and commands given
in the name of all the Apoftles. Nor do I know any reafon
for difputing whether it bore this title, fave only that Beda is
fuppofed to diftinguifti between the Gcfpel of the Hebrews^
and the Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles> in the place
above cited, Chap. XXVI. Numb. I. See the paflage at
length in Sixtus Seneniis b : but upon a ftrict enquiry I do
a Hiero?oic. par. 2. '1. 4. c. 7. thew.
S.-e aJfb Sir Norton Knatchhiill's b BiMioth. Sanft. 1. 2. p. 64.
Annotations on that place of Mat- ad voc. Hcbiaeoruin.
not
CHAP. XXIX. Full of fabulous Stories* 307
not perceive that Beda has at all dtftinguifhed them, but ra-
ther that Dr. Grabe a , and Mr. Fabritius b , are miftaken in
fuppofing he did.
4. That It was a very early compofure^ I make no doubt,
from the early mention we have of it. It is not improbable
(as I have faid) that it was referred to by St. Paul in his
Epiftle to the Galatians, which was written about the year of
Chrift LVII or LVIII. It was undoubtedly extant in the
beginning of the fecond century ; though nothing feems more
abfurd than Dr. Grabe's opinion, that it was written before
St. Matthew wrote his. It is like fuppofing the child born
before his father.
5. That it had in it many idle and fabulous, as well as falfe
and erroneous relations^ is largely proved already. Thefe are
fo many, and fo very notorious, that I wonder how Father
Simon could have fo high an opinion either of thcfe, or the
Gofpel that contained them. Can any one unprejudiced give
the preference to fuch a heap of fables and contradictions,
above St. Matthew's plain and confident accounts ?
But becavife that learned writer was fofar prejudiced in fa-
vour of this Hebrew Gofpel, as to prefer it to the Greek of
St. Matthew^ even with all thefe differences, I would argue a
little upon his own hypothefis againft him. Suppofe, then,
our Greek copies of St. Matthew were really a tranflation
out of the Hebrew, in which that Apoftle firft wrote; how
came it to pafs that the Greek tranflation (hould be fo very
different from its original, as it is in every one of the remain-
ing paffages ? This difference cannot be fuppofed to have
happened but upon one of thefe two following accounts ; viz.
either,
Firft, Becaufe the Verfion was made when the Hebrew
original was more pure, and that thefe additions were made
by the Nazarenes afterwards j or,
a Spicilrg. Patr. Seoul. I. t. i. k Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Teft.
p. 16. par. i. p. 351.
X 2 Secondly,
308 Made lyfome Convert Jews. PART n.
Secondly, Becaufe the author of the Greek Verfion epito-
rnifed it, and altered it according to his own mind.
Father Simon % according as it ferved his purpofe, fuppofos
both thefe, though moft evidently contradictory to each other ;
feeing the difference could not proceed from both caufes.
But whichfoever of them we fuppofe true, will overthrow his
hypothecs; for if we fay the firjl, viz. that the Greek Verfion
was made before the Nazarene additions, it follows, their Gof-
pel muft now be efteemed Apocryphal, becaufe the alterations
and additions were fo great, as not to have left fcarce any
thing of St. Matthew remaining : for there is not one of all
the Fragments now extant, but differs from St. Matthew's
Greek ; which, according to the fuppofition, is pure and per-
fect, being made before the Nazarene alterations. If he fay
the latter, viz. that the difference proceeds from the fault of the
Greek tranjlator ; then I anfwer, that this fuppofes the things
in which the Nazarene Gofpel differs from St. Matthew's
Greek, to be good and ufeful ; which is contrary to what has
been above proved.
6. This Hebrew Gofpel, or tranflation of St. Matthew's
Greek into Hebrew, with the forementioned additions and
interpolations, feems to have been made by- fame convert Jews,
ts favour their notions of mixing Judaifm and Chrijlianity to-
gether. That there was very early fuch a fort of perfons of
the Jewifti nations, who were for uniting their old religion
with the new one of Chrift, is evident from a great part of
St. Paul's Epiftles; three of which feem purpofely to be
written againft them ; viz. That to the Romans, Galatians t
and Hebrews. That thefe were principally delighted with
the Golpel intitled, According to the Hebrews (u /*Xir
'E'fgaw* ol rot Xpr*t 7raJi|a'jtAo ^aipsui), we are exprefsly affured
by Eufebius", as well as by many other antient writers. Of
this Gofpel they had fo prodigioufly great an opinion, that
for the fake of it they contemned and reje tied all others, and only
> See his Crit. Hift. of N. T. " Hiftor, Ecclef. lib. 3. c. 25.
part i. c..7,9-
made
CHAP. xxix. Concerning the Nazarenes^ &c.
309
made ufe of this : fo we are told by Irenseus a , Eufebius b , and
others. Now hence it feems undeniably to follow, that there
were in this Gofpel feveral things which favoured their pecu-
liar notions, and confequently that it was made by fome Chrif-
tianifed Jew, or rather Judaifmg Chriftian c .
That which remains is only to give fome brief account of
the Nazarenes, who ufed this Gofpel.
They are faid by Epiphanius to have arofe from fome Chrif-
tian Jews^ -who went from 'Jerusalem to Pella A . It is very
uncertain why they were called by this name. He who has a
mind may fee a plaufible account in Dr. Mangey's Anfwer to
Mr. Toland's Nazarenus^ c. viii. Out of thefs fprang the
Ebionites, who had in a great meafure the jarr.e opinions with
the Nazarenes e , and yet are made two diftinct fets by Epi-
phanius. The truth is, they are fo confounded by that Fa-
ther, that one can fcarce tell how to give any clear account of
them. But to do it. in the beft manner I can, I {hall give the
reader an abftracl: out of Irenzus, Eufebius, and Epiphanius,
in the following manner.
Concerning the Nazarenes.
1. They maintained the
perpetual obligation of the
law of Mofes, and differed
only from the Jews, in that
they profeiTed the name of
Chrift, and urged, as necef-
fary, the ufe of facrifices, cir-
cumcifion, &c. f
2. They denied^the Divi-
nity of Chrift, afierting him
Concerning the Ebionites.
1. They obliged them-
felves to the obfervation of all
things commanded in the law
of Mofes, fuch as facrifices,
circumcifion, &c. profefled
enemies to St. Paul and his
writings, becaufe he wrote fo
warmly againft the law g .
2. They all looked upon
Chrift as a mere creature ;
A.lv. Hneref. I. i. c. 26.
b Eccl. Hift. i. 3. c.2 7 .
c This would probably admit no
doubt, if more of it had been pre-
ferved .
4 Haeref. 29. . y. SecaifoEu-
feb. Hift. Ecclefiaft. lib. 3. c. 5.
c Epiph. Haeref. 29. . i.
' Id. . 7.
E Iren. adv. Haeref. lib. i . c. 26.
Eufcb. 1. 3. c. 27. Epiph. Haer.
a- 30. . i, 2.
X 3 to
3 io
to be a mere man ; fo we
read in Theodoret, that they
looked upon him only as a
juft and good man. Haer.
fab. 1. ii. c. 2. a
3. They ufed the Gofpel
according to Matthew in the
Hebrew, moft entire, accord-
ing to Epiphanius, who add?,
that he was uncertain whe-
ther they had taken away out
of it the genealogy from A-
braham to Chrift, or no rf .
The Nazarenes and
PART II.
fome afTerting him a mere
man, born, as other men, of
Jofeph and Mary b . Others
confefled him to have come
from Heaven, but made before
all, and being a fuperangelical
Creature, had the dominion of
alK
3. They made ufe of St.
Matthew's Gofpel alone 6 , and
that in Hebrew f , but accord-
ing to Epiphanius, not entire,
but corrupted and adulterat-
ed ?, and took away the ge-
nealogy from it h , and be-
gan their Gofpel with thefe
words ; And it came to pafs in
the days of Herod ', &c.
It is plain therefore, that there was a very great agreement
between thefe two antient feels ; and though they went under
different names, yet they feem only to differ in this, that the
Ebionites had made fome additions to the old Nazarene fyf-
tem ; for Origen exprefsly tells us k , K 'o a ro xppari&o-H
o ito 'itictauu* to 'li)ffK <i? Xftroy ivaf$i<*fji.tvoi, 'They "were called
Ebionites, who from among the Jews own Jefus to be the
Chrijl. And though Epiphanius feems to make their Gof-
pels different, calling one le^era., moft entire, the other a
not entire, yet this need not move us ; for if the
Epiphanius indeed was uncer-
tain of it ; hut the matter cannot be
queftioned by any who read what
he hath wrote. Haer. 29. . 7, Sec.
Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3.
. 27. and Haer. 30. . 2.
c Haer. 30. . 3.
* Haeref. 29. . 9.
e Iren. adv. Haeref. lib. x. 0.26.
f Eufcb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3.
.27.
g Haeref. 30. .13.
h Ibid.
4 Ibid.
k Contr. Celf. lib. 2. p. 56.
See the fame alfo Epift. Hier. ad
Auguftin. Vid. Spencer. Anno-
tation, in loc. Orig. p. 33, 34..
learned
CHAP. XXX. Ebionltes the fame. 311
learned Cafaubon's conje&ure fhould not be right, that we
Jhould read the fame, viz. a tsKr^a.'rov, in both places a (which
yet is very probable for any thing Father Simon has proved
to the contrary): yet will the difficulty be all removed at once
by this fingle confideration, that Eptphanius never faw any
Gofpel of the Nazarenes ; for though he calls it vr^irct-rov, yet
he himfelf fayS, x o!&t & si xal rets ymaXoyiaj *fifXov b , that he
did not know whether they had taken away the genealogy as the
Ebionites had done, i. e. having never feen the Nazarene Gof-
pel, for ought he knew, it might be the very fame with that
of the Ebionites, as indeed it moft certainly was.
CHAP. XXX.
The AcJs of Paul and Thecla extant in the Bodleian Library,
and publijhed by Dr. Grabe. Atts of Paul a different Book.
Thefe falfely fuppofed by Dr. Mill to be wrote by faithful
Cbri/liansy A. D. LX1X. to fupply the Defers of Luke's
Hijlory of the Apofiles' Afls. A filly Forgery rejected by all
the Antients who name it. The Preaching of Paul and Pe-
ter one Book . A Book under the Name of Paul. The Ana-
baticon or Revelation of Paul generally thought to have been
two Books. A ridiculous Blunder of Mr. Tola nd's^ relating
to it. Proved by fever al Arguments to be only different Titles
of the fame Book. A Conjecture concerning a PaJJage of Ter-
tullian, wherein he refers to this Book. The Title of a Re-
velation under the Name of Paul now extant in a Mantt-
fcript in the Library of Alerton College at Oxford.
Numb. XLIII. The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA.
THESE are mentioned by Tertullian, and from him by
Jerome, and afterwards by Gelafius.
a See this conjefture in his Ex- Critic. Hilt, of the New Teft. par.
ercitations againit' Baronius, ad i. 0.7. p. 65. Fabrit. Cod. A-
Ann. Chriiti XXXIV. N. 165. poc. N. T. par. i. p. 369.
p. 4.86. It is rejected by Simon, b Haeref. 29. in fine.
X 4 I. Tertullian,
The Afts of Paul and
PART II.
I. Tertullian*, in his Treatife
Quod fi qui Pauli perperam
fcripta legunt, exemplum
Theclae ad licentiam mulie-
rum docendi tingendique de-
fendunt, fciant in Afia pref-
byterum qui earn Scripturam
conftruxit, quafi titulo Pauli
de fuo cumulans, convi&um,
atque confefliim, id fe amore
Pauli feciffe, loco difceffifle.
of Baptifm, mentions it thus.
But if any read the Apocry-
phal Books of Paul, and de-
fend the right of women to
preach and baptife, by the
example of Theda, let them
confider, that a Prefbyter of
Afia, who forged that book,
and adorned his performance
with the title of Paul> was
convicted (of the forgery),
and confefled that he did it
out of refpecT: to Paul, and
thereupon left his place.
2. Jerome, in his Life of Luke b .
Periodos Pauli et Thecla?, et
totam baptifati leonis fabulam,
inter Apocryphas Scripturas
computamus. Quale enim
eft, ut individuus comes A-
poftoli inter cseteras ejus res
hoc folum ignoraverit ? Sed
et Tertullianus, vicinus eo-
rum temporum, refert Pref-
byterum quendam in Afia,
ffirtiSolrw, i. e. amatorem Pauli,
convi&um apud Joannem
quod au&or effet libri, et
confefTum fe hoc Pauli amore
fecifle, et loco excidifle.
Cap. 17.
The Atts of Paul and Thecla,
and the whole Jlory of the bap'
tifed lion, I reckon among the
Apocryphal Scriptures j for
what fort of thing muft it be,
which the conftant companion
of the Apoftle fhould be ig-
norant of, and no other thing
which he 'did ? But Tertul-
lian, who lived near thofe
times, relates, that a certain
Prefbyter of Afia, an admirer
of Paul, being convicted by
St. John, that he was the au-
thor of the book, confefled
that he did it out of love to
Paul, and fo left his place.
k Catal. vir. illuft. in Luca.
3, Gelafius,
CHAP. xxx. Tfjecla now extant.
313
3. Gelafius, in his decree.
Liber, qui appellatur Aclus The Book, which is called
Theclae et Pauli, Apocry- The Affs of Tkecla and Paul,
phus. is Apocryphal *.
I need not be at much pa'rns here in making any critical
remarks on this book. The learned Dr. Grabe has lately
publifhed, out of a manufcript in the Bodleian library, a book
x.?uz { , The Martyrology^ or Atts of the pious and celebrated
firjl Martyr , and Apoftle Thecla b . This he believes c to be
the very fame with the Ats of Paul and Thecla, mentioned
by Tertullian, Jerome, and Gelafius ; and indeed there is this
good argument to fupport his opinion, that what Tertullian
faith was urged out of thefe Acts, viz. the example of Thecla y
to countenance the praflice of women's preaching and baptifing^
is to be found in this manufcript which he has publifhed \ fee
p. 114, 116, &c. I muft therefore look upon this as a book
extant, and fo (hall defer the confideration of it to the next
volume of this work, where I defign (God willing) to pro-
duce this and other fuch pieces now extant, in their original
languages, with an Englifh tranflation.
Numb. XLIV. The A C T S of P A U L.
COncerning this old Apocryphal piece, we have but very
little that is certain now left. It is mentioned ;
I. By Origen, giving a defcription of Chrift d .
Unde et recle mihi di&us vi- Wherefore that faying feems
detur fermo ille, qui in Acti- to me right, which is written
Mr. Toland (Amyntor. p. book mentioned in either place.
30.) has the goodr.eis to refer us to b Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. t. i.
a place in St. Auftin, and another p 95-
in Epiphanius, where thefe Afts are c Ibid. p. 90, 95.
mentioned : but I muft do him the d Lib. i. Hep* agp^w> parum ab
juitice to tell him, there is no iuch initio, cap. 2.
bus
3Ij f, The dels of Paul. PART II.
bus Pauli fcriptus eft, Quia in the Atts of 'Paul ', That this
hie eft Verbum, animal vi- is the Word^ a living animal.
vens.
2. By the fame 3 .
E? TO & pkov vattaXZxrSxi But if any one pleafe to ad-
T lv tout iWxs uTfa'Hso-iV mit that whic ^ is written in
- /^ ARs of Paul y as fpoken by
our Saviour, I am about to be
crucified again.
3. By Eufebius b .
O-JJg *r p T? ^iyo/Ava,' aura As for that book, which is
- intided * J^s tf Paul, I
^ have not found it among thofe
of undoubted authority.
4. By the fame c .
*E TO?? vo'S-oK K*raTsretx$u We Afls of Paul are to be
x*i T. RauAa W^CM ' ranked amon thofe b ks
% a
r,, &C.
which are fpurious.
5. By Philaftrius d .
Habent Manichaei - Aclus The Manichees have alfo the
Pauli pariter Apocryphi, &c. ^?j of Paul, which are Apo-
cryphal.
Thefe are the feveral places where thefe A&s are men-
tioned. I readily agree with Dr. Grabe e , they were not the
fame with the Acls of Paul and Thecla in the lnji number; but
muft utterly diflent from him in faying, that Eufebius places it
in the catalogue of books which were doubted of only by forne :
whereas nothing can be more plain, than that he ranks it with <
the K&OI?, or fpurious books j which are in the worft clafs.
Tom. 21. in Joann. nag. 298. Se? it above in this part, Chap.
h Hilt. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. XXI.
1 C. 35. Lib. cit. p. 86.
* Haficf. Apocrypha qua eft 87.
Nor
CHAP. XXX. Rejected by Eufebius. 315
Nor is it lefs abfurd in Dr. Mill a to fuppofe, that theft A&s of
Paul were complied by fame faithful Chrijlians about the year
of ' Chrijl LXIX. tofupply (as he calls it) imperfe&am hifto-
riam Pauli quam tradiderat Lucas, i. e. thofe imperfeft ac-
counts which are contained in the (now received) Afls of the
Apojlles which were written by Luke. For befides that he
offers no manner of argument for his hypothefis, it is fuffi-
cient to deftroy it, that Eufebius reckons it among the fpurious
books, and Philaftrius among thofe filly books, which contained
abundance offtrangeftories, about dogs and beaJJs fpeaking, &c.
and for that reafon, that the fouls of men were like the fouls of
thofe animals. Although I cannot but here own, that perhaps
Philaftrius may fpeak of thofe Acts of Paul which are men-
tioned by Pnotius b , and attributed to Leucius Charinus by
him.
As to the two paflages taken out of thefe Acts by Origen,
it is plain he appeals to them, and the book whence he takes
them, not as being of authority. Accordingly he introduces
them thus : The faying fe ems to me right, and if any one pleafe
to admit that which is written in the Al$ of Paul, See. which
are forms of fpeech he would never have ufed concerning any
book, which he thought to be of undoubted authority. Be-
fides, to fay nothing of the firft of thofe paflages, which is
moft obfcure and unintelligible, to fay no worfe, viz. That he
Is the Word, a living Animal \ the latter is borrowed from a
moft ridiculous hiftory, which is ftill extant in the fabulous
Lives of the Apojiles under the name of Abdias (viz. in the Life
of Peter, c. 19.) The ftory in fhort is, " That after the
" decree of Nero to apprehend Peter at Rome, he was at length
*' prevailed upon by his friends, contrary to his own incline-
" tions, to endeavour his efcape j accordingly having in the
" night fled as far as the city gates, he faw Chrijl coming to
" meet him : to ivhom he faid, Lord! Whither art thou going?
" Chrijl anfwered, I come to Rome to be crucified again (which
Prolegom. in Nov. Teftana. . b Cod. CXIV. See the place
3 t large above, Chap. XXI.
are
31 6 Paul and Peter's Preaching. PART n:
" are the words of the paflage In Origen) : Peter under/food
" this as an intimation that he ought tofuffer, and thereupon
" returned^ and was crucified."
Upon the whole, then, it is reafonable to conclude thefe
Aas of Paul Apocrypha], by Prop. IV, V, VI, and IX ; and
therefore that Mr. Whifton is much miftaken, when he fays
it is to be looked upon in fome fenfe as a facred book 3 .
Numb. XLV. The Preaching of PAUL and PETER.
HIS antient Apocryphal book appears very clearly to have
JL been the fame with that intitled, The Preaching of
Peter ; not only from fome paflages in Clemens Alexandri-
nus, but from the account which Lactantius b gives of it. Pe-
ter and Pau^ fays he, preached at Rome, and that preaching
continues Ji '///, being committed to writing : but though it went
under both the name of Paul and Peter, yet it generally was
called by the name of Peter ; and therefore I fhall defer the
confideration of it, till I come to confider the books under his
name in the enfuing chapters. See Chap. XXXIII. Numb.
LII.
Numb. XL VI. A BOOK under the NAME of
PAUL.
AS for this book, although I indeed placed it in the cata-
logue, Part I. yet upon an after and more careful en-
quiry into it, I find it fo evident, that it was a book forged by
cne Lucian^ a ConfeJJor^ in the middle of the third century , in
the name of Paul the Martyr y and not St. Paul the Apojlle^ as
fome have thought, that I fhall think it enough to refer the
reader to the places in Cyprian where this is moft manifeft.
See Epift. 22, 23, in the beginning of each.
Eflay on Conftit. p. 24. k Lib. 4. c. *i.
Numb.
CHAP. xxx. The Revelation of PauL
3*7
IV.c)c-ixoi
o 'Ai/-
Numb. XLVIL- The REVELATION, or
ANABATICON of PAUL.
I HAVE given this book thefe two different titles, becaufe
I find it went under both among the antients ; though it
has been thought by feveral learned men, that they were the
tides of two different books. How true this is, I {hall en-
quire, after I have nrft produced the places where it is men-
tioned by the antients. Thefe are,
1. Epiphanius a, who gives us the following account of it:
fpeaking concerning the ridiculous fefl of the Caianites b t
and an abfurd book of their tenets, adds ;
j AAo <ruj/TyfA*Tioi> That they forged befides an-
other boo^ under the name of
Paul the Apojlle^ full of things
which it was not lawful to
utter ; which they who are
called the Gnojlicks alto ufe,
which they intitle The Ana-
baticon of Paul ; taking the
occafion (of the forgery) from
that faying of the Apoftle,
that he afcended up into the
third heaven, and heard things
which it was not lawful for
men to utter. And thefe, fay
they, are the things.
2. Auftin % fpeaking of the different attainments of fome
good men in knowledge, adds j
Quidam fpiritualium ad ea Some Chriftians arrived to
pervenerunt, quae non licet the knowledge of thofe things
homini loqui ; qua occafione which cannot be uttered : on
Hseref. 38. . 2. Numb. XXVIII.
b Concerning thefe monftrous he- c Traclat. xcviii. in Joan, inip-
rtick, lie above, Chap. XX. fo extremo. T. pp. 9.
vani
tut TJ ira 8<=aKs, xat axn-
> o ' , , -
fo-jptrtru AaA?]<rai.
3'*
Revelation of Paul.
PART II.
vani quiclam Apocalypfin Pau-
li, quam fana non recipit ec-
clefia, nefcio quibus fabulis
plenam ftultifiima praefump-
tione finxerunt, dicentes hanc
efie unde dixerat raptum fe
fuifle in tertium ccelum, et
illic audifTe ineffabilia verba,
quae non licet homini loqui.
Utcunque illorum tolerabilis
eflet audacia, fi fe audiffe dix-
iflet, quae adhuc non licet ho-
mini loqui ; cum vero dixerit
quae non licet homini loqui ;
ifti qui funt, qui haec audeant
impudenter et infeliciter lo-
qui ?
which occafion fome vain per-
fons, with a moft ridiculous
impudence, forged (a book
in titled) The Revelation of
Paul, which the true Church
doth not receive ; it being
rilled with I know not what
fort of ftrange ftories ; pre-
tending that it was on account
of the things contained in this
book, that he faid be was taken
up into the third heavens^ and
there beard unutterable words,
which it was not lawful for a
man to fpeak. Their impu-
dence had indeed been tole-
rable, if he had faid that he
heard things which it was not
lawful as yet for a man to
utter; but fince he fpeaks (ab-
folutely) of things which it
was not lawful at all to utter,
what ftrange fort of perfons
muft they be, who would thus
impudently blunder ?
3. Gelafius, in his Decree.
Revelatio, quae appellatur The Revelation under the
Pauli Apoftoli Apocrypha, name of Paul the Apoftle, is
Apocryphal.
Thefe are all the places within my limited time, in which
this book is mentioned ; though it was in being fome ages
after, as I fliall fhew prefently. I have joined thefe places
together, as fuppofing the Anabaticon of Paul mentioned by
Epiphanius, and the Revelation of Paul mentioned by Auftin
and Pope Gelafius, to be only one and the fame book, under two
different (and indeed fcarce different) titles. I confefs, moft
of
CHAP. xxx. The Anabaticon and Revelation^ &c. 319
of the learned writers that I have feen, who have mentioned
any thing of this matter, fuppofe them to have been two dif-
ferent books. Thus Dr. Cave, enumerating the fpurious
pieces fathered upon St. Paul *, firft recites the Anabaticoii
mentioned by Epiphanius, and then, as diftinft from it, the
Revelation mentioned by Auftin : fo Du Pin alfo recites
them diftinc"lly b , though in a note at the bottom of the page
he feems to think they were the fame. Dr. Grabe c not only
fuppofes them different books^ but made at very different times^
vrz. the Anabaticon in the fecond century ', and the Revelation
in the latter end of the fourth^ between the years 396 and 392.
Mr. Spanheim d alfo, and Father Simon % recite them as tw
different books. So alfo (as one would imagine) after thefe
does Mr. Toland, to augment his catalogue f ; but nothing-
can be more humorous than to obferve his blunder herein.
He firft places the Revelation of Pain ', and refers to Epipha-
nius, Hasref. 38. . 2. which is the place where he mentions
the Anabaticon, and then in tJie next page recites the Anaba-
ticon of St. Paul, and refers to the fame place of Epiphanius
(viz. Haeref. 38. . 2.) ; which is, as if he had faid, The Ana-
baticon and Revelation of Paul are two diftinft books^ and they
are ft) because Epiphanius mentions but one. Such miftake?, fo
frequent, are, to fay no worfe, unbecoming any man that pre-
tends to learning. I defire Mr. Toland to be more careful
and honeft in the future attacks he threatens to make upon
the Canon. But to leave him. Mr. Fabritius g , following
Dr. Grabe, fuppofes the Revelation and Anabaticon books of
two different fubje&s, viz. the latter containing the fancies of
the Gnojlicks^and the former made not till the end of the fourth
century by fame Chrijiian monks , containing the rules of their
way of life.
Notwithftanding this fo great agreement of learned writers
in this matter, I think the contrary opinion moft undeniable,
Hiftor. Liter, in Paulo, p. 7. e Crit. Hift. of New Teft. c. 3.
b Hift. of the Canon, Vol. II. p. ^6.
Chap. VI. .6. p. 119, 130. f Amyntor. p. 32.
c Spicileg. Patr. SecuL I. p. E Cod. Apocr. Nov. Tcilam.
84-1 85. par. 2. p. 94.5.
* Hiftor. Chiilt. Sccul. I. p. 58.
310 The Anabatlcon and Revelation PART II.
viz. that the Anabaticon of Paul mentioned by Epiphanius,
and the Revelation mentioned by Auftin and Gelafius, were
one and the fame book. And this I argue,
Firft, From the confideration that the defign, occafion of
writing^ as well as the mainfubjeft of the Anabaticon and tht
Revelation were the fame. This will appear by a comparifon
of Epiphanius and Auftin together a .
s concerning the St. Aujlin concerning the
Anabaticon of Paul. Revelation of Paul.
The occafion of this forgery The occafion of this -Revela-
was St. Paul's faying, He af- tion was, that fome Chriftians
cended into the third heavens^ had arrived to the knowledge
and heard things which it was of things which it was not
not lawful to utter. lawful to utter.
That he means Paul, is
plain by what follows.
The contents of this book This book pretended to give
were the unutterable things an account of thofe things
which Paul heard in the third which St. Paul heard, and
heavens. *a.\ -rxv-ra., $aur}*, &c. faid, were unutterable.
Thefe muft be the contents of the fame book ; agreeable to
which,
Secondly, The titles Anabaticon and Apocalypjis were both ad-
jujled; the former denoting Paul's afcent and the vifinns he
had in the third heavens ; or, as Mr. Du Pin's Englifh tranf-
lator renders it, The rapture of Paul : the latter denoting the
vifions or revelations^ as in that book difcovered. So that if we
were to tranflate thefe two titles into Englifh, one might not
unjuftly do it thus : The Hi/lory of St. Paul's Afcent into the
third Heavens ; or, An Account of the Vifions and Revelations
which he had there.
This may fuffice to prove thefe only two different titles of
See the places above In thU Chapter.
one
t HAP. xxx. cf Paul Apocryphal. 32 1
pne book ; which difference is very well conjectured a by Dr.
Mill to have happened when this book was afterwards trarf.ated
into Latin.
All that is urged to prove them diftinct books is by Dr.
Grabe and Mr. Fabritius b , viz. that the Revelation is not
mentioned till St. Aujlin, and therefore probably zvas not made
before his time, whereas the Anabaticon was made by the Cai-
anites in the fecond century ; and whereas the former contained
the principles of the Gnojlicks, the latter contained the rules of
the Monaftick life. But both theie objections are founded
upon the ir.oft precarious foundation : for as to the firft, viz.
the books not being mentioned before, it is a plain begging of the
queftion j firft fuppofmg them two diftin<5t bocks, and then
proving they are fo by that fuppofition. Befides, if the filence
of the writers of the age, in or after which any book be fup-
pofed to bs made, be a good argument that it was not then
made, then muft a great number of books be brought many
years back ; and particularly what will become of the anti-
quity of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and the Gofpel of the
Egyptians ? which, though Dr. Grabe fuppofes to be written
before St. Luke's Gofpel, are not either of them mentioned
by name till near three hundred years after Chrift. As to the
latter, viz. the Monks ufmg it, and being delighted with it, k
is much weaker than the former. The argument ftands fairly
thus : the Monks of the fourth century were much delighted
with the Revelation of Paul, therefore it was made then :
they ufed it, therefore they forged it. Sczomen indeed re-
lates a fabulous account of this Revelation being found in the
time ofTheodofms the Emperor, in a marble chrji^ hid under-
ground at the houfe of St. Paul, at Tarfus in Cilicia, to which
they were directed by God ; but he adds, that he was affured by
a Prejbyter of Tarfus, who was very old, that this uas r.ot
fatt \ but he fuppojl-d the book forged by the Hereticks. He far-
ther fays, it was a book much commended by the Monks c ; but
* Prolcgom. in Nov. Teftr.m. C"p:tv.'.
f. 36+. ' : ihit. rcclsf. 1. vii. c. 19.
b Locis I'upra ailfp;atis in hoc
VOL. I. Y there
322 APafrageofTertullian. PART II.
there is nothing in this ftory that will prove it a forgery of
that time ; for the book may be fuppofed extant long before,
but by this artifice of the Monks impofed upon the world, as
more valuable and extraordinary.
The Anabaticon therefore, and the Revelation of Paul,
being one and the fame book, it only remains now, that I en-
deavour to prove it Apocryphal : and that it is fo, is evident
by Prop. IV, V, and VI. I add alfo, by Prop. VIII, as the
whole defign of it was contrary to a known and undoubted
fact. 2 Cor. xii. 4, &c. St. Paul there fays, be beard unutter-
able "Words (ailpiTK ftiuctret a, ax. t|o> aSp7ro; AaXijcro*) which it
was not in the power of any man to declare : which if it be
true (as the book itfelf fuppcfes), then they attempted in
writing what was utterly impoflible to be wrote, and fo un-
happily blundered, as that the whole defignof their work was
a mere contradiction to the title. (See Auftin above.)
Tertullian a has a paflage in his Book agalnft tbe Hereticks y
which (if my judgment do not much fail me) may be very
juftly applied to this Revelation of Paul ; and if it may, will
afford a good argument to prove it Apocryphal. He is treat-
ing concerning the harmony of the Apoftles' doctrines j and
then adds b ,
Sed et fi in tertium ufque Yea, and though Paul was
ccdum ereptus Paulus, et in taken up to the third hea-
Paradifum dehtus,audiit quas- vens, and being brought into
dam illic ; non pollunt videri Paradifc, heard fome certain
ea fuifle, quae ilium in aliam things there, they cannot be
doctrinam inftructiorem prae- thought fuch, as would make
ftarent ; cum ita fuerit con- him capable of preaching any
ditio eorum, ut nulii homi- .new doctrines; feeing they
num proderentur. Quod fi ad were of that fort, that they
alicujus confcientiam manavit could not be revealed or com-
nefcio quid illud, et hoc fe municated to any man. But
if any one imagine be have tie
knowledge of thefe Jlrangf n-
3 De Praefcript. adv. Hxret. c . * Lcc. cit.
aliqiu
CHAP. Xxx. A Revelation of Paul extant. 323
aliqua hserefis fequi affirmat, velations^ and there be any
aut Paulus fecreti proditi reus fort of Hereticks^ who declare
eft, aut et aliuspoftea in Pa- they will be governed by them^
radifum ereptus debet oftendi, (let them confider), that ei-
cui permiffum fit eloqui quae ther Paul muft have been
Paulo mutire non licuit. guilty of betraying the fecret
committed to him, or elfe
they muft produce fome other
perfon, who has fmce been
taken up to Paradife, who
had permiffion to fpeak thofe
things freely, of which St.
Paul durft not utter a word.
Nothing can be more probable, than that thefe words have
a reference to the written Revelations we are treating of. It
is certain by the pafiage, that there were fome who pretended
to know what St. Paul faw in the third heavens, and that ther
were a peculiar fort of Hereticks, who governed themfelves
according to them. How little different this is from what
Epiphanius above fays of the Gnofticks and Caianites, every
unprejudiced reader will acknowledge, who compares the
places. In this interpretation I have the fatisfadion to agree
with Pamelius a , who remarks on thefe words of Tertullian
thus : You fee there have been fome who affirmed they both knew
and read In a writing of St. Paul's o^vn^ the fecrets he heard
in Heaven ; affirming that he both preached them^ and committed
them to ivriti.ig. This learned writer afterwards cites the
place of Epiphanius concerning the Anabaticon, that of Auftin
and Gelafius concerning the Revelation, as all fpeaking of
one and the fame book.
Upon the whole then, it is evident it was a fpurious piece ;
and that as neither Paul did nor could write it, fo neither could
any one elfe give any true account of what that book pre-
tended to. I only add, that Dionyfms Alexandrinus, a noted
writer early in the third century, allures us b , ntXa oj<* ru
Annot. in Loc. Tertull. b Apud Eufcb. Hift. Ecclef.
lib. vii. c. 25.
Y 2 !?nroX4'
324 ' The Afts of Peter. PART 11.
iyr'j'a>rc^ TI xac rft rut avcxaA^fi'v aire, a? KX. irryparx)"
x*<j' ai-rc'f. That though Paul in bis Ep'iflles has made fome
mention of bis Revelations, yet he never committed them to
writing ; and that as Mr. Du Pin fays, the Egyptians boa/1 of
having this Revelation by them to this very day*: fo Dr.
Grabe b tells us of a manttfcript in the library of Merton Col-
lege in Oxford, intitled thus, The Revelation of Paul, (contain-
ing what pafled) in tbofe three days', when upon his being
called and converted by Cbrift, he fell upon the ground, and [aw
nothing ; being an account of the Revelations he had from St.
Aftchael, concerning the various and dreadful punijhments of
purgatory and bell, and who it was that f.rjl prevailed upon
the Lord to grant reft to the fouls in purgatory on every Lord's
day afterwards, to the end of the world. But neither of thefe
were the old Revelation, of which I have been treating, but
much later forgeries.
CHAP. XXXI.
77;* Aft* of Peter \ or, The Travels of Peter, and the Recogni-
tions of Clemens , differing Titles of the fame Book now ex-
tant. The Preaching and Dotlrir.e of Peter the fame Book.
The Gofpel of Peter, Mark's Gofpel formerly afcribed to
Peter; and the Reafons of it. Peter's Gofpel not composed
by Leucius, as Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill fuppofe, but a for-
gery of the Hereticks called Doceta, and perhaps the fame as
the Gofpel of Bajilides, This proved probable by fever al Ar~
gwmnts.
Numb. XLVIII. The ACTS of PETER.
UNDER the name of this Apoille I find mention among
the antients of feveral fpurious pieces ; and particularly
by feveral of certain Acts ; viz.
Hift. of the Canon, Vol. II. b Sp:c',lt-g. Patr; t. i. p. 8c.
r. 6. . 6. p. 130.
I. By
CHAP. XXXI.
The Ads of Peter.
325
i. By Eufebius 3 .
Toys ur.v TOJV iTTWAhr.pwuv It is certain, that the book
n .' aitsuv 3<T fow? intitled, Tfo Ads of Peter
cu 7r va9-6>iy.o7" '/c-.'V 73- a- * S nOt ^7 ^^ meanS tO ^ C
reckoned among the Canoni-
cal books ; inafmuch as none
of the antients, nor any of our
Ecclefiaftical writers, have
taken teftimonies out of it.
1 r^aj T;J K-
(ruyfg*?u TAK
ji*gTu-
Ta
rrij VE*?
rri? va?
AA wa'iT* Ji-
ra xaXa/*v EV u-
j'Aia, x1o,- TW> ?ra-
2. By Athanafius b .
xn? M- The Apocryphal books of the
New Teftament are thefe,
The ARs (or Journeys) of
Peter, &c. They are all
falfe, fpurious, and to be re-
jected ; none of thofe Apo-
cryphal books of the New
Teftament have been either
approved, or are ufeful, but
they have all been judged
Apocryphal, i. e. rather to be
concealed than read, by the
antient wife men and Fathers,
which contain any thing con-
trary to the books above re-
cited c ; as alfo all other Gof-
pels befides thofe four deli-
- vered to us.
3. By Jerome d in the Life of Peter.
Libri autem ejus, e quibus But thofe (other) books
unus A&orum ejus infcribi- (called) Peter's, among which
tur, alius Evangelii, tertius one is His Atts^ another his
Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3.
In Synopf. verfus fin.
He alludes to his catalogue of
the Canonical books, which he had
before given.
d Catal. vir. illuftr. in Petro.
3 Prsedicationis,
326 The ARs of Peter. PART n.
Praedicationis, quartus Apo- Gofpel, a third his Preaching,
calypfeos, quintus Judicii, in- a fourth his Revelation, a
ter Apocrypha* Scripturas re- fifth his Judgment, are reck-
putantur. oned amopg the Apocryphal
Scriptures.
4. By Epiphanius a , concerning the Ebionites.
Xrorixt t\ xai aAAas? TIC-J They make ufe of fame other
(3/ixoK, &$, T *r? ^is'Jo.? books, fuch as thofe called
x*X.t'**ic niT, TV *.* The Acls (or Journeys) of Pt-
/^r, wrote by Clemens, in
, . , , , . r ,. ,
which they have left very little
that J3 truCj but infened many
fpurious accounts.
5. By Gelafius, in his Decree.
Itinerarium nomine Petri A- The Journeys under the name
poftoli, quod appellatur fencH of Peter the Apoftle, which are
Clementis libri och> (alii de- called The eight (other copies
cent} Apocryphum. read ten) Books of Clemen s t
are Apocryphal.
6. By the fame, a little after.
A&us nomine Petri Apoftoli The Jffls under the name of
Apocryphi. Peter the Apojlle are Apo-
cryphal.
Concerning thefe Acls of Peter it feems very hard to form
any certain determination : I have here recited the teftimo-
nies of the Afts and Periods, or Travels of Peter, together, as
of one book. The latter title undoubtedly belongs to that
book now extant, called, The Recognitions of Clement j and
whether the former alfo did not, I confefs I cannot tell. For
though Gelafius does indeed mention them as diftindl, yet it
is obfervable, that in the firft editions of that Pope's Decree
there was no fuch diftinclion, nor any mention at all of the
Atts of Peter. Dr. Grabe b fuppofes them to have been dif-
Ilaeref. 30. .15. k Spicileg. Pa.tr. t. j. p. 78.
ferent
CHAP. xxxi. The Go/pel of Peter. 327
ferent books, not only becaufe of this paiTage of Gelafius, but
becaufe the Periods or Travels never went under the name of
Peter, but Clemens ; whereas the Atts always did. But in
this he is miftaken, the Travels being as exprefsly attributed
to Peter, in th f ; place now cited of Athanafius, as the Afts
can be any where elfe ; fo that, for ought I am able yet to fee
to the contrary, tbefe AcJs of Peter, and the Travels of Peter^
written by Clemens, were the fame book ; and fo being now
extant, do not fall any farther under conllderation here, but
muft be referred to their proper place in the next volume.
Numb. XLIX. The DOCTRINE of PETER.
THIS has been clearly proved by Dr. Cave a and Dr.
Grabe b , to be the fame book with that intitled, The
Preaching of Peter ; and therefore (hall be confidered there,
Numb. LII. and the place of Origen, where it is men-
tioned, produced.
Numb. L. The GOSPEL of PETER.
THIS Apocryphal Gofpel has been taken notice of by
many of the antient writers, whofe accounts I fhall pro-
duce, according to my ufual method ; i. e. the time in which
they lived. It is mentioned,
I. By Serapion, in a treatise which he wrote concerning this
Gofpel of Peter ; of which we have the following account
preferved by Eufebius c .
"Ero? Tf <rvvTtTot,y[jt.iv(&> au- There is another treatife of
TS teyopn* his > which he wrote concern-
Iliroov EJayfeA/a, & in S . the Ge fP el > ndtled, ac-
% i cording to Peter, with defio-n
iTcii onnXiyvuv roe, lUu- 6 . 'cugu
,7 to confute fome falfe afler-
oi<% ri- ,
tions m it, on account of
Hift. Liter, in Petro, p. 5. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 12.
b Lib.jamcit. torn. i. p. 56.
328 Tue Gofpel of Peter. PART n.
v*? Iv TV Kara, 'Pu<r<rcv TZOLD- fome in the parifli of RofTus,
who, through the occafion
of the faid Scripture, fell in-
to fome erroneous doctrines.
It may not be improper to
produce fome few pafiages of
it, in which he declares what
his fentiments were of that
book. He writes thus :
" We, brethren, do receive
" Peter and the other Apof-
" ties even as Chrift ; but
" the fpurious pieces under
" their names, as well know-
" in g
IT*'-
y, wj
/ ~
Ot OVGU,!ZTl MVTMV
r
K-JTUV TZ'
/ , /
'eoS-cou.zvov &^o-
S '
evidence that we have
" received no fuel) things. For
" when I was among you, I
<c fuppofed that all were be-
" lievers of the true doc-
" trine ; and fo not reading
u over the book which they
CTI . T2TO
Nui/ <?t
X X -
^
uo,
oqoicit wv ct-
" faid, If this be the only oc-
" cafion of your contention,
" let the book be read. But
" now perceiving, by what
" 1 am told, that they had
ff minds (viz. which they had
" a mind to fupport by this
" book), I will fpeedily make
<e another vifit to you. But
" we, brethren, know what
" the herefy of Marcianus is,
" who is not confiftent with
" himfelf, not underftanding
CHAP. XXXI
\
Aj
The Gofpel of Peter. 329
' uv J/AiV " what he faid, as you may
TuOtp aAAWI/ TWk 1 aCTXl<rai/TWl>
avro rare TO Euaf-yjAicy, TJJT-
" perceive by what has been
" written to you. For we
" prevailed over thofe others,
" who make ufe of this Gof-
" pel, i. e. over thofe who
aura, a? AOXIJ- were his (viz. Marcia-
rx, yoio TS\I(MO. nus's) fucceflbrs, whom we
call Docetas (for they have
in their fcheme of doctrine
of fenti-
v , ~ , ~ / - <c ments), and having bor-
(,i> srAaoya ra op-Jit Aoya ra . . ~
* / " rowed f//^ /?/</ G^/; of
" many things rightly fpoken
" of our Saviour, and others
<c as bad, which I have fub-
" joined to this Epiftle." So
far Serapion a .
2. By Tertullian b .
Evangelium, quod edidit Mar- The Gofpel, which Mark
cus, Petri adfirmatur, cujus publiflied, is affirmed by fome
interpres Marcus. to be the Gofpel of Peter,
whofe interpreter Mark was.
. HiTCov EJayftAiif,
3. By Origen c .
'I*ii7a <pa.<ri There are fome who fay
the brethren of Chrift (here
mentioned) were the children
of Jofeph, by a former wife,
who lived with him before
Mary j and they are induced
o' e
1 I imagine there is fome defeft
in the Greek of Eufebius, in the
latter part of this paragraph, not
only becaufe the traiiflators Ruffin,
Chriftophef&n, and Valeims prodi-
gloufly difigree, but becaufe it is
icarce capable of ajuft Verfion.
* Lib. 4. adv. Marcion. c. 5.
c Comment, in Matt. xiii. 55.
330 The Gofpel of Peter. , PART n.
ur^oT^as yuv*xs? S-V^KTIXU- to this opinion by fome paf-
Tbe Gofpel of Peter, or the
Book of James.
4. By Eufebius a .
To' T ftU--! XT' auVoi/ ui/o- It is evident, that the book
Euafy iAiov a J' intitled, 72* G0//W of Peter,
is not by any means to be
efteemed Canonical, inafmuch
as none of the antients, nor
any of our Ecclefiaftical writ-
ers, have taken tefti monies
out of it.
By the fame b .
He places it among the books forged by the Hereticks under
fbe dpojiles' names, not received nor cited by any Ecclefiajiical
writer, but to be rejected as impious and abfurd. See the place
at large above, Chap. XXI. Numb. XXXIII.
5. By Jerome, in the Life of Peter c .
Libri autem ejus, e quibus But thofe (other) books (called
unus A&orum ejus infcribi- Peter's), among which one is
tur, alius Evangelii inter his A&s, another his Gofpel
Apocryphas Scripturas repu- are reckoned among the
tantur. Apocryphal Scriptures.
6. By the fame *, in the Life of Serapion.
Alium de Evangelio, quod He compofed alfo another
fub Petri nomine fertur, li- book, concerning the Gofpel
brum compofuit, ad Rhofen- which is carried about under
fem Ciliciae Ecclefiam, quae the name of 'Peter -, infcribed to
in hsrefm ex ejus kaione di- the Church of Roflus in Ci-
verterat. licia > who b X the readin g of
that book had fallen into he-
" refy.
jjjft cc i ] .. c . 3. c Catal. vir. illuftr. in Petro.
" Id. 1. 3. c. i 5 . d Id. in Scrap.
7* ^y
CHAP. xxxi. Why Mark's Gofpel is called Peter's. 331
7. By Gelafms, in his Decree, according to fome editions.
Evangelia nomine Petri A pof- The Gofpels under the name
toli Apocrypha. of Peter the Apoftle are Apo-
cryphal.
From thefe paflages it is not difficult to come to a deter-
mination concerning this book; only it feems neceflary firft
to obferve, that though I have recited here the paflage of Ter-
tullian, in which the Gofpel of Mark appears formerly to
have been called the Gofpel of Peter, yet it is by no means to
be confounded with, or taken for the fame with the Apocry-
phal book now under confideration. I was obliged here to
mention the paflage of Tertullian, becaufe my defign obliges
me to produce every place where there is any fuch mention ;
but it would be madnefs hence to infer, that thefe two books
were the fame, feeing all the writers, who mention this Gof-
pel of Peter, have rejected it as fpurious, but every one of
them agree in the receiving of St. Mark's Gofpel as Canoni-
cal j which could never have happened, had they been the fame
book. But not to leave the reader, who is unacquainted with
thefe things, in the dark, as to the reafon of Mark's Gofpel
being called by the name of Peter, I obferve, that this was oc-
cafioned by the universally prevailing opinion among the firjl
Chriftians, that St. Mark^ being the companion of Peter^ wrote
the Gofpel now extant under his name y from the mouth of Peter \
cr from -what he heard him preach at Rome. This is attefted
by Papias, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Jerome,
and many others, as I have elfewhere obferved, and endea-
voured to prove their tradition to be true in this matter, from
fome internal evidences in the Gofpel. See my Vindication,
of St. Matthew's Gofpel, againft Mr. Whifton, Chap. VI.
From all this it is plain, the Gofpel of Peter , now under dif-
cuflion, was another book than that of St. Mark. By whom
it was forged, is not very certain : Dr. Grabe a , and after him
Dr. Mill h , fuppofe it to have been made by Leucius, whom
a Spicileg. Patr. torn. i. p. 58. . 337.-
b Piolegom. in Nov. Tclbm.
they
33* The'GoJpcl of Peter the fame PART ir.
they reckon to have been a Heretick of the fecond century :
but in this they feem miftaken, becaufe, as I have abov<-
proved, Chap. XXI. Leucius did not live till the latter end
of the third, or beginning of the fourth century; whereas this
Gofpel appears to have been extant in the fecond century, by
the book which Serapion wrote concerning it, who was bifhop
of Antioch in the eleventh year of the Emperor Commodus,
i. e. in the year of Chrift 190, as is plain from the Chronicon
of Eufebius, and Jerome's Account of his Life, above cited.
That therefore which feems to me moft probable, concerning
the original of this book, is, that it was a compofure of thofe
antient Hereticks, in the fecond century, called The Diceta?,
from eoiV to appear^ becaufe they believed and taught that the
fufferings ofjejus Chriji were not real^ but only in appear-
ance*. For of thefe Hereticks, Serapion fay?, he borrowed
this book (if I rightly underftand Eufebius), and in it he ob-
ferved feveral erroneous notions concerning Chrift, which no
one can reafonably doubt were thefe of Chrift's not real, but
apparent fufFerings, after reading the pafiage. Mr. Dodwell,
though he interprets the Greek of Eufebius fomewhat dif-
ferently, neverthclefs concludes the fame from them, viz. that
this Gofpel was forged by the Docetae b ; and if this be true,
I would offer it here as a conjecture, that perhaps the Gofpel
sf Bajilides, of which I have above treated, Chap. XI. Numb.
IX. was the very fame either in the whale , or in a great mca-
fure at kajl, with this Apocryphal Gofpd under the name of
Peter ; and this I am the rather inclined to believe,
Firft, Becaufe theje Docetts were a branch of the Gnojlicks ;
and of thefe Bafilides was the head and founder. Bafilides a
qua Gnofiici, fays Eufebius in his Chronicon ad Ann. Chrifti
136; i. e. from Bafilides proceeded the Gnofticks.
Secondly, Becaufe the Docetts arofe much about the fame
time that Bafilides and his opinions became known in the world.
The Docetae, as appears from their being mentioned by Sera-
pion, muft at leaft have been formed into a feel before the
Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. h .Dtdw.-ll. D.iTert. in Ir.n. JV.
3. p. 4.65. ^ lib. 7. p. 765. {. 3^. p. 364.
end
CHAP, xxxi, as the Gofpel of BafiiiA/s. 233
end of the fecond century, and very probably before the middle
of it; for Serapion difputed againft thofe of this fe6l, who
were (as he calls them) the ^aoo^n, the fitcceflbrs of Marcia-
nus, who was one of thefe Docetse. Now Serapion living,
as has been above proved, in the year 190, and there having
been fame fuccsjfiorn of thefe Hereticks between Marcianus
and Serapion, it neceflarily follows, that thefe Hereticks mull
have arofe at leaft before the year 150, i. e. before the middle
of this century. Befides, it is commonly fuppofed from thofe
words of Clemens Alexandrinus a , in which he calls Julius
Caflianus gasx?" "; AOXW-JW?, that he ivas the firjl founder of
thefe Docetts ; and if fo, it will follow that they were fomewhat
earlier; for then Marcianus muft alfo have been one of his
fucceflbrs. I conclude, therefore, that thefe Docetje arofe
very early in the fecond century, and confequently about the
undoubted time in which Bafilides and his tenets became moft
famous.
Thirdly, Becaufe Bafilides and his difciples affirmed^ that
Cbrijl was not really a man in fiejh, but only appeared to be fo ;
and accordingly was not really crucified, but, while he feemed to
be fo, another was crucified in his Jtead. This appears by Ire-
nreus and Epiphanius's account of this Heretick, in the places
cited at the bottom of the page b. Now that thefe were alfo
the principles of the Docetae, is fufficiently evident ; and
t-ven from their very name : from which fo 'univerfal agree-
ment, both in refpect of time and tenets, I offer it as probable
at leaft, that the Gofpel of Bafilides, and the Gofpel of Peter,
i. e. the Gofpel of the Docetas, was one and the fame book.
Fourthly, To all this I add, that Bafilides's Gofpel feems tt
have confijicd cf many tomes, or diflinft books ; which probably
are thofe twenty-four mentioned by Agrippa Caftor (lee
above, Chap. XI. Numb. IX.) ; and accordingly in the De-
cree of Pope Gelaftus, we find this Gofpel under the name of
Peter recited in the plural number ? EvangeKa ncmim
* Strom, lib. 3. p. 4.65. Epiphan. Haerei". 24..
b Ian. adv. Iljgivl'. i. i. c. 35.
Petr:
334 The Go/pel of Pttcr the fame, &c. PART n.
Petri Apocrypha. The Gofpels (or various books of the Gof-
pel) under the name of Peter, are Apocryphal.
Whatever original be afcribed to this book, we have the
jufteft reafon to reieft it as fpurious and Apocryphal, by Prop.
IV, V, VI, us alfo, if the foundation of the foregoing conjec-
ture be juft, by Prop. VIII. as containing things certainly
known to be fatje, and contrary to the whole defign of Chriflian-
ity. Nor need we at all be moved by what Dr. Mill * (who
is ever too fond of the Apocryphal books, as was Dr. Grabe,
whom he follows) urges, that this Gofpel was publickly read
by the Chriftians j there being no more foundation for this
too rafh and unguarded aflertion, than that Serapion, to pre-
vent an uneafinefs and contention in one particular Church,
told the people, whom he imagined all well eftabliflied in the
faith, that they might read the book ; though himfelf after-
wards, when he had perufed it, declared againft it, as an here-
tical book. Nor would it be at all more material to object,
that Origen, in the paflage above, has appealed to this book ;
for it is plain by the paflage,
1. That Origen hitnfelf never fau> it; for he does not him-
felf cite it, only propofes a hiftory which he had heard fome
ethers took out of it, and knew not himfelf whether it was in
this, or the book of James.
2. He himfelf did not credit either the book or the tradi-
tion taken out of it ; hence he ufes the word l^fum, to de-
note the raflmefs of thofe who regarded it.
3. He feveral times declares, he only received the four
Gofpels, which we now receive. See above, Chap.
XXVIII.
Thus I have endeavoured to make the beft enquiry I could
into this Gofpel of Peter, which I {hall now leave ; only ob-
ferving, how much too hafly Mr. VVhifton was, when he
aflerted this book as probably in fomefenfe afacred book* 1 .
Prolegora. inNov.Teft. f . $36. k Eflay on the Ccnltitutions, p. z+.
CHAP.
c H A P. xxx 1 1. The Judgment cf Peter.
335
CHAP. XXXII.
The Judgment of Peter. Dr. Cave's Opinion, that it was
the fame with the Shepherd of Hermas, confuted. Dr.
Grabe's ingenious Conjecture, that it was the fame with the
Preaching of Peter, difproved. Dr. Mill's Opinion, that it
was the fame ivith the Revelation of Peter, refuted.
Numb. LI. The JUDGMENT of PETER.
O
F this book we have not any mention till the latter end
of the fourth century, by Jerome and Ruffin.
I. By Jerome a , i
Libri autem ejus, e quibus
unus Adtorum ejus infcribi-
tur, alius Evangelii, tertius
Praedicationis, quartus Apo-
calypfeos, quintus Judicii, in-
ter Apocryphas Scripturas re-
putantur.
his Life of Peter.
But thofe (other) books,
called Peter's, among which
one is his Ac"ls, another his
Gofpel, a third his Preach-
ing, a fourth his Revelation,
a fifth his Judgment, are re-
puted among the Apocryphal
Scriptures.
2. By Ruffin b , in his Expofition of the Apoftles* Creed.
After an enumeration of the Canonical books.
Sciendum tamen eft, quod et It muft be obferved, that there
alii libri funt, qui non Cano-
nici, fed Ecclefiaftici, a ma-
joribus appellati funt, ut eft
Sapientia Salomonis, &c.
In Novo vero Teftamento
libellus, qui dicitur Paftoris
1 Catal. Vir. Illuftr. in Petro.
6 Inter Opp. C'ypriani, . 36.
are other books which were
not called by our forefathers
Canonical, but Ecc lefiajlical ;
fuch as the JVifdom of Solo-
man, &c. in the Old Tefta-
ment. But in the New Tef-
tament, the little book which
is called The Shepherd, or
P- 575-
five
336 Dr. Cave's Opinion refuted. PART u.
five Hermatis, qui appellatur Hermas ; that which is called
Duae Viae, vel Judicium Pe- The Two Ways, or The Judg-
tri ; quae legi quidem in EC- ment of Peter, which they
clefiis voluerunt, non tamen would have to be read in the
proferri ad au&oritatem ex Churches, but not to be urged
his fidei confirmandam. as of any authority in con-
firming matters of faith.
There being nothing more faid of this book, it requires
but little pains to prove it Apocryphal : it appears manifeflly
to have been fuch by Prop. IV. and V ; and though femt
would have It read in the Churches^ as Ruffin fays, yet it wa;
never judged of Canonical authority , as he exprefsly tells us,
but only read as an Ecclefiaftical book, i. e. as the Apocry-
pha of the Old Teftament and the Homilies are appointed to
be read in England now; and fo may very well be judged
Apocryphal alfo by Prop. VI.
Among later writers, I have not met with any thing faid of
this book, only that our three learned Doctors in England
(whom I have fo often mentioned in the preceding Chapters)
have formed three feveral and very diftir.cl: judgments con-
cerning this book ; neither of which feems to have any great
appearance of truth. Dr. Cave a underftands Ruffin, as mak-
ing it the fame with the Shepherd of Hermas. Dr. Grabe b
fuppofes it the fame with the Preaching of Peter, and Dr.
Mill c the fame with the Revelation of Peter ; from either of
which it was certainly a diftincl book.
i. As to Dr. Cave's opinion, though I confefs it was very
eafy for any one to fall into it, it plainly appears to have been
founded on a too carelefs reading of Ruffin' s ivords. Lihellus,
qui dicitur Pajloris f.ve Hermatis, qui appellatur Dua Vitc^
vel Judicium Petri, qua legi quidem in Ecclefiis vduerunt,
&c. which according to him muft be pointed and tranflated
thus: The little book which is called, The Shepherd or Her-
nia s t -which is called the Two ffays^ or the Judgment of Peter*
as though thefe were only feveral titles of the fame book.
* Hift. Liter, in Pctro, p. <. Proi,g;o:r.. in Nov. Tcftam. $.
b Sspicili-g. Pair. Secul. 1. j. ^. n6.
But
CHAP. XXXII. Dr. Grate's Ccnjeffure, &c. 337
But the Doctor did not confider, that the relative particle gut,
where it occurs in the fecond place, requires fat fiibftafttive
libellus, meaning a diltindl: book, to be before it as well as in
the firft place ; and that if it did notj either it and the word
appellatur muft be both quite iifclefs^ or elfe there muft have
been an etiam^ or feme fuch particle inferted : fo that inftead
of tranflat ; ng it, as he would have it, The book which is called
the Shepherd or Hermas, which is called the Two Ways, CSV.
which every one muft fee to be an abfurd way of fpeaking j
it is very naturally, and according to plain conftruction, to
be translated thus, The book which is called the Shepherd cr
Hermas, that (book) which is called the Two Ways, csY. Be-
fides, had Ruffin defigned to have expreffed the three titles of
one book, he would have inferted the particle vel before Dues
Via, as well as before Judicium Petri. To add no more of
this, there is another queftion moved by Pamelius a , IPljether
the words Duas Vise may not belong to Judicium Petri, as a
different title vfthat book? To which I only anfwer, that the
particle vel feems to make it more probable it did (though
upon what account it was fo intitled, is not polHble for us
now to guefs), than, as Mr. Fabritius fuppofes, that it was a
diftintt title of a different beck from either ; viz. either the
feventh Book of the dpojlolicai Con/titutions, or the lajl Part cf
the Epijlle of Barnabas j into one cf which ibis book of the Tw9
Ways ^uas taken.
2. Dr. Grabe's conjecture concerning the Judgment of
Peter is mux:h more plaufible than the former, viz. 'That it
mas the fame with the Preaching of Peter. What he offers
feems fo ingenious, that I fhall give it the reader as exactly as
I can. rfs to the Judgment of Peter, fays he, mentioned by
Ritffin and Jerome^ I doubt Ruffin meeting in feme Greek booh
with the word 7^1 contratedly written for Krj-7^a, thought
it was defigned for Kpiu*, and fo translated it in Latin "judi-
cium ; and Jerome following'Ruffin, without due conjideraiion
hokcd tip-on it as a diftincl book from the Preaching of Peter,
when it was really the fame b . 7'his feems very plaufible ; but
a Annot. in Ruffin- Export. b Lcc. jam cit.
S\-mbol. Apoftol. in l w c.
VOL. 1. Z I have
338 Dr. Grains Conjefture difpraved. PART n.
I have to oppofe to it, that it is very improbable Ruffin fhould
be guilty of fuch a miftake, or, if he was, that Jerome fhould
follow him in it.
Firft, // is highly improbable Ritffin Jbould be guilty of fuch
a miflake ; for befides that he was fo much acquainted with
the antient books, as appears by the many writings of his
own, which are now extant, and the many Latin tranflations
which he made of others, (viz. Jofephus, Eufebius, Origen,
Bafil, Gregory Nazianzen, &c.) the Preaching of Peter was
a book mentioned by feveral writers, and particularly by Eu-
febius a , whom he tranflated into Latin, and whofe hiftory he
continued to his time ; and therefore it is not likely he fhould
miftake any other name for this, efpecially when it was a
name that he had never known nor heard before. Befides, it
feems to me very improbable, that he fhould thus read *UM
for ^vyfut^ becaufe although v.^uyyia. fometimes fhould be fo
contra&edly written, as Dr. Grabe fuppofes, viz. ^, Ruffin
could never imagine any fcribe would make that contraction
to ftand for the word xp^, and that for this plain reafon, that
he would be as long in writing the contraction x p ,u* with the
line on top, or longer, than in writing the word at length
Secondly, If we fuppofe Ruffin to have made this miftake,
it is no way probable that Jerome Jhould follow him in it ; for
Jerome did not write his Catalogus Vtrorum llluftrium till
about the year 392, or afterwards; before which time there
were fuch fierce contentions between him and Ruffin, that
make it very unlikely he fhould tranfcribe the blunders of his
books. But to fay no more, in the very nature of the thing
it can fcarce be imagined that Jerome fhould thus follow
Ruffin ; and therefore, feeing Ruffin and Jerome both fpeak
of a book called the Judgment of Peter ; and Jerome fpeaks
of the Judgment and Preaching of Peter fo very diftinctly as
in the place above, calling one the third^ the other the fifth
under Peter's name, I conclude this Judgment to have been
really a diftinft book.
a Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3.
Thirdly,
CHAP. XXXIII. Peter and Paul's Preaching. 339
Thirdly, Dr. Mill has a conjecture much Icfs probable than
the former, concerning this Judgment of Peter, viz. that it
was the very fame with the Revelation of Peter (of which
hereafter, Numb. LIII.) and as it was firft called Apocalypfis
by the Greeks, afterwards being by the Latins tranflated, was
called by them Judicium, or Judgment, becaufe it treated of
the Judgments of God denounced again/?, and /hortly to be in-
flitted upon, the Jeivs. But againft this I urge,
1. That it does not appear, that the Revelation was written
on this fubjecr..
2. If it really was, the title, Judicium Petri, would not have
been given to it by any one who underjlood the Latin tongue ;
for though the word judgment be ufed in this fenfe in our lan-
guage, viz. for the fame idea as vengeance from God, yet in
this antient time the word Judicium was feldom or never ufed
in this fenfe. Befides, if it had, the book muft have been in-
titled, Judicia Dei, and not Judicium Petri, viz. the Judg-
ments of God, not the Judgment of Peter. But of this enough.
CHAP. XXXIII.
77je Preaching of Peter and Paul. An antient Epijlle under
the Name of Peter to James, relating to it, produced at length
in Greek and Englijh. Several large Fragments and TejH
monies of the Jntients concerning it.
Numb. LII. The PREACHING of PETER and PAUL:
Or, The DOCTRINE of PETER.
THE reafon of thefe different titles has in part been already
afligned above, where I have proved that the Preaching
of Paul and Peter were the titles of one and the fame book .
a See above, Chap. XXX. Numb. XLV.
Z 2 As
34 A* Epijlle of PART II.
As for the title here given it, viz. the Doftrine of Peter, it
xvill to clearly appear to belong to it in the fequel of this Dif-
fertation, that I fhall fay no more concerning it here.
This book is not only a very antient one, but has been of
very confiderable repute, generally fuppofed to have been cited
by fome or" the oldeft Fathers, as Heracleon, Clemens, Theo-
dotus, cc. and therefore requires much care in the difcuffing
it : and indeed of all the Apocrypha of the New Teftament,
there is none, the confideration of which is attended with
greater difficulties than this, except the Gofpel of the Egyp-
tians and the Nazarenes. The writers who have mentioned
it, are as follow, viz.
I. The author of the Epiftle under the name of Peter to
"James.
This, though unqueftionably a forgery, yet feems to be a
very early one of fome Ebionite ; and becaufe the Epiftle itfelf
does wholly relate to this book of the Preaching of Peter,
and has been fuppofed by fome to have been a Preface to it a ,
I (hall think it not improper to infert it all, with an Englifli
tranflation, here ; though, were it not for this reafon, it ought
more properly to have been deferred to the third Part of this
work. Wherefore I mail not here enter into large critical
enquiries concerning it, only make fuch few remarks as fhall
be neceflary to the forming a better judgment concerning the
Apocryphal book we have now under confideration, viz. the
Preaching of Peter.
EHISTOAH IIETPOY vfa The EPISTLE of PETER
IAKHBON. to JAMES.
Hire 3 'IaxcJ?w, TU xtigta xal Peter to James, Lord and
7n<rxoVu riiff a'ywff IK- frijbop of the Holy Church,
xXi]<naff,' vVS TM SAWV (wijbing) perpetual happi-
1 See Mr. DodwelTs learned . 10. p. 441. The Epiftle was
Diflertations on Irenaeus. DiiT. VI. Arit published by Cotclerius.
nefi
CHAP, xxxnr. Peter to James. 341
nTo?, &<* 'hic-a Xfirxy nefs from the Father of all
iv tlpvy voMort.
things t througbJefusCbriJl.
I.
W ror
'
\'- *
i o-ouon.
E jtxa, J. TTJ^Orafmuch, my brother^
vrwv J? as I am perfuaded you
- are alwa 7 s ver y read y to for -
ward any thing that is condu-
. . _
cive to our common mtereft,
-cr^o wfifo
lav TK JoxtfA<rS-f
Ata
raro HOJI o
P6X8f, pn^i/i ruv Vo that you would not deliver /^
books of my Preaching^ which
I have fent you, to any one of
the Gentiles, nor even to any
OnC f OUr CGUntT y ( a Jf W )f
before you are well acquainted
Wltn him j but if, after trial,
he be found worthy, then let
them be del i ver ed to him after
the fame manner as Mofes de-
livered (his doctrine) to the
Seventy Men, who were his
fucceffors - For fuch cautious
^thods h ave been hitherto
fuccefsful. And the people
r , . , . , ,
of that nation (viz. the Jews),
wherefoever they be> obferve
t h e fame rule of monarchy
and conduct; nor have by
any means been induced by
^^ Scriptures (which con-
tain Various thin S S ) t0 enter -
tain other fentiments, or turn
- , ,-,
afide. For according to the
rules delivered to them, they
endeavour to regulate the difagreements of the Scriptures >
\ ~ r,eK /
xi TO,,- **,*+*
<rfo fftfw, TO?? w
o^av UT TJTffXu^*-M
TIJ
^o fottvtlou.
To* a aurov
ry, uVo TWV -sroAAa ywa-
ygoitpuv t%o$iv$wgu ^ui/n-
rs?. Kara ya^ TOJ/ -era-
* aJrc?? xai/oi/a, T
.>/
a Cotelerius tranflates it Eandem normam de uttitate Dei ft 'yitee
ttttione,
Z 3
but
342
TI-
An Epijlle of PART II.
i JUT] EI^W? TU? TZZ- but if any one happen to be
vagx* -a fa TJ TWV ignorant of the traditions, he
is to fay nothing of the oracles
of the Prophets, which have
various fignifications. Where-
mxv gJEvi Sdoicrxetv
Ala T8TO
CCUTOif Elf
II. 'Ii/ yai/ TO owojoi/
^' TI'^M/ yatnrau TOK t
ta ra?
TO T?? $dz,<ry.(x.x{x.q
sroAAa?
Tare
wj o
aAA
, TO (?' Jj
$ox.{u.y,<ra,v
avojuov Tiva xat
Kal
teach, unlefs he have before
learned how the Scriptures
ought to be handled. So that
among them there is one God,
one law, and one hope.
II. In order therefore that
the like may be among us as
the Seventy Men, and our
brethren, deliver the booh of
my Preaching with the fame
artifice of fecrecy, that they
may ferve to inftruct thofe
who have a mind to under-
take the office of teachers :
otherwife my true doctrines
will be divided into many dif-
ferent opinions. But this I
do not pretend to foreknow as
a Prophet, but as already fee-
ing the beginnings of this
mifchief. For fome of the
Gentiles have (already) re-
je&ed my Preaching, which is
according to the Law, ad-
hering to the trifling dottrines
of a person who is an enemy,
and fuch doftrines as are a-
gainft the Law. And thefe
things fome have attempted,
even while I am alive, per-
verting the intent of my
words
CHAP, xxxi 1 1.
Au<7H>'
Acya?
os >50u<r<roi'Toj* oVf^
To yxp Totaro, ai/-
i TU Ta 0a t/o-
TU 0*1* MwuVEW? fl&irti
V7TO T8 K'Ja r^Wl/ U-
O
troi/Tot.t, WTO,
a |W,ii
Taro
Oi
a?
tyu
jW,T jtAE
Peter to James. 343
words by various interpreta-
tions, to (fupport the doctrine
of ) the abrogation of the Law,
as though I myfelf had been
of that opinion, but had not
courage enough plainly to de-
clare it; which God forbid.
But to do that would be to
act contrary to the Law of
God, which was given by
Mofes, and received a tejii-
many of its everlajling obliga-
tion by our Lord himfelf, when
he faid, Heaven and earth Jball
pafs away, but one jot, or one
tittle, Jball by no means pafs
from the Law a . This he
faid, that all things might be
accomplished. But on the
other hand they, engaging, by
I know not what means, to
declare my meaning, pretend
(to explain) my words more
wifely than I who fpake them,
telling their catechumens, that
is my meaning, of which I
never fo much as thought.
But if while I am alive they
be fo impudent in lying, how
much more will they venture
to do the fame after my death ?
Xo-
III. "hoe, %i> ij.r t TOIZTOV TI III. That therefore none of
ra'ra tvfxa jfgiW* tne ^ e things may happen, I
rwv l[Auv xiwuy- have earneftly defired and in-
Mat, v. 1 8.
Z 4
treated
344
An EpijUe of Peter to" James.
PART is.
fj.&Tuv $ cfu4<a GOI pi'
pi-re
.. .>
srsioaj* aXX
%. x ,,
ua<r-7f(; a.o
r *
y.o& r lV TO??
TO";
xot&ifyciv ayrou
Aaj, treated you (/ */;* beginning
C{A.O- ef my letter) not to deliver the
tr^ W * /^ Poaching, which
,> I have fent you. either to any
doxi- } '
/ one ' our own country fa
T \ /- -i -n u
Jew) or Gentile, till you have
firft proved him (or are ac-
qua inted with him) j and then,
if after trial he be found wor-
thy, to deliver them to him
after the fame ma nn e r as Mo-
fes dclivered his do< ^ rine to
the Seventy Men who were
. . , -. ,
his fuccellors ; that fo they
OUTOJ uo
TTO TUV xara
aAA f ;' ? rav
cu-oiov
w here deliver the rule of truth,
interpreting all things ac-
cording to our tradition; and
Jefl "> bein g themfelves per-
verted through ignorance, or
drawn afide by the coniec-
tures of the mind into error?,
i n 11 L i r
they mould be the means of
TO J <roi ^oxav,
i7rTX.
f*a, pit of deftruftion. And thus
aTo. I have honeftly given you my
fentiments ; but you, O my
Lord, do whatfoever you {hall think moft convenient. Farc-
wel.
2. By Heracleon.
He was an early heretick of the fecond century, and lived
(as I {hall fhew hereafter) about the year of Chrift 130.
That he made ufe of this book, we are informed by Ori-
gen in the following words (torn 14. in Joan. p. 211.)
/*r h
o*J*- He (viz. Heracleon) urged
'EAAni/? that Peter taught, that we
ougkt
CHAP, xxxin. Fragments of the Preaching of Peter. 34.5
ig -J'ATK -Er af- *^ w ^ ** worjhip as the
things, and adoring
8
tfd /tones ; or <7j w
^v , jZ . ^ .
ivorjhipped the Deity ;
^ yt p retending to be the
clo/xfvo; 7rV<r^ toi', only perfons who know God, are
Jr&y, AaT^ucvTf? ignorant of him^ feeing they
a JUWJM, xt <r- worjhip angels, and months^
That this paflage was in the Preaching of Peter, is evident
from that of Clemens Alexandrinus in this Chapter, Numb.
III.
3. By Clemens Alexandrinus.
He fo often cites this book, that I fhall have frequent occa-
flon to refer to his citations ; and therefore, for the eafe
of the reader, (hall number them diftin&ly.
I. Strom, lib. i. p. 357.
'Ev SI ru UiTfz xDu'yf*T In the Preaching of Peter^
7 OU ma 7 find the Lord called
II. Strom, lib. 2. p. 390.
'A>.A' >i tv TU vc/xa Ku^'a TO But the will of the Lord is in
Va. 'O Htr cv his law - Peter in h ' s Preach-
Law and the Word.
yov rov &vgi
III. Strom, lib. 6. p. 635.
*'QTI ^ a XT' iiriywffn *<7<x.<ri But that the moft excellent
-.ov 0*a, AAa XT* -r e r- P erfons amon S the Gentiles
^r,y, 'EXX1.W 01 ^X^.'T- had not ^ true) knowledge
, , of God. but only fuch as was
TOJ, Iltre^ iv TV xnpuyu,Ti . .1 ...
' / r ver }' general, Peter informs
v ST. IK ug /|f ^ p w j ;/ ^ (faying)>
" Know
346
f> yj,
xai o cc(foxr(>
'p&' dyj^(
*t
erV
iTTowtftir X&yy
, T^?
TX U
-or Kg
Xf, W?
wCflTTW*! 9V,
' EAAr/<n Joja-
Mil TCJ-
ot ''EAA>5!>?,
vov TOV rr,g
rcav ra 08,
ray
i Je aAAovxar-
av sr TO, Mn
Fragments of the PART u.
<c Know that there is but one
" God, who gave all things
" their original exiftence, and
" has power over their end ;
" who is invifible, and fees
" all things ; incomprehen-
" fible, but comprehends all ;
" not wanting any thing, but
" whom all things want, and
" on whom all things de-
" pend ; infinite, eternal, im-
11 mortal, unmade, who made
" all things by the Word of
" his power, the knowing
" Word (Scripture), i. e. his
" Son. This God worfhip,
" not as the Gentiles do ;
" even thofe who were the
" moft underftanding among
" the Gentiles, who worfhip
** the fame God as we do,
" but not with a perfect
" knowledge, as having re-
** ceived inftru&ion from his
" Son." He does not fay,
Do not worjhip the fame God
whom the Gentiles do, but after
rov 0ov,
Gentiles do, changing the man-
ner of worjhipping God, but
not declaring any other God
(to be worjhipped). But what
this means, Do not worfhip
as the Greeks, Peter himfelf
will explain in what he fub-
joins, viz. " Being carried away in their ignorance, and
" not knowing God as we know him, with that perfect:
*! knowledge, which he gave them the power of ufmg,
" but
E^UXCV
CHAP, xxxni. Preaching of Peter. 34.7
" but changing wood and
" ftones, brafs and iron,
" gold and filver, from being
" mere matter, which was all
" they were defigned for^
A/S'a?,
GGVT&I' xal ot, ddxv auroi?
fif ppwc"jy 9 C
5t rot, -jiipitx, <r\
xo fAU?, aAot>a? n xat xu-
vaj, xou 5T3'}xa?, xal T<Z i'Jia
xa vixgix,
coV S"o~?, a'
f train TW 0w, ^a TS'TWJ/ ag-
y wj TOV ofJrov Qzov riy.u>v T
JTWJ/ xat 'EXA'/d/wi/ lyvaixo-
fi* xai
yxg iKtivoi povoi uoptvoi rov
iov yivuexew, aV. tirwvroti,
oK x*l * ex -
r " \
o-Arji/j, xai
'
" him, worshipping Angels
" and the moon ; and unlefs
" keep that Sabbath, which
" they (for the fame reafon)
" thefe the fervants of life,
" as to worfhip them. Alfo
" thofe things which God
' gave them for food, the
" birds of the air, and the
" fifh of the fea, and the in-
" fe6ts of the earth, and the
44 beafts and four-footed cattle
" of the field, and weafels,
tc and mice, and cats and
" dogs, and monkeys, and
" the food of men, they offer
" up in facrifices to men, and
c< fo by thefe oblations of
" dead things to thofe who
" are dead, as unto Gods,
" they are unthankful to the
" (true) God, by this means
" denying him.'* And that
it is thuSy viz. that the Gen-
tiles have acknowledged the
fame God with us y though net
in the fame manner '^he farther
Jhews thus, (faying) " Nei-
" ther worihip as the Jews
" do ; for they, pretending to
" be the only perfons who
" know God, are ignorant of
and Archangels, and the month
the moon appear, they do not
is called the firft, neither do
keep their new moon, nor the
" feaft
348
Fragments of tie
PART ir.
, afl
otyxw,
Elr*
lut
vfMv, ^uXa<r-
roy tot* ^
creo>voi'
TJf v
, Ida
'
" feaft of unleavened bread,
" nor their feaft (of the paffo-
"ver), nor their great day."
Tfo * concludes the debate
. ,, _ Tr , . .
** ; " Wherefore do ye,
religioufly ^ faithfully
c learning what I have deli-
ct V ered to you, obferve it,
" worfhipping God in this
" new way through Chrift.
" For we have found Jt in the
" Scriptures, that the Lord
"has thus faid, Behold, a new
T , ,
" covenant I make with you,
t not fuch as ! made with
<c y 0ur Fathers in Horeb."
IV. Strom, lib. 6. p. 636.
'Is&xi'a? Inafmuch therefore as God
determined the falvation of
the Jews, and for that reafon
gave them Prophets, fo alfo
having raifed up fome of the
moft excellent of the Gen-
tiles to be Prophets to them
in their own languages, as
they were capable of receiv-
ing the kindnefs of God;
that he diftinguifhed them
from the bulk of mankind ;
befides the Preaching of Peter a , Paul the Apoftle will
make
>T7>
t EX-
av*f<rot{,
t T
a -Jf^-
JiXw<r
o o o-
a Cotelerius fuppofes, that Paul
is here cited by Clemens on account
of his calling Epimenides a Greek
poet in his Epiftle to Titus, i. iz.
and conieqiiently that the following
words are the words of Clemens,
and not of this Apocryphal book.
But in this he muft needs be mif-
taken, becaufe Clemens adds the
word Ae'yyy, which introduces the
next fentence, and evidences that it
is a citation ; befides, a little after
Clemens brings in fome perfon afk-
ing a qucflion \ ssvv^dvna.t ^/x^f,
hi
c H AP. XXXII i. Preaching of Peter.
149
Xtyuv
St'CvAAav, w? (^Ao?
ci/ xai TO. ju,AAovT
xal rev
ayi/WTE, xai
<TT sroAA'o TnAau-tVov xai
* xat
aroAAot |3a<nAiV, pram? au-
TO OVO-
pa, aura, xa ra ? TTir9 aura,
xal T^V iMr/MVJB xai rnv
airiav aura* ira EP( Ao-
avTat H^AWI/, OAo?
TJJTO ^ntTiV IETf^ 1-
-ai TOV xu^nov TOJJ aTroj-o-
TJ? ^Ar'o-vj
X T&
xai vtffvefV ITT}
TO
make manifeft in what he
fays, " Take alfo the Greek
" books, acknowledge the
" Sibylline [oracles (and fee)
11 how they declare one God,
" and (predict) things future.
" Take alfo and read Hy-
" ftafpes, and you will there
" find the Son of God more
a clearly and evidently de-
" fcribed, and that many
" kings would endeavour to
" make head againft Chriflr,
<c hating him, and thofe who
c< were called by his name,
11 and his faithful followers ;
** and alfo his fufFerings and
" (fecond) coming." TJien
in one wordhe ajks us, " Whofe
a is the world, and all that is
" in it? Is it not God's ?'
Wherefore? eter faith, " That
<l the Lord faid to the Apof-
" ties," If therefore any man
of Ifrael will repent, and
through my name believe on
God, his fins Jhall be pardoned.
After twelve years, go ye out
into the world, that no man
may fay, We have not heard.
be ajks ui\ this cannot poflibly
mean himtclt, but fome third pcr-
Ibn, who can be no other than Paul,
whom he had juft before cited. And
inafmuch as immediately both be-
fore this citation of Paul, and after
it, we have citations out of the
Preaching of Peter ; and this has
been above proved out ot La6hmtius
to be the fame with the Preaching
of Paul \ I fuppofe this obfcure ex-
preflion of Clemens will be belt ex-
plained, by iuppoling that fome part
of this book contained the Preach-
ings of Peter, and others the
Preaching of Paul ; and fo both
were for this reafon cited thus to-
gether. See Grab. Spicil. Patr.
t. i. p. 66.
V. Strom.
3$0
per
rr^oq TS
Wr<nir,
a?
Fragments of the PART H.
V. Strom, lib. 6. p. 639.
x^u' y - But in the Preaching of Pe-
ter, the Lord faid to his difl
ciples after the refurre&ion, /
have chofen you twelve difci-
ples t having judged you wor-
thy.
VI. Strom, lib. 6. p. 678.
8T yvuaiuoi, ol And the companions of Chrift
TO;/ Ac'yois wf au- who P reached tne Word, as
he did, after his death, made
ufe of parables. Whence
Peter in his Preaching^ fpeak-
ing of the Apojlles^ faith, " But
" when we perufed the books
tf which we have of the Pro-
" phets, in which fome things
/
ITs-
cZva,7r1vxvT<; T?
a p\v ^ tToXuv 9 " are delivered in parables,
JV
XiXl Ot'JTOAffcfl TOV
Irior&v wofj.x,^ovTUv'
xat rriv -arapairiav au-
r5, xav rov S'ai/aroi', xai TOV
,f Ao?raj xoA-
o<r? 7ro)<rav
_ xai rnv t y f^-
<nv, xat TJJV 15
things in enigmatical
" defcriptions, fome things
" pofitive, and even the name
" of Jefus Chrift exprefled
" in fo many words ; we
" found alfo his coming and
" death and crofs, and all his
" other fufferings, which the
" Jews inflicted on him, and
" his refurretion, and being
" taken up to heaven before
" Jerufalem was built, as it
<c is written."
ron.
, xa /XT
Taura zv
havefu/ered, and thofe things
which Jhould be after him.
" We therefore, when we
" perceived thefe things, be-
c< lieved in God, by means of thofe things which were written
CHAP, xxxin. Preaching of Peter. 351
auroi/. Kai " concerning him." And a
r ,/ te y (?A/'l appointment, fay-
uat' w- . , "
* 'fj 4< ror we know
u that God rea]]y appointed
thefe ^^g^ and witho ut
c t h e Scripture we fay no-
thing."
4. By Theodotus Byzantius a .
He was an early writer in the fecond century; of whom
and whofe works I {hall give fome account in the r/^xt
number, viz. concerning the Revelation of Peter.
O top* T8 a'juw/^, ^ ^w i? s per-
4/ux a/ ' " c Vf xa ^ converting the foul; evea
OUr Savi ur himfelf is Called
the Law and the Word, as
_ . , . , .
Peter fays in his Preaching.
5. By Origen b .
I thought it proper to cite Origen here, though the place I
refer to be the fame with that above produced in this Chap-
ter, Numb. II. concerning Heracleon ; only I have here to
add, that after Origen had mentioned Heracleon's urging this
Preaching of Peter , he fubjoins a promife in another place to
difcufs woTEgon TffoTs yw&M Inf} *3 oSof, ^ fUKfot t whither it be
ejleemed as a genuine, fpurious, or mixt piece. But this it does
not appear he any where has done.
6. By the fame c .
That which he calls in this paflage the Doftrine of 'Peter ,
is undoubtedly the fame with the Preaching j as will ap-
a In Eclog. feu Excerpt. adCalc. c Praefat. in Lib. i. de Princip.
Opp. Clem. Alex. p. 809. fol. na.
6 Tom. xiv. in Joan. p. a u .
pear
35*
Fragments of the
PART II,
pear in the following part of this difcourfe. His words
Si vero quis velit nobis pro-
ferre ex illo libello qui Petri
Doctrina appellatur, ubi Sal-
vator videtur ad difcipulos di-
cere, Non fit dasmonium in-
corporeum ; primo refpon-
dendum eft ei, quod ille liber
inter libros Ecclefiafticos non
habetur,et oftendendum, quod
neque Petri eft ea fcriptura,
neque alterius cujufquam qui
Spiritu Dei fuerit infpiratus.
But if any one urge againfl
us teftimonies out of that
little book which is called,
The Dottrine of Peter ^ where-
in our Saviour feems to fay to
his difciples, That he was not
an incorporeal Spirit^ I would
anfwer to him firft, That that
book is not to be reckoned a-
mong the Ecclefiaftical books,
and make it appear, that it is
neither the writing of Peter 9
nor of any other perfon who
was infpired by the Spirit of
God.
7. By the anonymous author of a book, concerning Re-
baptilation in Cyprian's time 3 .
Eft autem adulterini hujus, But the principal foundation
imo iriternccini baptifmatis,
fi quis alius auctor, turn etiam
quidam ab iifdem ipfis hsere-
ticis propter hunc eundem er-
rorem confilus liber, qui ia-
fcribitur Pauli (Petri) prasdi-
catio. In quo libro contra
omnes Scripturas, et de pec-
cato proprio confitentem in-
venies Chriftum, qui folus
omnino nihil deliquit, et ad
accipiendum Johannis bap-
tifma pene invitum, a matre
fua Maria efle compulfum :
of this falfe and pernicious
baptifm is a book forged by
thefe fame hereticks y to fupport
this error, which is called the
Preaching of Paul (or Peter.)
In which book, contrary to
all the Scriptures, you will
find Chrijl (who alone was
clear of all fin) loth conf effing
his own f:n, and being almoft
unwilling to receive the bap-
tifm of John^ was compelled to
it by his mother Mary, Alfo,
that when he was baptifed,
Item cum baptifaretur, ignem fire was feen upon the river
1 Edit, a Rigalt. ad fin. Opp. Cypr.
(which
CHAP, xxxni. Preaching
fuper aquam effe vifum :
(qucd in Evangelic nullo eft
fcriptum) et port tanta tem-
pora Petrum et Paulum, poft
conlationem Evangelii in Hi-
erufalern, et mutuam alterca-
tionem et rerum agendarum
difpofitionem, poftremo in ur-
be, quali tune primum invi-
cem fibi efle cognitos. Et
quaedam alia hujufcemodi, ab-
furde ac turpiter conficta.
Quae omnia in librum ilium
iuvenies congefta.
of Peter. 353
(which is not written in arty
one of the Gofpels) ; and
after fome confiderable time,
that Peter and Paul (though
they had before had a confe-
rence concerning the doctrine
of the Gofpel at Jerufalem,
and fome difpute) did after-
wards meet in the city, ut-
terly unknown to each other
before. And fome other things
of this fort foolifhly andbafely
forged. All which you will
find heaped together in that
book.
8. By Ladlantius, lib. 4. c. 21.
Magifter aperuit illis omnia, The Mafter ( Chrift ) ex-
quse 'Petrus et Paulus Romse" plained all things to them,
pnedicaverunt ; et ea praedi-
catio in memoriam fcripta
permanfit : in qua cum multa
alia mira, turn etiam hoc fu-
turum efle dixerunt ; ut poft
breve tempus immitteret De-
us regem, qui expugnaret Ju-
daeos, et civitates eorum folo
adasquaret, ipfos autem fame
fitique confe&os obfideret.
Turn fore, ut corporibus fuo-
rum vefcerentur, et confume-
rent fe invicem ; poftremo ut
capti venirent in manus hof-
tium, et in confpeciu fuo vex-
Jhouldfeed upon their own Icdi
which Peter and Paul did
preach at Rome ; and that
preaching being committed to
writing^ that it might not be
forgot r continues (until now).
In which, with many other
ftrange things, they alfo have
predicled the following things^
viz. That after a Jhort time
God would fend a king, who
foould wage war again/I the
Jews, and dejlroy their city to
the ground, and bejlege them,
till they were worn out witb
hunger and thirjl j then it
Jhould come to pafs, that they
Si and dejlroy one another, and
at /a/I become captives in the hands of their enemies', and
that they Jhould fee the great dijlrefs of their wives, their
VOL. I. A a \OHK?
354
Eufebius and Jerome's dccsunt. PART II.
ari acerbiflime conjuges fuas
cernerent, violari ac proftitui
virgines, diripi pueros, allidi
parvulos, omnia denique igne
ferroque vaftari, captives in
perpetuum terris fuis exter-
minari, eo quod exultaverint
fuper amantiffimum et proba-
tiflimum Dei Filium.
young women projlltuted and
debauched, their children torn
in pieces, and their little ones
dajhed in pieces j in a word,
all things dejirayed by fire
andfword, and themfehes for
ever banijhedfrom their own
country, becaufe they defpifed
the moji loving and excellent
Son of God.
9. By Eufebius, Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3.
To n Xtyoptvov UTS xu'cyy- But that which is called the
Preaching of Peter is not by
any means to be efteemed Ca-
J .
nonical, inafmuch as none of
. . c
the antients, nor any of our
ecc l efiaftical writers have ta ,
ken teftimonies out of it.
< 0Aa)? l v
, on
,,,
v.a.-j
T s
au truw-
10. By Jerome, Catal.
Libri autem ejus, e quibus
unus Atorum ejus infcribi-
tur, alius Evangelii, tertius
Prsedicationis inter Apocry-
phas Scripturas reputamur.
Vir. illuftr. in Petro.
But thofe (other) books called
his, among which one is, his
A6ls, another his Gofpel, a
third his Preaching are
reckoned among Apocryphal
Scriptures.
C H A P.
CHAP. XXXIV. Sentiments of later Writers: 355
CHAP. XXXIV.
The Sentiments of later Writers concerning the Preaching of
Peter. It has been generally very highly ejleemed, but upon
very weak Reafons. The Doftrine of Peter the fame as the
Preaching of Peter. It was Apocryphal, being never cited
with any Authority. An Account of Heracleon and Theo-
dotus, two antient Hereticks, and their Principles. It con-
tained feveral Things falfe; as that Chrijl was a Sinner,
and that the Law of Mofes was of ever lading Obligation,
&c. A ConjeEiure concerning the Epijlle of Peter to James.
The Preaching of Peter Apocryphal, becaitfe it makes Piter
and Paul appeal to the Sibylline Oracles for the Confirmation
of Cbrijiianity. An Account of the Sibyllas Prophecies.
They were in a great Meafure the Forgeries of Chrijiiar.s*
Paul and Peter did not cite them.
NOTHING is more commonly the occafion of the mif-
takes, into which learned men have fallen, than a fecret
refolution to make all things, if poffible, agreeable to their
former preconceived opinions. This appears very evidently
the cafe, in refpecl: of the falfe notions many have entertained
concerning this Apocryphal Preaching of Peter and Paul. It
had been a fettled opinion that Clemens Alexandrinus cited
and highly valued it. On this account a favourable opinion
was entertained by many of the book ; and by this means
later writers ftifting, or at leaft not regarding the obvious evi-
dence that is to be brought againft it, have extolled it in a
very unjuft and unreafonable manner, as I hope plainly to
fhew ; and in order thereto fhall firft produce their feveral
opinions.
I. Sixtus Senenfis a difcourfmg concerning the Sibylls, tells
us, that the Apojile Paul exhorts his Difciples to the reading of
the Sibylline Oracles, referring to the place above- cited of Cle-
mens, in the lajl Chapter, Numb. IV. whereby though he calls
* Biblioth. Sanft. lib. 2. p. 1:3. ad voc. Sibyl.
A a 2 ,' t
336 Sentiments of later Writers. PART ir,
it recondita Scrlptura^ it is plain he meant the book now
under confideration, and believed it to be the very writing of St.
Paul ;_ and a little after adds, u And fe /, according to the ad-
" vice ofPaul,Jhall write fame things concerning the Sibylls."
In another place J , // was cf authority among the antients^ be-
caufe Clemens Alexandrinus and Or i gen Lave cited it.
2. Cardinal Baronius b endeavours to fupport the credit of
this book attributed to Paul, wherein he is made to refer to
the Sibvlls (fee Chap, preced. Numb. HI.) becaufe St. Paul
has in fame other parts of his writing s t now received^ taken ci-
tations out of the Greek poets.
3. Dr. Cave c , though he looked upon it as fpurious, yet
fuppofes both // and the other Apocryphal pieces under the name
of Peter to have been written either in the Apojhlick age y or that
which was next to it.
. 4. Dr. Grabe d faith, All the fragments of it are perfeclly
orthodox^ and the authors of it Catholick ChrifHans^ becaufe
Clemens Ahxandrinus, and after him other orthodox Fathers^
have frequently cited it ; - that it ivas written foon after the
death of Peter by feme of that Apoftlis Difciples, who ivrott
iic;cn what they had heard him preach, to communicate it to
:'<> - And in another place 6 , by the fame weak argu-
ment as Baronius, fay?, He kncius not any reafon why fame
Difciple of the dpojlles, who heard the Preaching of Peter and
Paul, might net afcribe thcfe citations out of the Sibylline Oracle!
to St. Paul, feeing he cites Arrtus> Acts xvii. 28. Why then
might not the author of this Preaching rightly fay > that St. Paul
n:adt ufg of the Sibyll^ and other fuch fort of prophecies ?
5. Mr. Toland f . T7je Seven Booh y viz. the Epiftle to
the Hebrews, that of James, the fecond of Peter, the fecond
and third of John, the Epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation,
1 Biblioth. Sancl. lib. i. p. 91. c Hift&r. Literar. in Petro, p. 5.
- ctnis. d Spicileg. Patr. Secui. I. p.6i,
6 Appam. ad Annal. apud Ca- 62.
faiib. Kxercit. I. Num. XVIII. P. f> f ,.
c-->nt. Bur on. f Amyntor. p. 56, 57.
CHAP, xxxiv. Peter's Preaching a Forgery. 357
w ere a long time doubted by the antients t particularly by thofa
whom we ejleem thefounde/l part ; and yet they are received not
without convincing arguments by the moderns: now I fay by
more than a parity of reafon, that the Preaching of Peter, and
his Revelation (for example) were received by the antier.ts, and
ought not therefore to be rejected by the moderns^ if the appro-
bation of the Fathers be a proper recommendation of any books.
6. Dr. Mill *' thinks this Preaching was publifhed not long
after Peter's death^ containing federal moral InJlruEllons relat-
ing to the worjhip of Gcd^ ^vhich were taken from the ^pojlle^s
m.-'.t 1 )^ and committed to writing by his Difciples j and that
fuch are the fragments of it now remaining.
7. Mr. Whifton h would have it in fome fenfe to be looked
upon as one of the f acred books,
Notwithstanding this concurrence of opinions, to elevate
the authority of this Preaching of Peter > I am not afraid to
aflert it a moft ridiculous, filly, and impious forgery. To
eftablifh which afiertion, I obferve,
/VV/?, That Origen, the anonymous Author in Cyprian's
time, Eufebius, and Jerome have exprefsly and plainly rejected
it as a fpurious and Apocryphal piece. This is evident from
the places produced in the laft chapter, Numb. 6, 7, 9, 10.
Nor can there be any doubt concerning this, as to either of
them, except that Origen calls it, Numb. 6. The Doclrlne of
Peter, and not The Preaching of Peter : to which I anfwer,
that thefe two were only different titles for the fame book, as
is confeffed by Dr. Cave and Dr. Grabe, in the places juft
now cited, and feems evident for thefe two reafons; viz.
1. That a paflage produced by Cotelerius out of the
Preaching of Peter is by Damafcenus cited out of the Doc-
trine of Peter c .
2. As feveral things feem inferted into the Preaching of
Peter , which were in the Gofpel of the Nazarcnes^ (viz. that
of Chriji confejjing his Jins^ and being unwilling to be baptized
* Prclegom.inNov.Teft. .133. c Vid. Grab. loc. cit.
c EiTuy on Conftit. p. 24.
Aa 3 h
358 -the Preaching of PART n.
by John till his mother compelled him ; fee Numb. 7. in the
foregoing Chapter, and compare it with the paflage in the
Hebrew Gofpel above in this Part, Chap. XXV. Numb. 15.)
fo alfo the paflage produced by Origen out of the Doftr'ine of
Peter, concerning Chrift's not being an incorporeal demon
(above, Chap, preced. Numb. 6.) feems taken out of the Na-
zarene Gofpel as above, Chap. XXV. Numb. 27, 28. The
Preaching therefore and Dottrine of Peter being confefled to
be the fame book, I argue againft Dr. Grabe, that Origen's
rejecting the one is rejecting the other ; and therefore, though
he do not in one place determine, whether it be fpurious, ge-
nuine, or mixed ; (fee Chap, preced. Numb. 5, and Numb. 2.)
yet he doth fo fully determine the matter here, by not al-
lowing it to be fo much as an Ecclefiajlical Book, that we need
fay no more of his fentiments concerning it. I conclude it
therefore Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. And whereas
it may be objected, that though it be not cited but rejected by
thefe Fathers, yet it was approved by Heracleon, Theodotus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, and Laclantius : I only anfwer as to
the two firft, they were Hereticks of the worft fort ; Heracleon
was indeed an early one, the predeceflbr of Cerdo, and a com-
panion of Valentinus, who were at Rome in the time of Hy-
ginus, the eighth bifhop of that place, and confequently about
the year of Chrift CXXX a . He had the fame principles
with Valentinus, and added feveral new ones b . He who will
read Irenseus's account of Valentinus , -and that in Epipha-
nius^ concerning Heracleon, his Ogdoades, his Thirty jones y
his Two firjl Principles of all things^ his Firjl Man the pa-
rent of al^ wko?n he calls Bythus, and declares to have been nei-
ther male, nor female, from whom the univerfal mother of all
things, whom he calls Sige, arofe, will not think it any credit
to this book that he received it. Theodotus lived towards
the end of that century, a heretick fo infamous, that he was
excommunicated by Pope Victor : he entertained the moil
* See Iren. adv. Haeref. 1. a. and Haeref. 41. . i. Auguft. de
c. 4. et lib. 3. c. 4. Haeref. ad Qupdvult. N. 16.
b Tertull.dePrefcript.adv.Hse- c Adv. Haeref. I. z. paiTim.
jref. c. 49. Epiphan. Harref. 36. . 2. <i Locis jam citatis.
ridiculous
CHAP, xxxiv. Peter Apocryphal. 359
ridiculous tenets concerning Chrift, as being a mere man, the
angels being material beings, and more or Isfs Jo, according to
their refpefiive dignities ; that they were of different fexes, com-
tnanded thejlars, "which had fo great influence upon human bo-
dies and aclions, that Chrift came In our nature^ and fttffered, to
deliver thofe who believed in him therefrom*. Such were the
perfons who firft ufcd this Preaching ; from whence it is not
difficult to form a judgment concerning the defign and ten-
dency of the book. As to the paflages taken out of it by
Clemens Alexandrinus and La&antius, I {hall confider them
prefently, and alfo in what manner they cited them.
Secondly, I obferve, that this book was fpurious and Apo-
cryphal, by Prop. VIII. becaufe it contained feveral things
contrary to thofe which are certainly known to be true.
Such is that of Chrijl confejftng his fins, and being unwilling
to be baptifed, in that paflage, Chap, preced. Numb. 7. This
is contrary to the whole defign of Chriftianity, as has been
above proved ; (fee Chap. XXIX.) which fuppofes the per-
fon, who was to make atonement, to have been without fin ;
and what is worth obferving, dire&ly contradicts what both
Paul and Peter (the pretended Authors of this Book) have
wrote elfewhere, 2 Cor. v. 21. Heb. iv. 15. and I Pet. ii. 22.
Not much different is the Jlory of Cbrift's being compelled by
his Mother to fitbmlt to John's baptifm ; which implies him ei-
ther to have been defective in wifdom, not knowing what he
ought to do j or elfe in duty, not being inclined to what he
ought to have done, or both.
Thirdly, I argue it of falfehood or contrariety to known
truths, and therefore Apocryphal, by Prop. VIII. becaufe it
was intended and wrote with a defign to fupport the doctrine of
the eternal obligation of the Ceremonial Law of Mofes* This is
moft undeniably evident from the feveral paflages in the pre-
tended Letter of Peter to James (produced in the preceding
Chapter, Numb, r.) which, though evidently a forgery, cannot
be fuppofed to have taken things out of this Book of Peter's
* Vid. Excerpt, ad fin. Opp. Clem. Alex, per tot. et Epiplun. Haeref.
54-
A a 4 Preaching
360 The Preaching of . PART n.
Preaching, which were not in it. Now in that Epiille the
pretended Peter, . 2. calls his Preaching M^OX, that is, ac-
cording to the Law ; and in the Tame place fpeah in very bard
language of tbofe who oppofed the observation of the Law^ call-
ing fuch oppofition mifchievous ; and him, who was the op-
pofer, an enemy ^ and a teacher of trifiing docJrines aguinJJ the
Law ; by whom, without doubt, the Author meant Paul,
whom the Ebionites ever efteemed as their great enemy, be-
caufe he oppoied their Law, and therefore were wont to call
him, an apoftate from the Laiv^ and fcandalifed him, as being
Induced to this by a disappointment he met with in an amour
with the High Pr'tefls daughter. See above in this Part,
Chap. XVII. Numb. XVII. A little after, the fame Author
llamesfome who expounded fome places of his works^ as counte-
nancing the dottrine of the abrogation of the Law y declares
he had no fuch thoughts^ and introduces Chriji as ajjerting the
necejfity of a perpetual obfervation of the Law. From all which
it is mod clearly manifeft, the great defign of the book, called
The Preaching of Peter ^ was to encourage the Judaiftng Gbriji-
ians, viz. the Nazarenes and Ebionites ^ in their medley Religion
cf obeying the prectpts of Mofes^ and believing in Chnjt. But
all this every Chriftian knows, is directly contrary to the very
principles of his Religion, which neceflarily fuppofes the en-
tire abolifhment of the Mofaick ceconomy ; and as one of the
foundations of which, he believes that not only Chrift, but
St. Paul repealed the whole fyftem of ceremonies, as what
neither the Jews nor Gentiles were to be obliged by. It
would be fuperfluous for me to fay any more on this head, it
being agreed on by all Chriftians; only I cannot but remark
here, that though St. Peter was indeed for fome time (till he
had his vifion, A6ts x.) an obfer-ver of the Law^ yet afterwards
he was not wanting in declaring agalnjl the obligation of the
Law^ and in the council at yerufalem calls it a_>Wv, which nei-
ther the Jews nor their fathers were able to bear^ A&s xv. 10.
And in this doctrine we fhall find the primitive Chriftians
generally agreed, except only thofe called Nazarenes and
Ebionites ; of whom the catholick churches had fo very mean
an opinion, that they always ftyled them hereticks, and reck-
oned
CHAP, xxxivi, Peter Apocryphal. 361
oned them to be Ghriftians no farther than that they bore the
name of drift; and hence Epiphaniusa tells us, they would
not be called, nor call themfelves, Chrijiians, and were in all re-
fpefts Jews, only that they profejfcd to believe on ChrijL I con-
fefs indeed, Mr. Toland has troubled the world with a book,
in which he would endeavour to prove, that thefc were the only
true Chrijiians, and therefore calls it Nazarenus j but his at-
tempt is fo weak, and has been fo well anfwered by Dr. Man-
gey, that 1 fhall take no farther notice of it j only will be fo
kind to tell Mr. Toland, that this fpurious Epi/lle of Peter to
James will be of great fervice to him in any farther endeavours
he may engage in to promote his original plan of Chriftianity.
As to the Epiftle itfelf, I fhall perhaps have occafion in the
next volume more critically to enquire into it ; in the mean
time I only obferve, that it was made by fame Ebionite, and
confequently mufl be an antient piece ; for, if I miftake not, the
Ebionites did not continue in any confiderable numbers, if at
all, as a feel: after the fifth century ; but whether it was the
preface of this Preaching of Peter, as Mr. Dodwell imagines b ,
or of the Recognitions of Clement, as Dr. Grabe corjo_tures%
is not material here to enquire, though I rather incline to thp
former opinion. Whichfoever it was, it affords us a good ar-
gument againft this Apocryphal Preaching of Peter.
Fourthly, I argue the Preaching of Peter to be Apocryphal,
as containing things falfe, becav.fe it makes both Paul and Pe-
ter appeal to the Sibylline Oracles, the books of Il\Jlafpes, and
fuch tike, for the confirmation of the Chriftian Religion. The
matter of fact, as to Paul, is undeniable from that fragment in
Clemens Alexandrinus in the preceding Chapter, Numb. III.
where he is in fo many words introduced, as exhorting thofe
to whom he wrote, to acknowledge the Sibylline Oracles, and
their predictions ; to read Hyjlafpes, and obferve the clear de-
fcriptions he gives of Chrijl, his Jufferings, and the oppofttion he
and his followers were to meet with in the world: fo alfo Peter
is introduced (Numb. VI.) as faying, that he had perufed the
books of the prophets, in which were very particular defer iptions
Haercf. 29. . 7. c Spicileg. Patr, t. i. p. 59,
Differt.VI. inlren. . 10. 60.
rf
362 Tne Preaching of Peter Apocryphal. PART ir.
of Chrift, his coming^ death y crofs^ Bufferings ^ refurreclion^ af-
cenfan) and even bis very name. To me it is evident, the pro-
phets here referred to are the fame with thofe mentioned in
the foregoing pafTage, viz. the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. not on-
ly becaufe the prophecy there is of the fame fort with thefe,
but becaufe we know of no other prophetick books, contain-
ing fuch things. Indeed Dr. Grabe, in his notjes at the end
of the volume a , fuppofes they were taken out of fome Apo-
cryphal book of the Old Teftament : but this is plainly a
groundlefs conjecture; if he means any book that pretended
to belong to the Canon of the Jews. It is enough to anfwer,
there never appears to have been any fuch book ; if other-
wife, then there is all imaginable reafon to conclude this Apo-
cryphal Author meant the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. The fact
therefore is certain, that both Paul and Peter in this book made
ufe of the SibyllS Oracles^ and Hyjlafyes^ to confirm the truth
cf Christianity: and who, at firft thought, will not condemn
this as a falfehood ? 'Could there be any neceflity thefe Apo-
itles, who had fo much better arguments to convince the
world, fhould make ufe of fuch abominable methods as thefe ?
Befides, it was quite contrary to their practice; we find them,
upon all occafions, appealing to the records and prophecies
of the Jews to prove Jefus to be the Mefliah j but never, befides
here, to any prophets among the Gentiles. In all their writ-
ings to the Gentiles, as well as Jews, no mention, no diftant
intimation, is to be found of their having feen or heard of
any fuch books. I might urge a variety of this fort of argu-
ments, but the matter is fo plain, as not to need it ; I (hall only
urge, that thefe pretended prophecies were not in being when
Peter and Paul lived. The truth is, the Sibylline verfes^ and
the books of Hyftafpss, Mercurius Trifmegiftus, C5V. which fpeak
fo clearly of Chrift, and fo highly of the Chriftian Religion,
were no other than the forgeries of fome more pious than honeft
Chriftians in the firjl ages, deftgned to gain credit to their new
Religion. This has been largely proved by many, and is the
P. 3*9.
opinion
CHAP, xxxiv. An Account of the Sibylls.' 363
opinion of Cafaubon a , Daille b , Dr. Cave c , Spanheim d , Le
Clerc e , Fabritius f , and in a manner all who have wrote of
them. And indeed, were there no other arguments to prove
them fpurious, befides what may be gathered from the frag-
ment under confideration, it would be fufficient, viz. that they
fa very particularly describe the hi/lory of Chri/t, his coming^
fuffering, refurreftion, afeenjjon, and even his very name, as
others of them do the whole bufinefs of Chrijlianity ; Omnia
huj us generis quo apertiora, eo fieri (fays Cafaubon) fufpeftiora.
For befides that it is fo improbable a thing in itfelf, that the
Heathens fhould have been favoured with fuch prodigious dif-
coveries, greater by far than any in the Law of Mofes, or the
Prophets of the Old Teftament ; the coming of Chrift, his
miracles, doc"lrine, refurre&ion, afcenfion, fending the Holy
Ghoft, &c. are always reprefented in the Scriptures as great
difcoveries j hence the difpenfation of the Gofpel is by Paul
called a myjtery, which had been hid for ages and generations^
but now is made manifejl to his faints, to whom God would make
known what is the riches of the glory of this myjiery among the
Gentiles, which is Chrift, &c. Col. i. 26, 27. But how St.
Paul could fay this, and believe the writings of Hyftafpes, and
the Sibylls' verfes, is impoffible to tell. 1 therefore conclude
thefe Oracles to have been a forgery long after Peter and
Paul's time, and therefore as they would not, fo they could
not appeal to them ; and confequently, this Preaching of Peter
and Paul was a forgery too, and fo not only Apocryphal by
Prop. VIII. as containing things falfe, but alfo by Prop. X.
as containing things later than the time in which the Authors^
whofe name it bore, lived. Under this head I would farther ob-
ferve, that this fpurious Author makes the Apoftle Peter to
owe his own belief of Chrijlianity to the predictions of thefe books,
(fragment VI. of Clemens Alexandrinus, Chap, preced.) calls
them Scripture, and fays, God really appointed them, which are
* Adverf. Baron. Exercit. I. d Spanh. Hift. Chrift. Sec. II.
Num. 18, &c. p. 677.
b Right Ufe of the Fathers, c.j. e Hift. Ecclef. Sec. II. ad arm.
p. 18, 19. cxxxi. p. 598, &c.
< Hift. Liter, in Voc. Sibyll. f Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam.
p. 34.. p. 300. torn. i.
yet
364 7Z 1 * SihylKne Oracles forged. PART n.
yet farther evidences of its fpurioufnefs, and is fo abfurd, that
I cartnct but be furprifed to obferve Dr. Grabe fo jumping in
with that filly writer, as to call them Scripture too j and fo
according to his example, fpeaking of it as though it were
really St. Peter's, urging us to prove every thing by the Scrip-
tures. Thus I have largely from this inftance proved this
book Apocryphal ; nor do I know any thing that can be ob-
ie&ed againll the proof, unlefs it be what Baronius and the
)afl named writer have faid for the credit of the book, that St.
Paul didfar.etimes make ufe of tejlimonies from heathen authors ;
which, though it be indeed true, yet is very little to the pur-
pofe, it being one thing to cite the genuine books of a moral
heathen for the fupport of a moral point, and another to make
vfe of tejlimonies out of forgeries and fpurious books , to prove the
very foundation of the Chrijiian Revelation ; a method, which
though however much pradtifed byfome of the Fathers, efpe-
cially by Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and La6lan-
tius, is both unjuft in itfelf, injurious to truth, and derided by
their enemies. And hence we find Celfus objects it to Ori-
en a , that they Jjad corrupted the baoks of the Sibylh^ by infert-
ing many things in favour of Chrijlianity ; to which Origen
gives a very weak antwer in my judgment; perhaps, becaufe
he would not, or durft not give a better : and in another pface
Celfus, with an air of wit, banters the Chriftians under the
name of Sibyllifts b , and even Lactantius c owns, that the Pa-
gans were wont to okjefl, that the verfes^ which the Chrijlians
under the Sibylls' names, were not really their s, but forgtA
by the Chrijlians ; and Conftantine the emperor d , after he had
produced the famous Greek Acroftick concerning Chrift, at-
tributed to the Sibyl 1 Erythrsa, adds, o rcAAoi T >3^wr
.-i x.x1 rat'S', '.j.;~ '.y^-.fi: 'Lf.^fx'isty ytyfcftdM 2.cu/Aa> ^arrw'
vwnrrsi/yo ^' T* -rial T>: -uT6.-c 8^cnU**^ flectrTtxij; yMvort ax. ut/.'A-
? o, T tin T-: T r5Tc.ryai, that Many men did not believe it,
though they confefs the Sibyl/ Erythrtea to have been really a
prophetefs, bittfiippofe that thofe verfes were made byfome one of
* Orig. cor.tr. Cell', lib. 7, c De vera Sap. c. 1 5.
p. 368. d Orat. ad. Sanct. Cst. c. 19.
* L. 5. p. 2-1.
CHAP. XXXV. 77;<? Preaching of Piter Apocryphal. 365
our religion^ ivho had a genius for poetry t &'c. I {hall conclude
this Chapter with the judgment of St. Auftin in this matter,
which not only is a fair intimation of the forgery of the Si-
bylls, but implies a very itrong argument againil the Preach-
ing of Peter. Difcourfing agamft the Jews, he ftarts this ob-
je<tion : Perhaps it may be laid, that the Sibylline prophecies
are forged by us ; and anhvers, we have fufficient prophecies
"without: them in the Jewifa books : and in the end of the next
Chapter, difcourfmg of thofe who arrived to the faving know-
ledge of Chrift, who were not Ifraelites, he mentions only the
account in the book of Job, and adds, That whatever prophe-
cies of others (viz. among the Heathens, befides the book of
Job) concerning the grace of God through Jtf'<s drift are pro-
duced^ may be thought the composures of the Chriftians ; therefore
nothing will be more effectual to convince any of the Heathens, or
to eftallijh the Chrijiians, if they think rightly, than urging
thofe prophecies concerning ChriJJ^ -which are in the books of the
Jews*.
CHAP. XXXV.
The Preaching of Peter proved Apocryphal by other Argument! ;
as, viz. that it contained federal Contradictions and Falfe-
hvods, Inftances afftgned of both. How Lattantius cites it.
How Clemens Ahxandrinus cites it., -viz. as a pious Forgery
effome Chrijiians.
WHAT has been already faid may be thought fufficient
to prove the fpurioufnefs of this Preaching of Peter ;
but becaufe it has been fo highly efteemed, I fhall fubjoin two
or three brief arguments more, viz.
Fifthly, I argue the Preaching of Peter to be Apocryphal,
from that paffage in it cited by Heracleon, (produced above,
Chap. XXXIII. Numb. 2. and more largely by Clemens
De Civlt. Dei, lib. 18. c. 4.6, 47.
Alexan-
366 The Preaching of PART II.
Alexandrinus, in the fame Chapter, Numb. III.) viz. where
Peter commands, that Godjhould not be worjhipped according to
the manner of the Jews, who, fays he, ivorjkip angels and arch'
angels, and the month, and the moon, &c. This will afford us
an undeniable argument againft this book ; to make which
appear, I obferve, that among the Judaifmg Chriftians, even
in the Apoftolick age, there was a cujlom arofe of paying wor-
Jhip or homage to the angels. This is fufficiently clear from
thofe obfcure words of St. Paul, Col. ii. 18. Let no man be-
guile you of your reward in a voluntary humility ', and worjhip-
ping angels, &c. where it is plain by the context he was
guarding the Coloffians againft the infmuations of the Jews,
about the necejjity of their worjhip, as to holy days, and new
moons, sV. The foundation of this practice was partly their
opinion, that it was too great boldnefs in a creature to ap-
proach to his Creator without fome intercefTor, and partly be-
caufe the Law was given by angels ; now this practice the
pretended Peter inveighs again/I, but therein contradifls fome
other parts of his book, wherein, as it appears by the Epiftle of
Peter to James, (Chap. XXXIII. Numb, i.) the whole of the
Ebionite Scheme was contended for. I conclude it therefore
Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contained contradictions.
Farther, the pafTage forbids the war/hipping of the month
and the moon, as the Jews did, which either means, that the
Jews paid idolatrous worjbip to the moon, as the Heathens did,
or elfe their appointing their feveral feajls by it, as they were
appointed to do by the Law of Mofes. If we fuppofe the
former^ it will prove the book Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. be-
caufe the Jews about the time of our Saviour were not guilty
of any fuch idolatry ; and therefore Peter, who knew them,
could not charge them with it : if we fay the latter, which is
indeed moft probable, becaufe it was their known practice, it
will no lefs prove the book Apocryphal, becaufe then it mu/l
cantraditl itfelf; feeing the defign of the book was to fupport
the obfervation of the Law of Mofes (as appears by the EpiJIle
of Peter to Jaws juft now cited), but the defign of this com-
mand is to abrogate them : I fay therefore, it is to be judged
Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contained contradictions.
Sixthly,
CHAP. xxxv. Peter Apocryphal. 367
Sixthly, The fame character feems juftly to be fixed upon
the book from that paflage cited by Clemens Alexandrinus
twice (viz. Chap. XXXIII. Numb. I. and Numb. II.) and
by Theodotus, Numb. 4. where Chrift is called the N^o?, the
Law, which feems to be upon no other account than to ejlablijlj
the Ebionite fcheme of the everlajling obligation of the Law y
which has been fhewn to be the intent of this book. Apo-
cryphal therefore by Prop. VIII.
Seventhly, The Author of the book about Rebaptifathn
(above, Chap. XXXIII. Numb. J.) has obferved a very evi-
dent contradiction in it, viz. After the two Apojihs Peter and
Paul had conferred together, and difyuted at Jerufalem^ they
afterwards met in the fame city as much unknown to each other ,
as If they had never fe en each other before. This feems either
to argue, that both the Apoftles had memories exceeding
treacherous, or elfe fomething (as the anonymous Author fays)
very abfurd, i. e. contradictious to itfelf, and therefore what
proves it Apocryphal by Prop. VII.
Eighthly, The paflage (Numb. IV. out of Clemens Alex-
andrinus, above, Chap. XXXIII.) in which is Chrift's com-
mand to his Apoftles, not to go out into the world to preach
the Gofpely till after the expiration of twelve years, will alfo
prove it Apocryphal. For though there be another teftimony
to this tradition, viz. Apollonius, a writer of the fecond cen-
tury 3 , yet it feems very contrary, not only to the defign of the
Chriftian Religion, which was intended to be as diffufive as
pofliblc, without any diftindlion of perfons or nations, but alfo
to the exprefs tefti monies of feveral of the books now receiv-
ed j as where our Saviour tells the woman of Samaria, the
hour comet h y when ye Jhall neither in this mountain, nor at Je-
rufalem^ worjhip the Father ^^fc. Joh. iv. 21. where he tells
his Difciples, the Gcfpel iua> to be preached to all the world,
Matt. xxiv. 14. and actually commands them, without any
limitation as to time, to go forth and preach the Gcfpel to every
ApudEufcb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 5. c. 18.
crtaturt t
368 The Preaching of PART n
creature, and to all nations, Mar. xvi. 15. Mat. xxviii. 18.
Befides., if Chrift did give his Apoftles any fuch command, if
the Hijlory of the Atts of the Apt/lies by Luke be true, they
were difobedient to it; for it is certain that in much lefs time
Peter had his vifion, Churches 'were planted in Samaria, An-
tioch, &c. by the preaching of the Apoftles : and therefore,
after fo much evidence, I may venture to afTert this a fpurious
account of Chrift ; and confequently this Preaching^ which
contained it, alfo fpurious.
I confefs indeed, the Latin translator of Clemens has given
thefe words another turn, and putting no point after the word
auafriut, but a full period after the word itr t , makes the pa/Tag*
to fpeak thus, lie that will repent and believe on God through
my name, his fins Jball be pardoned after twelve years. But this
is more abfurd and foolifli than the former, and therefore I
have chofen to follow Dr. Cave's punctuation and tranfla-
tion a .
Laftly, I might argue this book not to have been the com-
pofure of Peter and Paul, from the great difference there is
in tlwjlyle of It from the known Jlyle cf thofe two facred writers,
and fo prove it Apocryphal by Prop. XI. but this I fliall leave
to the judgment and difcretion of the reader, having faid fo
much concerning the various forts of ftyles under that Propo-
fition.
What remains farther is, that I zfafomething concerning the
wanner in which Clemens and Lafiantius have cited this bosk,
As to the latter, though he indeed produces a paflage out of
it, he dots not cite it as of any authority, nor in the hajl intimate,
that it was ivrote by tbafe Apojlles. As to the former, though
he indeed cite it feveral times, which has been made the great
argument to fupport its authority, I fhall think it fufficient to
obferve,
1 . That he never does cite it as Scripture, cr under that
name.
2. That // does not follow from a bare citation of it, that he
* Hift. Liter, in'P^tro,
judged
CHAP. xxxv. of Peter Apocryphal. 369
judged it to be the work of thofe Apojlles. Why might he not
cite it as an Ecclefiaftical book ? I' have above proved, that
he did in like manner cite a paflage out of the Gofpel of the
Hebrews, which yet himfelf rejected as not Canonical; but
3. Suppofe he did really appeal to it as a genuine look, it
will be a moft abfurd inference, that therefore it was Cano-
nical', it is at moft but the teftimony of one {ingle Father
againft the exprefs teftimony of many others as good and pro-
per judges as himfelf, as well as againft a great many ftrong
arguments of its fpurioufnefs. But
4. To fpeak what I really think ; fince it is certain the firjl
Chriftians did forge fever al pious books to gain credit to Chrift-
ianity, as for inftance, the Verges of the Sibylls^ &c. out of the
fame principle I fufpet Clemens made ufe of this book under
the name of Peter^ juft in the fame manner as he has very often
in his works taken teftimonies againft the Pagans out of the
fpurious Verfes of the Sibylls. See p. 17, 32,41, 223, 304,
323,601,604, 636, &V.
Upon the whole, I conclude this Preaching of Peter to
have been the forgery of fome Ebionites in the beginning of
the fecond century, and contained things vaftly different from,
any thing that ever the Apoftles preached ; that it pafled un-
der various changes, fuffered many interpolations, and was a
moft filly and impious impofture.
VOL. I. B b CHAP.
37 Tl< Revelation of Peter. PART n.
CHAP. XXXVI.
The Revelation of Peter fuppofed by Dr. Grabe equal to the
Revelation of John ; by Mr. Toland, as preferable to Seven
Books of our prefent Canon f by Mr. Whijlon, to have been a
facred Book. Their Opinion of it groundlefs ; for Clemens
Alexandrinus never cited it. The Book of Hypotypofes not
written by Clemens, but another \ proved out of Photius. A
conjecture concerning the ffypotypofes fupported out of CaJJio-
dorus. TJje Excerpta Theodoti not made by Clemens. The
Contents of thefe Eclogues, or Excerpta ; and their Contra-
riety to the known Doctrines of Clemens. They were not
Part of the Hypotypcfes, as Mr. Palefius fuppofes, nor Part
of the Stromata. This fully proved. The Preaching of
Peter not ejleemed by Eufebius. He does not contradicJ him-
felf in Relation to that Book, as has been generally fuppofed*
A Method of clearing him.
Numb. LIII. The REVELATION OF PETER.
BESIDES the Gofpel, Afts, Judgment, and Preaching, I
obferve there was alfo extant formerly a Book called,
The Revelation of Peter. The antient writers who have men-
tioned it are as follow; viz.
I. Clemens Alexandrinus a .
There was a book formerly extant under his name, but
now loft, entitled, The Hypotypofes of Clemens ; and in this he
made ufe of the Revelation of Peter , as Eufebius informs us b .
':/ Si TOUS 'TWOTUITW o~i W- J n the books of his called Hy-
<nK TJK w^toS'n'jts yfa^fl? potypofes^ he has wrote fome
mohreti Sn- far* Commentaries upon all
T*S aWiXio- the books of Scri P ture > not
Lib. Hypotypos. k Hift. Ecclef. 1. 6. c. 14-
omitting
CHAP, xxxvr. The Revelation of Peter. 371
srapA3-wV rriv 'Iou7a omitting even the controvert-
xai T? XOITTKS xa3"c- ^ books, I mean that of Jude,
T B and the other Catholick Epi-
ftles; the Epiftle of Barnabas,
* ^ and that called, 7* Revela-
A 10
2. Theodotus a .
J? 'ATTO- Wherefore Peter in his Re-
velaticn faith > ^^ ^ %^^
(3 e i- '// ;v **r*'dfrom tbofe in-
f atj ts, and did ftrlke upon the
women*
<pwv,
<ro(Atvx
T, TXI f
3. By the fame b .
f 'ATTO- Prefently after, Peter fays in
i$-t\ E- b' s Revelation, " That abor-
IXEtWoC " ^ VC ^ n ^ antS arC ' n ^ e mo &
" happy circumftances, that
at. a-v- rr/
tc they are committed to a
" guardian angel, by which /
tfotfctfiiof
T?
<c means they are fo inftrudr.-
" ed, as to obtain a more ex-
a.$iv xa) tv u cellent manficn, but firft
ra, * 'i-rica. " fufFering what they would
Tflfcraj, " have fuffered > if the >' had
/ \ " continued in the body : but
twroe.- va.i *
" as for others, they indeed
" find mercy, and obtain man-
* c fions of happinefs for the
yvvaiKuv piov aVo TWV injuries they have fufFered;
:i sryywptvov, Qnc}v " and thus in this condition
iv TV, 'A7ToxaA-J'|'?< J " they fhall abide without pu-
11 nifhment, receiving this for
" their reward. Again, as Peter fays in his Revelation, the
*' milk of women, flowing down from their breafts, and
T8TO Vt-
a Excerpt, ad Calc. Opp.
A'ex. p. 806.
)pp. Clem.
Bb 2
b Lib. cit. p. 807.
K coagu-
372 T^e Revelation of Peter. PART II.
Xcnrroc, <r#xo- " coagulating, fhall produce
tl? " fmall carnivorous animals,
" which ft 10 " 1 * 1 ru(h back U P;
" on them, and deftroy them."
4. By Eufebius a .
uV5 KjifuyjiAa That book, which is called
^* Preaching of Peter, and
o'Aw? Iv x*$oX.xey hp* rhe Delation of Peter, we
know, have not been delivered
'
to us (or efteemed) as Cawo-
. . , . . '
meal books ; inafmuch as none
UTW <ru^e > ' <raTO our ecclefiaftical writers, have
taken teftimonies out of them.
5. By the fame".
*i TOK vo5ot? xTaTTj^S-w 7/&^ Revelation of Peter is to
_ 'A7roxa'Av4/K HsTga. be ranked among thofe books,
which are fpurious.
6. By Jerome c .
Libri autem eju$, e quibus But the books under the name
unus Ad-tus infcribitur of Peter, of which one is en-
quartus Apocalypfis, inter titled his Adls, another his
Apocryphas Scripturas repu- Gofpel, a fourth his Reve-
tantur. lotion, are reckoned among
the Apocryphal Scriptures.
This is all that is to be found among the antients relating
to this book : there is not much faid of it by the moderns ;
only Dr. Grabe would d by no means have it reckoned an
heretical book, but compofed by the orthodox Chriftians, and no
more liable to fufpicion of herefy on account of its Jlrange doc-
trines, than the Revelation of yohn, and therefore that we
Jhouldnot be too free in our conjectures about fuch antient obfcure
" Hift. Ecclef. 1. 3. c. 3. c Catal. Viror. illuftr. in Petro.
* Cap. 15. ejufdcrn libri. * Spicileg. Patr. 1. 1. p. yij&c.
prophecies,
CHAP, xxxvi. Not cited by Clemens. 373
prophecies. The truth is, which I have often thought, this
learned Do&or had very much the fame opinion of thefe
books, and fome, if not all thofe, of our prefent Canon. Mr.
Toland would have it efteemed as valuable as feven books of
our prefent Canon, (fee the place above, Chap. XXXIV.
Numb. 5.) by more than a parity ofreafon, i. e. there are bet-
ter arguments for this book than thofe. Mr. Whifton a alfo
recommends it as a f acred book.
The fubftance, and indeed the whole that is urged for the
book is, that it -was made ufe of by Clemens and Theodotus, not
rejected by Eufebius, but faid to be read in all the Churches of
Palejline. I mail confider each of thefe diftin&ly, and then
proceed to determine concerning the book.
I. As to Clement's ufing this book, I obferve, that this is
founded wholly upon that place of Eufebius, above produced,
Numb. i. viz. where he fays, that Clemens Alexandrinus
in his Hypotypofes wrote fome Jhort notes or commentaries upon,
all the parts of Scripture, not omitting the controverted books,
and among thefe The Revelation of Peter. But to this I anlwer,
1. That it does not follow, that this book was of any au-
thority, becaufe Clemens did write fome Jhort notes upon it.
This he might do in the fame manner as feveral learned men
have wrote notes upon the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament.
2. Thofe Hypotypofes^ or this book of Notes upon the whole
Scripture, under the name of Clemens, were not really his, but
the compofure of fome impious Heretick. The book itfelf is
now quite loft, and only fome few fragments of it preferved by
Eufebius b and Photius c ; but yet I think we want not evi-
dence to make it appear to have been the work not of Cle-
mens, but of a quite different perfon, from the account the
learned Photius gives of it. He fays, it was indeed an attempt
to explain all the parts of Scripture j and though fometimes he
expounded jujlly^ yet in other things his interpretations were im-
pious and fabulous : he aflerts matter to be eternal, makes Chrijl
a creature, holds the tranfmigration of fouls, and that there
were great numbers offurprifing worlds before Adam was made ;
* EfTay on the Conftit. p. 24. c. i, 9, 15. 1. 6. c. 14.
b Hift. Ecclef. 1. i. c. 12. 1. 2. Cod. cix.
B b 3 that
374- Tb* Hypotypofes under Clement' $ Name> not his. PART n
that the Angels had commerce with women^ and children by
them ; that Chrift was not flefa hut appeared to be fe^ with a
thoufand other fuch blafphemies and fooleries^ &c. On the ac-
count of which this book is not only defpifed by the excellent
Photius, but rejected. And indeed any one, who has read the
works of Clemens Alexandrinus, will eafily perceive the whole
of this book contrary to the true Clemens^ and his principles ;
which is alfo obferved by Photius, cod. cxi. For fpeaking of
his books, called Stromata^ he remarks, that though they are not
in all refpefis found) yet they are not like the Hypotypofes, which
BT^of -zB-otoa ra> EXE^ hx^a^nai, contain many things direftly oppofete
to thefe. After reading this , I made no queftion with myfelf, but
thefe commentaries afcribed to Clemens were a fpurious piece ;
and was not a little confirmed therein, when I obferved that
great mafter of books, Photius, had entertained the fame fufpi-
cion, and feems inclined to believe thefe commentaries were
made by TOO; IT^S TO etvrS Ttfoc-uvo* i-Trox^iSfVroj, by fame other perfon
'pretending to be Clemens; upon which Andreas Schottus, his
Scholiait, notes, that his conjecture feems probable, becaufe
the other parts of the works of Clemens contain found doElrine,
I fliall take it therefore for proved, that thefe Hypotypcfes, or
Notes upon the Epiftles, were not written by Clemens, but
feme felly Here tick ; to all which I will fubjoin a conjecture,
which I cannot but think probable, viz. That thofe Jhort
notes , which are publijhed by Dr. Fell*> under the name of Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, upon the fir/I Epi/lle of Peter , the Epi/ile
cfjude^ the firft andfecond Epijlles ofjohn, were part of thefe
old Hypotypofes, that went under the name of Clemens, which,
if it be right, we (hall be able to form another very good ar-
gument againft them, viz. that Cafliodorus b , who tranflated
them into Latin, fays, he found them fe heterodox^ that he
thought proper to exclude a very large part of them from his
tranjlation. If then the book of Hypotypofes was not really
wrote by Clemens, it is plain, nothing can be hence gathered
for the authority of the Revelation of Peter , which was made
ufe of, or noted upon in it.
In the end of his edition of fc Lib. i. De Inftitut. Script,
that little Tract afcribed to Cle- divin. apud Rivet. Critic. Satr.
mens Alexandrinus, entitled, g^uis lib. z. c. 8.
Dives fahietur?
II. As
CHAP, xxxvi. The Citation of it by Tfjeodotus. 375
II. As to this Revelation being cited in tie Eclogues of
Theodotus^ which are at the end of Clemens Alexandrinus ; I
think, that as its being cited there will be no credit to it, Co
the fragment there cited will be of itfelf fufficient to evidence
that it was a moji egregioujly filly and Apocryphal book. That it
will gain no credit by being cited in thefe Eclogues, or Ex-
cerpta, is plain; for though they go under the name of Cle-
mens, yet they are not his, nor is he any farther concerned
with them than as a mere abbreviator ; if he had indeed any
concern at all with them, which I can hardly perfuade myfelf
that he had, when I obferve that the whole defign of thefe Ec-
logee is directly oppofite to all the known books of Clemens ;
the former being intended to countenance the errors of Valenti-
nus and Bafilides^ as is well obferved by Sylburgius, and the
learned Archbifhop U flier"; but the latter, viz. the genuine
works of Clemen?, in many places are defigned to confute the
errors of thoje two Hereticks^; which is, I think, a convictive
argument, either that Clemens had no concern in thefe EC-
logrty or Abridgment of Theodotus, or at leaft that he was
no favourer of the doctrines therein contained; and confe-
quently not Clemens Alexandrinus, but Theodotus, and fome
Heretick of his mind, cited this Revelation of Peter. And if
this be the cafe, I am fure it will add no credit to this book,
that it is here cited, in the judgment of any one that will con-
fider the wretched principles of that Heretick above produced,
near the beginning of Chap. XXXIV. To which now I
add thefe farther out of the fame Eclogue, That Chrijt was
not only made by the Father ^ but made flejh at the beginning of
the vuorld'y that he himfelfhad need of redemption, which he ob-
tained by the dejcent of the dove upon him after his baptifm; that
God the Father Buffered with the Son ; yet thai the divinity re-
ceded from Chrijl before hisj)aj/isn, &c. If fuch an Author
be allowed to have cited the Revelation of Peter^ it will rather
be an evidence againft, than for its authority. I muft not
leave this head, without obferving, that Vahfms c has imagined
a In a Marmfcript of his, en- b See efpecially 1. 3,4.
titled BibiiofhecaThec'ogica, cited c Annot. in Euicb. 1. 5.0. n.
by Dr. Cuvc, Uiftor. Liter, p. 56. et 1. 6. c. 14.
B b 4 thefe
37 & The Revelation of Peter PART II.
tbefe Excerpta, or Eclogues, to have been part of the Hypotypo-
fes, or Commentaries, of which I treated in the foregoing feftion;
becaufe the fame things were contained in both, and the Re-
velation of Peter was made ufe of in both ; and becaufe Pan-
taenus, who was the mafter of Clemens, is called by that au-
thor of the Eclogues his mafter. To all which I anfwer,
that if it fhould be true, that thefe Eclogues were part of the
Commentaries, or Hypotypofes, yet nothing can be gathered
thence for the credit of the Revelation of Peter , becaufe 1 have
proved even the Hypotypofes not to have been the books of
Clemens. Nor are Valefms's arguments of any weight, feeing
it is a thing very probable, that thefe two books might be the
work of two other fcholars of Pantaenus, who had the fame
principles : befides, there is an unanfwerable argument againft
his opinion, that the Hypotypofes confifted of fhort notes, or
commentaries, upon all the parts of Scripture ; but there is
not any thing like this to be found in the Eclogues, or Ex-
cerpta Tliendoti. And hence it follows, that the conjecture
of Heinfius, concerning thefe Hypotypofes, being a part of
the laft book of the Stromata, is alfo entirely groundlefs.
Upon the whole then I conclude, that as Clemens has no
where cited the Revelation of Peter , fo neither is it of any cre-
dit to it, that Theodotus, or his abbreviator, did.
III. But the main thing that is urged for the Revelation of
Peter, is, that Eufebius did not rejecJ it, but places it in the
fame clafs with the Epijile of "Jude, and the other catholick
Epijiles. This is urged by Dr. Grabe with a great deal of
aflurance ; in which neverthelefs he is moft egregioufly rr.if-
taken, as he is more than once in his judgment on thofe words
of Eufebius ; for in both thofe places where he mentions it,
he abfolutely rejedts it. (See above in this Chapter, Numb. 4.
and Numb. 5.) In the firft he affirms, that he certainly knew
it was not delivered to the Church as a Canonical or catholick
book; and in the latter he places it among the worft fort of books,
which he calls wSar, i. e. fpurious. That which Eufebius
made his rule to judge by, (which is indeed the only rule in
the cafe) was the tejlimony of the antients, i. e. the tradition of
thefe
CHAP, xxxvi. rejefted ly Eufebius . 377
thofe who lived nearer to the time when the books were writ-
ten. This he urges againft this book, and faith, that it was
not delivered as Canonical, and that no ecclefiaftical writer
has taken any teftimonies out of it. But in this, fays Mr.
Toland a , Eufebius is mijlaken ; for the contrary appears by the
teftimonies marked in the catalogue^ which any body may compare
with the originals. Valefms b , and after him Father Simon c ,
Dr. Grabe d , and others, go farther, and charge Eufebius with
contradicting bimfelf', becaufe himfelf^ fay they, in another
place (viz. that above, Numb. I.) owns y that Clemens Alexan-
drinus cited it in the book of his Hypotypofes. Simon indeed at-
tempts to fay fomething in favour of Eufebius^ adding, that per-
haps Eufebius only intended^ that no ecclefiaftical author had
quoted thefe books as divine and Canonical. And herein he is
followed by Mr. Richardfon, in his Anfwer to Mr. Tolana 7 ,
p. 75. But this is not likely, and, I muft confefs, is no other
than what we commonly call, begging the queftion. Dr.
Grabe accounts for it thus, viz. that Eufebius in the beginning
of his book had not fufficiently acquainted himfelf with thofe
things, and therefore faid, no ecclefiajl'ical writer had cited this
book ; but) upon farther enquiry into the old books^ he found his
mljlake^ andfo owned what before he denied. But this is a very
precarious and groundlefs fuppofition ; inafmuch as it is cer-
tain that Eufebius had read the works of Clemens Alexandri-
nus, and made large ufe even of the Hypotypofes under his
name c , before he had wrote this third book, where he fays,
that no ecclefiaftical writer took teftimonies out of this book
under the name of Peter. Befides, had Eufebius thus in the
fixth book perceived the miftake he was guilty of in the third
book (which Dr. Grabe fuppofes he did), it was eafy for him
to have corrected it,byerafing what he had wrote falfely in the
former place ; but he not having done this, I conclude he was
of the fame mind, when he wrote both books. And though
upon this hypothefis it may be thought, that Eufebius is
Amyntor.p. 53,54.. Part I. c. 3. p. 25.
.
l.
chargeable
b Annot. in Eufeb. Hid. Eccl. d Spicileg. t. i. p. 57, 58.
1. 3-c-3- e Vid. Hift. Eccl. 1. i.e. 12.
c Sim. Crit. Hift. Nov. Teft. 1. 2. c. i, 9, 15.
378 Eufebius does not contradifl hlmfelf. PART II*
chargeable with contradi&ion to himfelf j yet, with fubmiflion
to thefe learned men, I think the charge moft unjuftly laid j
for though he fays, no ecclefiaftical writer has taken teftimo-
nies out of the Revelation of Peter in one place, he does not
fay that Clemens Alexandrinus did take teftimonies out of it
in another : all that he fays, is, that he wrote fame Jhort notes
upon it (-:7rTST//.y,^/a{ &vyr,<nis rosTro'wiTat), which is a very differ-
ent thing from /**prt;paV > fMxpfl > *To, i. e. ta&ing teftimonies out
of /V, or appealing to it as of any authority. Had the learned
writers above-named obferved this, I am perfuaded Eufebius
had not been fufpected of a contradiction ; after all which I
may fairly conclude, there is nothing to be gathered from Eu-
febius for the credit or authority of the Revelation of Peter.
IV. The laft thing urged for this Revelation is, that So-
zomen, a writer of the fifth century, fays, it was read in feme
churches of Pale/line once yearly, viz. the day of Chrift's Paf-
iion *. Mr. Toland b refers to this place of Sozomen in his
Catalogue ; and Dr. Grabe c concludes from it, that it was not
a book of the Hereticks, elfe it would not have thus been read.
But inafmuch as Sozomen does not mention what fort of
churches thefe were^ whether of the Hereticks, or Catholicks ;
it is moft reafonable to conclude the former, not only becaufe
of the known heterodoxy of the book, but becaufe Sozomen
in the very fame place tells us, that it was rejefted by the an-
tients univerfally y as afpurious piece.
Thus I have largely confidered this Revelation that went
under the name of Peter : whether it was a prophetick book
concerning the miferableJJate of the Jeivs> and the Jlate of the
Church to the time of Antichrlft^ as Dr. Grabe" and Dr. Mill 6
fuppofe, I fhall not now enquire; only obferve, that it was
certainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. I add alfo the
IXth, as it contained things ludicrous and trifling^ fabulous and
filly relations j of which fort thole are, produced above,
Numb. 2, 3. concerning abortive children^ the milk of women
producing animals^ &c.
* Hift. Eccl. 1. 7. c. 19. <> Lib. cit. p. 74.
fc Atr.yntcr. p. 23. Proleg. in Nov. Teft. . 135.
Spicikg. Pair. t. i. p. 71,
CHAP, xxxvii. Other Boobs under Peter's Name, 379
CHAP. XXXVII.
Other Books under the Name of Peter , viz. The Afls of Peter
by Leucius Charinus, The Gofpel ofPerfeElion^ a Forgery
of the Gnoflicks. A Conjecture concerning the Reafon of the
Title^ and the Contents of the Book. The Afts of Philip noiv
extant in the Vatican. The Gofpel of Philip. A Fragment
of it. Its Contents^ and abominable Doffrines* A Mijlake
of Mr. Du Pin concerning it.
Numb. LIV. Other BOOKS under the NAME of
PETER.
I HAVE given thefe, for method fake, a diftind tide, be-
caufe I find them fo mentioned by Pope Innocent P. His
words are,
Caetera, quae fub nomine But the other books under
Matthaei, five Jacobi minoris, the name of Matthew, or
vel fub nomine Petri et Jo- James the Lefs, or under tjie
annis, quae a quodam Leucio nameof Peter and John^ which
fcripta funt non folum were written by one Leucius;
repudianda, verum etiam no- know, that they are not only
veris efle damnanda. to be rejeted,but condemned.
There can be no reafon to doubt, but thefe were the fame
with thofe Apocryphal Acts, of which I have largely treated
above, as being forged under the Apoftles' names by Leucius
Charinus, as will evidently appear from what is laid Chap.
XXI. efpecially from the paflage of Photius.
Numb. LV. The GOSPEL OF PERFECTION.
f |^HE moft eminent and known Hereticks among the
JL Chriftians in the firft ages were thofe called the Gnof-
ficks ; of whom Irenasus fays, that they forged an infinite
a In Decret. five Epift. ad Exxiper. Epifc. Tholof. c. 7.
multitude
380 The Gofpel of Perfeflian. PART II.
multitude offpurious and Apocryphal books *; and Epiphanius b ,
that they made many Gofpels under the names of the Difciples.
Among the reft of their forgeries he mentions the Gofpel of
Perfection in the following manner c .
S\ 1% a,uTuv sra.Xiv But others of them produce a
tlrxyxtriv dyuyi- certain fpurlo u s and fuppoftti-
//flw " r *> to which work
they have given the name of
u.ot.Tt tTTM ,
/ the Gofpel of Perfection ; which
-
n /-/, i
really is no Gofpel, but the
Sorrow : for all
T8TO, aAX Tjrtff the perfection of death (i.e. of
-srao-a ya^ u' ra deftruffive doctrine) is con-
rAtftf *v TV TO;- tained in that producl of the
T8 AliXOOAOU Devil.
It fcems not difficult, from the very title of this fpurious
book, to conjecture concerning the defign or fcheme of it.
The Gnofticks, who forged it and ufed it, pretended to a
greater perfection in knowledge and virtue than all others, and
from thence took their very name rwroJ ; Gnojlict proper
excellentlamfaplentite^ fie fe appellatos effe vel appellari debut [ft
gloriantur^ &c. fays Auftin. de Haeref. t. 6. n. 6. See alfo
Clemens Alexandriaus De Pasdagog. 1. i.e. 6. et Stromat.
1. 2. p. 398. For the fame reafon they called themfelves
xaSagoi, tsnvpctruioi , &c. pretending to greater fanffity and per-
feftion of life than all befides*-, making themfelves even wifer
than the Apoftles, and to have found out more perfeft doc-
trines, as Irenaeus fays e ; and hence they were wont to call
Peter and the reft of the Apoftles imperfecJ^ as we learn from
the fame Father f ; from all which it may perhaps be a juft in-
ference, that this Gofpel had this title ^Perfedion, becaufe it
* Adverf. Haeref. 1. x. c. 17. c. i.
" Ead. Hzref. . 2. e Adv. Hseref. 1. 3. c. 2.
. e Haeref. 26. . 8. f Id. 1. 3. c. 12.
d Vid. Iren. adv. Hsref. 1. i.
contained
CHAP. XXXVII. The Afts of Philip. 381
contained this their more perfeft knowledge and great difcoverie^
which they had arrived to above even the Apoftles, or any
other Chriftians. If this conjecture be juft, it is Sufficient
to prove it Apocryphal, from the defign of it, by Prop. VIII.
But whatever becomes of this conjecture, it was certainly (as
Epiphanius calls it) fpurious and fuppofititious, and therefore
Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
Numb. LVI. The ACTS of PHILIP.
CONCERNING thefe I have met with nothing in the
^^ authors of thofe ages, to which I am confined, befides
their being thus mentioned by Pope Gelafius, in his Decree :
Atus nomine Philippi apo- The Atts under the name of
ftoli Apocrypha. Philip the Apojlle are Apo-
cryphal.
Mr. Fabritius* has produced a large fragment of thefe
A&s out of Anaftafius Sinaita, a writer of the feventh cen-
tury ; but this being fo much after my time, I fhall not tran-
fcribe it. The fame learned writer in his third tome of ad-
ditions to the two former 13 acquaints us, that Papebrochius
has publifhed fome Afts under the name of Philip^ and faw,
but did not think fit to publifh, fome other Afts under the
name of Philip^ which are in a manufcript of the Vatican.
There being nothing of them extant in the writers of the firft
four centuries, I fhall not form any other conjecture concern-
ing them, than that they were probably made either by Leu-
cius Charinus, or were an appendage to his work.
Numb. LVII. The GOSPEL of PHILIP.
AMONG the other forgeries of the Gnofticks, Epipha-
nius informs us there was one under this name, and
adds, that
1 Cod. Apocr. Nov. Tcftam. b Tan. 3. p. 657.
t. 2.p.2c6. c lU-rei'. 26. ^. 13,
They
3^2 Tb* Go/pel of Philip. PART .
&TytX<n $1 XOJTTOI/ TWV They laugh at the conduct of
TV* TyoXiTifotv UO-XKVTUV, xz\ the Monks, and thofe who
ctyvtitzv, xal srotfiSevtxV) wj profefs chaftity and virginity,
' rov xxoiTov aW as Emitting to unneceflary
hardfh 'P s - The y P roduce
forged Gofpel under the name
of ^ ^ . ^
r f*r, < Lord hath revealed to me
o Kt^O*, r Ti 4^Hi what the foul muft fay when
Et> TM Kin'ivon <f ct it makes its entry into hea-
" ven > ^^ wnat f rt of an -
" fwer k muft make to each
"Or; ! 1xa.r " f . Ae heavenl y Powers:
tl (viz. in the following: man-
.. . T , r ,.. ,
" ner) / ^<?w/ mj^^ ^^/
cc gat h e r e d\ recollefied (or
u guar d e d) wi)/^^ tf//>/,
rag pa? aura, xa " fl ^ ^/V w<7 / raife children
?7 ra Ji<rxo^i- "_/^r /^ Devil \ but extir-
xat oT^a <TE TK ff' " ^^<?^ oil his principles, and
iyw yap, puc-i, TWP avw^'v " 7 Aflw gathered together
\ \ > " (now) the fcattered mem-
flWl Xat HTW? fflJKTIl', aTTO- * '
*m, (viz. of the body)
, , , , .
l ^ / know -who thou art,
And thus, fays
avocXoit~v xat that book, flie is fet at li-
a'j/Axu'<raj jj taurJiv. <l berty:" but it adds, that if
the foul be found to have pro-
pagated children, it is obliged to ftay fo long below, till fhe
fhall be able to receive and bring thofe children to herfelf,
i. e. till the fouls of the children depart.
This is a fufficient tafte of this Gofpel, which I fuppofe
I know not how elfe to tranflate they faid that all procreation was
this myftical paflage. from the Devil.
b So I tranflate a^om, becaufe
will
'CHAP, xxxvii. Plilip's Gofpel Apocryphal. 383
will be but indifferently relifhed by thofe, who have any tafte
either of religion, or common fenfe. The book feems by
this fragment to have been of a piece with the other perform-
ances of the Gnofticks, and as extravagant in its conceits as
the Gofpel of Bafilides, Eve, or any of the reft. It feems by
this fragment to have been particularly wrote with the view
of fupporting their doctrine of the unlawfulness of procreation * t
for though, as in the beginning of this paffage, they did not
forbid the ufe of women, and therefore laughed at the Monks,
yet they forbad the procreation of children, and for this pur-
pofe made ufe of methods fo very abominable, and prodigioufly
unnatural and vile, that I had rather the reader mould be ig-
norant of them, than be told by me. He who has a mind
may read Epiphanius in the place referred to at the bottom of
the page a . I will only obferve, that in the place cited, that
Father tells us, they had Apocryphal books which fupported
their obfcene doctrines ; which farther confirms my conjec-
ture about the contents of this Gofpel. It appears plainly to
be Apocryphal, by Prop. IV, V, VI. VIII, and IX. and
Mr. Du Pin b imagines, it was the fame with the Gofpel that
was made ufe of by the Ebionites, Bafilides, and Apelles ; but
however juft his opinion may be, as to the two latter (though
there is not, nor does he pretend to offer any reafon for it),
yetfure I am, he muft be miftaken as to the former, fince the
Ebionites entertained no fuch principles.
* Hsref. 26. . 5. . c. vi. . 5. p. 126.
*> Hilt, of the Canon, vol. 2.
CHAP,
The Gofpel of Scythianust PART II*
CHAP. XXXVIII.
The Go/pel of Scythianus. He was the Author of the Mani-
chean Herefy. The Gofpel of the Simonians. The Reve-
lation of Stephen*
Numb. LVIII. The GOSPEL of SCYTHIANUS.
S.
THIS Gofpel is only confiderable, becaufe it was compofed
by him who was the fource and author of the Mani-
chean Herefy : it is mentioned,
I. By Cyril of Jerufalem*.
In a difcourfe concerning the Herefy of the Manichees ; of
which and its rife (feventy years before his writing), as alfo its
progrefs, he gives a very particular account; he aflerts one
Scythianus to have been the firft founder of the feft.
TJ? r t v lv AlyuTTTM, There was a certain perfon
luTtv xot- " EgyP 1 named Scythianus,
by nation a Saracen, having
nothing common either with
the Jewifh or Chriftian Re-
^ X /~ ligion. When he lived at
oxuV*s, xa TW 'A- Alexandria, and conformed
xwoj |3w, himfelf to the rules of life in
(3^A8? <rm'Tae, the Arijlotelick Philofophy, he
u.cVji/ EuayyAiov, compofed four books; one
v.> < , ~ taining any account of the
AA CtTTAUS IJ.GVOV TTJV TTOOfTTI- x-.ni
, - actions of Chnft, but only
taking its title from him, &c.
Catcch. vi. c. 13.
CHAP. XXXVIII.
'E>
TSTOI?
rwf *$
z;r<x0
^f tauru Tsr^ac-6-fTai
ia ovc^oc, $i[A.wci; Mvrr
T-
tj Eua'yy.8, T*?
*K'
< ^ > -
ouo a-.'-yu
, , ,
i^ufa.VfW* ***
arr.v U7T63-rt, BTW; JiroAa
6ft?v o TA?,
TSTO TO w,o?
The Gofpel of Scythianus. 385
2. By Epiphanius*.
Such were the opinions of
Scythianus, who was infatu-
ated in his judgment, and
borrowed his principles from
_ D r , ,
Pythagoras. Befides, he com-
pofed four books . cailing
one, The Book of Myfteries;
the fecond, The ^ook of
Principles; the third, 77>*
G^/i the fourth, The Book
of ^reafures; in which he
fuppofed tv/o equal pririci-
...
pies and perfons united, in
every argument ; and by thefe
not i ons t h e wretch thought
he had made fome confidera-
ble difcoveries in life ; buc
really he formed that which
was Ver 7 deftrudive to life,
both in ref P e<a of himf ^ r d
thofe who are deluded into
his fcneme.
There is not any thing more faid of this Apocryphal Gof-
pel by the old writers ; nor indeed is there any need of it to
prove it Apocryphal : he who will confider it as one of the
firft books that gave birth to the fentiments of the Manichees,
and knows any thing of that monftrous herefy, will eafily be
perfuaded to look upon it as an Apocryphal book, their prin-
ciples being inconfiftent with the very foundation of the
Chriftian religion. I reject it therefore by Prop. IV, V, VI,
VIII, and IX. The Manichees had fome other Gofpels, of
which perhaps I fhall fay fomething below, Numb. LXV.
1 H^ref. 66. . z.
VOL. I.
Cc
Numb.
386 'the Afis ofSeleucus. PART II.
Numb. LIX. the ACTS of the APOSTLES by
SELEUCUS.
SELEUCUS (as I have above proved, Chap. XXI.) was
only a different name for Leucius; and confequently
thcfe are the fame Ads with thofe under the name of Leucius
Charinus, which have been largely confidered in that place,
and proved Apocryphal, and therefore need no farther difcuf-
fion here.
Since the compiling of the Catalogue in the former part of
this work, I have obferved in Dr. Mill an account of the Gcf-
pel of the Simonians % as mentioned in the Arabick Preface
to the Council of Nice y which is in Labbe -. That I might
not omit any thing of this fort, I here give the reader that
learned Doctor's account of it. The Simonians (he fuppofes)
t. e. the followers of Simsn Magus., forged this Goffel^ which,
according to the number of our four Gofpels^ they divided inta
four parts; and at length about the time of Irmteus, borrowing
a title from the holy Fathers of the Church, who wittily concluded
there were four Gofpels, becaufe there were four regions of the
world) (or four principal winds c ) they called zV, The Book of
the four Corners or Regions of the World. Agreeable to this
we read in the book called The Conjlitutions of the Apoftles <*,
that Simon and Cleobius^ and their followers^ compiled books un~
zfer the name of Chrift and of his difciples, in order to dsceive y
fcfr. It is to be rejected by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
I
Numb. LX. The REVELATION of STEPHEN.
HAVE not found this any where befides in the Decree
of Pope Gelafius thus :
Revelatio, qure appellatur Ste- The Revelation under the
phani, Apocrypha. name of Stephen is Apocry-
phal.
Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
* Prokgora. in Nov. Teftam. adv. Hzref. 1. 5.0. ii.andridi-
^. 161. culed by Toland, Amyntor. p. 50,
k T<-m. a. Concil. p. ,8'. 51.
1 Thisws mert -.v>:h in Iienx'us * Lib. 6. c. 16.
CHAP,
CHAP, xxxix. The Gofpel of Tatian. 387
CHAP. XXXIX.
"The Gofpel of Tatian. It was a compendious Harmony of four
Gofpels. He feems to have made Ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel
of Matthew, or the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. This proved
by federal Arguments. The Harmony now extant among
the Orthodoxographa is not this old one of Tatian. An Ac-
count of Tatian, his Works and Principles. The Gofpel of
Thaddeeus. TI)e Catholick Epiftle of Themifon (mentioned
by Apollonius). He was a Mont ani/i,, and lived as early as
Montanus. The Time of the Rife of Montanifm, about the
Tear of Chrijl C&XXIV. An Account of that Herefy. A
DigreJJion concerning the Agreement of the Mahometan
Scheme with that of the Montanifts and Manicbees. Mr,
Toland's Mijlake In this Matter.
Numb. LXI. The GOSPEL of TATIAN.
T.
A LTHOUGH feveral antient writers make mention of a
wprk of Tatian, relating to the Gofpels j yet I have
cited none of them befides Eufebius and Epiphanius, becaufe
no one elfe entitles his work a Gofpel. It is firft mentioned
By Eufebius 1 .
They (the Encratites or Se-
iV, verians) do make ufe of the
tcS, Law and the ^ophets, and
the Gofpels, but expound the
<r- 1, . ,.
, (acred Scriptures according
A- to their ownfent i m ents. They
T\ f pea k evil of the Apoftle Paul,
rot? IT^a'^j an d rejed his Epijlles ; nei-
ther do they receive */A" y/t?j
Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c, 29.
CC2 P
388 d Harmwj iffr.ir Gofpel:. PART H.
'O (j.iv roi ys ursorsooq ettruv of the Apoftlc;. The fir ft au-
TaTiavs?, oW- thor of their feel: was Tatian,
made 7 **"" f w *"
<?/"* Harming of the Gof~
y -, ^, ^ ,
, and called it, 77^ G.^/
r- i i
roiir-y wnicn is even to
this day in the hands of fome.
By Epiphanius *.
TT<ra^wi/ They fay, that the Gofpel of
yffr^o-- ^'^ ^ wr was made by him
.' TI- ( viz - Tatian )' which ' fome
call, The Gofpel according
to the rle brews.
From both thefe places it is evident, that this compofure of
Tatian was no other than a Harmony of four Gofpels ; it
feems to have been a fort of epitome of the whole hiilory that
is in our four Gofpels ; for Theodoret, a bimop of Cyprus b ,
-tells u, that many^ not only of the impious fe ft that followed Ta-
tian^ \>ut of the orthodox Chrijlians (T^* -rS? trvt$i>xr,s v.ax.fpyi'ao i>K
ijHVKofie, >*A' aTr'.o-'rf^os as owrffuf ru /3io?JiJ ^crtaety.nm) not per-
ceivinr the craft intended in the compofure^ innocently made ufe
of it as a more compendious volume. This is fufficient intima-
tion to us, that there were in the work fome heretical opi-
nions, or at leaft what that Bifhop thought fuch. Thefe, if I
may conjecture, feem to have been fome paiTages or hiiWies
taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarencs or Hebrews ; which
I fuppofe Tatian made ufe of in compiling his Harmony, as
rruch or perhaps more than the Greek copies of St. Matthew;
and this 1 am inclined to think ;
I. Becaufe Epiphanius aflures u?, Tins ivcrk of Tatian was
tailed by fome The Gofpel of the Hebrews ; and this cannot be
Juppofed to have happened from any other catife more probable.
* Hsrrtf. 4^. . i. k Haercf. Fabul. lib. i. cap. 20.
I know
CHAP, xxxix. An Account of Tatian. 389
I know indeed Valerius % and after him Mr. Fabritius b , boldly
afTerts, that Epipbanius was miftaken^ at leajl that thofe be
fpeaks of were mijlaken, who faid that it was called The Gof-
pel of the Hebrews j and the reafon Valefius offers is, that the
Gofpel of the Hebrews was much older than Tatian. But no-
thing can be more weak than this. Does it follow, that be-
caufe the Gofpel of the Hebrews was before the time of Ta-
tian, that therefore upon Tatian's making ufe of it, and tranf-
lating a good part of it into his Harmony, his work could not
be called by that name? On the contrary, nothing is more
probable, than that his work fhould be thus called, upon that
fuppofition.
2. I argue it farther as probable, that Titian made ufe cf
the Hebrew Gofpel, becaufe as the Genealogy was omitted in
that (fee above, Chap. XXV. Numb. 1 1.) fo alfo it was in
the Gofpel of Tatian, as is exprefsly teftified by Theodoret
in the place now cited.
3. Tatian was by birth a Syrian^ firJJ fpread bis notions in
Mesopotamia c , and confequently well knowing, and probably
well acquainted with the Gofpel of the Nazarenes ; as well
knowing the language of it, and probably himfelf one of that
feel.
4. Ambrofe, in a pafiage wherein he undoubtedly refers to
this Gofpel of Tatian^ intimates, that it contained feveral here-
tical and impious things: many, fays he, have jumbled into
one book thofe things out of the four Gofpels, which they
found agreeable to their malignant principles' 1 . .
If this account be true, we are to conclude it Apocryphal
by the fame arguments (at leaft many of them) as thofe by
which I proved the Hebrew Gofpel of the Ebionites to be fo
above, Chap. XXIX. If it be not true, then it is only to be
looked upon as a compofure out of our prefent Gofpels.
There is indeed now extant among the Orthodoxographa a
Annot. in Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. the end of his Oratio ad Grsecos,
). 4. c. 25. at thj end of Juftin Martyr's; works,
" Cod. Apoc. Nov. Tcftam. and Epiphan. Hseref. 4.6. . a.
Par. i. p. 349. Comment, in Luc. i.
c See what he faith of himfelf in
Cc 3 Harmony
39^ An Account of Rattan. PART II.
Harmony afcribed to Tatian ; but, as has been well obferved
by feveral learned men (Valefius*, Fabritius b , Dr. Mill %
and others), it cannot be the fame with this, which we are now
difcufEng, becaufe it bath the Genealogy in it, which this had
not, as appears from what is above fcid. I (hall conclude
this fec~tion with fome account of Tatian. He was, after
having made a ccnfiderable figure as a tutor of Oratory a dif-
ciple of Jttftin Martyr, continuing an ornament to the Church
while he lived y but afterwards he fell into herefy ; he wrote a
prodigious number of books, 'of which the mojl valuable one is
now extant^ viz. that againft the Gentiles at the end of
Jujlin Martyr's works.
Irenaeus d and Epiphanius e add fome account of his princi-
ples, as that he coincided with the Valentinian doclrine of the
MoneSy denied thefahation of Adam, held all forts of marriage
unlawful, and as criminal as adultery. He is reported to have
adulterated St. Paul's Epiftles by changing their phrafeology r .
He lived in the time of Marcus Antoninus Verus, and Lu-
cius Commodus*; but a more particular account of his age
may be feen in Mr. Dodwell's Diflertation on Irenseus, iv.
3*> 33-
Numb, LXII. The GOSPEL of THADD^US.
O
IF this I know no more than that it is mentioned by
Pope Gelafius in his Decree thus:
Evangelium nomine Thad- The Gofpel under the name
daei Apoftoli Apocryphum. of Thaddaeus the Apoftle is
Apocryphal.
To be rejeaed by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
* Loc. jam cit. e Hzref. 4.6. f . 2, 3.
b Lib. cit. p. 378. f Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. 4.0.29.
c Piolegom. in Nov. Teitam. Hieronym. Catalog. Viror.
.351. " illuftr, in Tatiano.
J Adv. Haeref. 1. i.e. 31.613.39.
Numb.
CHAP, xxxix. The Epijlle of Themifon.
39'
aXX
Numb. LXIII. The CATHOLICK EPISTLE of
THEMISON.
THE Montanifts, though a very confiderable feel:, do not
feem to have feigned many books for the fupport of
their dodlrines. Apollonius, who wrote againft them, as he
fays, juft forty years after their rife, viz. about the year of
Chrift CCXIV, mentions a compofure of Themifon, one of
their confeflbrs, refembling the Apoftles. His words are,
"En $\ xl ep{<ruv o rw But Themifon, who was moft
exceffively covetous, had not
the evidences of having been
a martyr, but by the abun-
dance of his money purchafed
immunity. And when upon
that account he ought rather
to have been humble, he ex-
alted himfelf as a martyr, and
was fo impudent as to imitate
the Apojlle^ and to compofe a
certain Catholick Epijlle^ pre-
tending thereby to give in-
ftru&ion to thofe, who were
better Chriftians than him-
felf, and contending for the
ridiculous doflrine of the Man-
tani/is, and fpeaking evil of
our Lord and his Apojiles y
and the Holy Church *.
This book appears not only by its pompous title, but the
whole defign of it, to have pretended to inspiration, which was
at that time the great fupport of the Montanift herefy. Of
this Themifon, its author, I find no mention befides in this
place of Eufebius. He lived very near, if not in the time of
TCI/ \\7TocoXov,
ra; apetvov
T0f
Euftb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 5. c. 18.
Cc 4
Montanus
39^ The Rife of the Montanifts. PART n.
Montanus (viz. the year of Chrift CLXXIV. according to
the Chronicon of Eufebius), becaufe Apollonius, who wrote
againft the Montanifts, and againft Themifon, wrote his book
but forty years after the Montanift herefy firft began (as
himfelf fays a ). Befides, it feems very probable (as Valefius
has well obferved b ) from feveral parts of this fragment of
Apollonius, that he wrote againft the Montanifts, while Mon-
tanus and his mad prophets were yet alive ; nor does his fay-
ing he wrote forty years after the rife of the Montanifts at all
contradict this ; for if we fuppofe Montanus to have been
about thirty years old, when he began his herefy, he would
not have been above feventy, when Apollonius wrote againft
him j from which it is evident, this catholick Epiftle was
forged in imitation of the Apoftles, at the rife of Montanifm,
confequently, as Apollonius fays, to fupport that ridiculous
fcheme, and therefore a book falfely pretending to infpiration.
So that however this Epiftle was efteemed by the Chriftians
of that fec~r, it muft certainly be Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V,
and VI. as alfo by Prop. VIII. as containing things contrary
to known truths^ and dejiruflive of the firjl principles of Chriji-
ianhy ; as will appear to any one who will be at the pains to
read the account given of this feet by Apollinaris Hierapoli-
tanus c , Apollonius'', Serapion c , Epiphanius ', and many others
of the antitnts ; and to thofe who 'will not, if they confider
that Montanus pretended to deal much with a dtemon^ by whofe
influence he fell into ftrange c eft atick fits andraptures^which he
afterwards communicated to two Jhe-prophcts^ who^ as all his
* Aptid Eufcb. loc. cit. anfwering to the year CCCLXXV
b Annot. in lr,c. cit. Eufeb. I of Chrift, and the'Montanift herefy
obfcrve, that Epiphanius, expofing not ariiing till the year CLXXIV,
the Montanifts, be:.uife their pre- there could at moft be, between the
tendei*pTophedes were rot acccni- bir'h ot this herciy and his writ-
pliftu-d, (Harr. 4.8. ^. 2.) adds, that ing, but 201 years; and therefore
j'roni the lin:c of. their btLig gi ~:cn I iuppufe ibnie fault to have hap-
outtoibenrrie"ofbis'writt>ig i f wbicl), p.-ncd through the careleflhefs of
( ivs lie, was in the tvvelith year of lonie fcribe in Epiphanius.
Valentinian and Gratian, tbcrt bad c Apud Euieb. Hilt. Eccl. 1. 5.
pefllit L'TB vrteia '* iXij-ira; hstMeta, iv- C. 1 6.
EV;,XHT(, i. e. about 290 ytws: but d Apud Euilb. 1. 5. c. 18.
in this either Epiphanius was mif- "- Apud eund. 1. 5. c. 19.
taken, or his copies are corrupt; ' lixref. 4.8.
for the twelfth year of Valentinian
followers
CHAP, xxxix. The Epijlle of Themifon Apocryphal. 393
followers taught by him, acknowledged him to be the Paraclete,
or Comforter promifed by our Saviour. (John xiv. 16.) In
this he was followed by Terebinthus, afterwards called Manes,
the head or father of the Manichees, who called himfelf the
Paraclete promifed by our Saviour, as St. Cyril % Epiphanius b ,
and many others afTure us ; and this I mention by the by, to
propofe, for farther difcuflion, an opinion which I have long
had, that the Mahometan fcheme was very much founded upon,
or gathered from, the impious, ridiculous tenets of the Monta-
nifts, or Manichees, or both ; feeing it is a thing certain and
well known, that Mahomet's followers, among other titles,
give him that of Paraclete, which is the Greek word ufed by
St. John for the Comforter, made Arabick, as Dean Prideaux
has well obferved c , and not taken from any -word in that lan-
guage, which fignifies famous, or illuftrious, as Mr. Toland,
with as much ignorance as malice, fuggefts d . It is true, the
Mahometans pretend, that the very name of Mahomet, both
here, and in other places of the Gofpel, was exprefsly mention-
ed, but that the Chrijlians, out of malice, have blotted it out,
and corrupted thofe holy writings ; and that at Paris there is a
copy of thefe Gofpels, without thefe corruptions, in which the
coming of Mahomet is foretold in fever al places, with his name
exprefsly mentioned in them e : but nothing can be more ridi-
culous than Mr. Toland's account of this matter, viz. that
the Mahometans maintain that the original was Periclyte, fig-
nifying famous, i. e. in Arabick, Mohammed, and' not Para-
clete , for beiides, that there is no word like that in Arabick,
which fignifks famous, and anfwers fo Mohammed (which
Dr. Mangey challenges him to prove', and he durft not at-
tempt, but intolerably fhuffles over in his anfwer 6 ), the facl: is
notorioufly falfe ; the Mahometans, as has been faid, laying
their charge, in this refpe&, in another and more confident
manner, than he, with all his (kill, was able to do for them.
Catech. vi. c. 14.. Mahomet, intheend.
Hserei'. 66. . 12. f Remarks on Nazarenus, c. 6.
Life of Mahomet, in the end. p. 3 5.
Nazaren. p. 13. * Mangoneutes, p. 181.
Six Dean Prideaux' s Life of
But
394 '?' fis Of TwmaS. PART II.
But though Mr. Toland be fo wretchedly miftaken here, yet
he again repeats his invidious infmuation, p. 16. T1:e Mujful-
mans accufe our Go/pelt of corruption in the i6th and ibth
verfes of the fourteenth chapter of John. But why Gofpels ?
as though the accufation extended to all the four ; when it
only, at moft, affects the Gofpel of John ? The fact in fhort
is no more than this. Mahomet in \hzfixty-firjl chapter of h\s
Alcoran hath thefe words : w Remember that Jefus the fan of
" Afary faid to the children of Ifrael : I am the mejjenger of
{ God; he hath fent me to confirm the Old Tejlament^ and to
** declare unto you ^ that there jhall come after me a prophet^
" whofe name Jhall be Mahomet" On this account his fol-
lowers found it neceflary to charge corruption on our Gof-
pels in the manner abovefaid a.
I hope this digreifion may not be unferviceable, nor the
hint above-mentioned of the agreement between the Maho-
metans and Montanifts.
CHAP. XL.
he Afis of Thomas* Not the fame with thofe made by Leucius
Charinus, but much older. A Manufcript in the French
King's Library under the Title of the Atts of Thomas. An-
ether under the fame Title in the Bodleian at Oxford. The
Gofpel of Thomas. There were undoubtedly two Gofpels under
this Name. The Revelation of Thomas. Books under his
Name,
T
Numb. LXIV. The ACTS of THOMAS.
HESE Apocryphal Acts are mentioned by feveral of the
antients, particularly,
* Thus well reafons the learned Dean in the place cited.
I. By
CHAP. XL.
wl* $1
TK
T f
lu&vvz
OUTSI
T rifj MJ
0~,&c.
The Afl; ofThoma*
I . By Epiphanius *
W^WTO-
395
They, i. e. the Encratites,
Principally make ufe of thofe
Scriptures, which are called,
r . ".
Tfo jAJfr cf Andrew a
Apocryphal Books t &c.
2. By the fame b .
They, ;. e. the Apoftolicks,
chiefl y de P end u P n ^ofe
Scriptures which were called
TJje Atts of Andrew ml Tbo-
, J . . . -
w^ j, altogether departing from
tjff ^non of the Church.
3. By Athanafius c .
vrt- The Apocryphal Books of the
* Hi- New Teftament are thcfe,
The Afts of Thomas,
&c.
4. By Gelafius in his Decree.
Alus nomine Thomae Apof- The Atts under the name of
toli Apocryphi. Thomas the Apojlle are Apo-
cryphal.
There appears no fmall difficulty in determining exactly
concerning thefe A&s. It is certain that there was a book of
Afis of the Apoflles, of which I have above treated, Chap.
XXI. compofed by Leucius Charinus, containing the A&s
not only of Peter, John, Andrew, and Paul, but alfo of Tho-
mas j and hence Mr. Fabritius d , Dr Mill % &c. have thought
a Hxref. 47. S-i.
b Haeref. 61. \. i.
c In Synopf. verfus fin. See the
place at large above, Chap. XXI.
"Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam.
torn. ^. p. 813.
e Proltgom. in Nov. Teftam.
^.338.
the
396 The Gofpel of Tljomas. TARTU.
the Acls of Thomas, wherever they are mentioned, to be the
fame book ; but herein I fuppofe they are miftaken, becaufe
thefe Acts of Thomas are mentioned by Epiphanius, as being
ufed byfomefefis fthc Gnojiicks^ viz. the Encratites and Apof-
tolicks) who arofe from Tatian in the fecond century, even be-
fore IrenaeaSj and confequently long before the time of Leucius,
who lived (as has been proved) in the latter end of the third^
or beginning of the fourth century. And though I have above
faid, Chap. V. Numb. i. that it is probable the Encratites and
Manichees made vfe of the fame Afts, whence it would feem
to follow, that they were the fame with thofe made by Leu-
cius, becaufe his were in great requeft among the Manichees ;
yet this difficulty is eafily anfwered, by fuppofmg that Lcu-
cius, who was a Manichee, didyo largely interpolate them, or fa
much alter them, that they were afterwards called by his name.
They are however plainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and
VI. There are indeed fame large accounts of Thomas in Au-
ftin's works % which are thought to be taken out of thefe
Acts; but inafmuch as thefe A&s are not exprefsly men-
tioned, they do not properly fall under my confideration ; but
may perhaps be produced in a more convenient place in the
next volume, where I (hall confider thefe Acts as a book now
extant, feeing Father Simon affirms, there is fuch a book in
the French King's Library, and Dr. Grabe b fays that he niet
with it in our Bodleian.
Numb. LXV. The GOSPEL of THOMAS.
THERE is at this day extant a Gofpel under the name of
TJiomaS) otherwife intitled The Gofpel of the Infancy of
our Saviour^ which I fhall in the next part of this work in-
fert ; but it being very uncertain whetaer it be the fame with
this antient one, 1 fhall here produce the places where this is
mentioned within my time, without any regard to that. It is
mentioned,
1 Lib. adv. Adimant. Manich. lib. 21. c. 79.
t. 6. c. 17. contr. Fault. Manich. > Spicileg. Patr. t. i. p. 324..
i. By
CHAP. XL. The Gsfol of Thomas. 39-
I. By Origen 3 .
Ecclefia quatuor habet Evan- The Church receives only
gelia, Herefes plurima ; - four Gofpels, the Hereticks
Scio Evangelium, quod ap- have many ; - 1 know one
pellatur Secundum Thomam, intitled, The Gofpel of TJio-
&c. masj &c.
2. By Eufebius b .
"Iv tiS'uou 'i-xj^ptv T *> *'**' That we may know the books
*T rav 'AirorcW TBS? TV publifhed by the Hereticks
,Tixv -Br-ortwcuiW, rroi under the Apo^les' names,
, \ ' ~ , fuch as the Gofpelt of Peter*
(2/wua fivaty*- / _,.
Thomas* &c.
3. By Cyril c .
After having given a complete catalogue of the Books of
the Old Teftament, and of the New, which is exactly
agreeable to our prefent Canon, except that the Reve-
lation is omitted, he adds,
r? OE jcvrff' ^aS-jjxn? rx. There are but four Gofpels
belonging to the New Tefta-
m f, nt / the rcft are falfel y fo
, *_ , called, and hurtful. The Ma-
tf* Ti;yvv. Eycavl/av . , ;/- ;
s ' /u s mcbecs aljo have wrote a
M MmMN XT* O^uav accor(]ing
f///^ of a Gofpel^ corrupts
the minds of the VJeaker(Cbrif-
4. By the fame d .
vayva<ry.Tw TO xara Let no one read the Gofpel
0wuav EJaHXiw- a EPV according to Thomas; for it is
a Homil. in Luc. i. See the tlie psfllige at large above, Chap.
place at iar-e above, Chip. VII. XXI.
Numb. V. Catech. IV. c. 22.
* Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25. See " Catech. VI. c.'iS.
not
398
The Gofpel ef Thomas.
PART IX.
tvo? TUV xaxwy rotwv T*
not the Gofpel of one of the
Twelve Apoftles, but one of
the three wicked Difciples
of Manes (whofe name was
Thomas).
5. By Ambrofe .
Multi Evangel! a fcribere co-
nati funt, quze boni Numu-
larii non probaverunt
Fertur Evangelium, quod
fcribitur Secundum Thomam,
Many have attempted to write
Gofpels, which the Catho-
lick Church has not ap-
proved There is one
fpread abroad, which is in-
titled The Gofpel according ts
Thomas.
To. TI? v*>-
TT - Ejy-
&C.
6. By Athanafius b.
avT- The Apocryphal Books of the
New Teftament are thefe
The Gofpel of Thomas^ &c.
7. By Jerome *.
Plures fuifle qui Evangelia
(cripferunt, Lucas Evangc-
lifta teftatur, dicens, Quo-
niam quidem multi, &c. quse
a diverfis au&oribus edita di-
verfarum haerefe^n fuere prin-
cipia, ut eft illud j uxta ^Egyp-
tios et Thomam, &c.
Luke the Evangelijl afliires
us, there were many ivho
-wrote G of pels (ch. i. i.) which
being publifhed by various
authors gave birth to various
herefies ; fuch is that Accord-
ing to the Egyptians and The-
mas. &c.
8. By Gelafius in his Decree*
Evangelium nomine Thomas The Gofpel under the name
Apoftoli, quo utuntur Mani- of Thomas the Apoftle, which
chxi, Apocryphum. the Manichces ufe, is Apo-
cryphal.
* Comment, in Luc. i. Se; the
paflage at large, Chap.VII. Num'o.
V.
k InSynopf. See the paflage at
large above, Chap. XXI.
Praetat. in Comn.\;i;r. in Mafth.
See the place at large above, Chn;=.
VII. Nnmb. IV.
I need
CHAP. XL. The Revelation of Thomas. 30,9
I need fay no more of this book, than that it appears,
plainly to have been a fpurious piece, compofed by the Here-
ticks, and Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, VI ; only I muft ob-
ferve, that the Gofpel of Thomas, of which Cyril fpeaks, com-
pofed by Thomas, one of the followers of Manes, the head of
the Manichees, could not pofiibly be the fame with that men-
tioned by Origen, and perhaps moft of the other writers, ex-
cept Gelafius j becaufe Origen lived a confiderable time be-
fore the Manichean herefy, or even Manes himfelf was known
in the world : this being not till the latter end of the third
century^ viz. till the time of Aurelius Probus, or Diocletian
(as I have above obferved, Chap. XXL), whereas Origen
lived in the beginning of it.
Numb. LXVI. The REVELATION of THOMAS,
J. T is only mentioned by Gelafius in his Decree.
Revelatio, qua? appellatur The Revelation, which is
Thorns Apoftoli, Apocry- afcribed to Thomas the Apof-
pha. tie, is Apocryphal.
To be rejected by Prop. IV, V, and VI.
Numb. LXVII. BOOKS under the NAME of
THOMAS.
By Innocent I. a
Ccetera, quae fub nomine The other books under the
Matthaei et fub nomine name of Matthew or the
Thomas non folum repu- name of Thomas, know,
dianda, verum etiam noveris that they are not only to be
efle damnanda. rejected, but condemned.
It is not very certain what books under this Apoftle's name
this Pope here defigned to condemn ; it is probable they were
In Decret. five Ep'.ft. 3* ad Exuper. Eplfccp. Toiof. c. 7.
not
4.00 The Gofpel of Truth. PART n.
not the y&7f, becaufe he would have attributed them to Leu-
cius, whom he juft before refers to, as the author of fpurious
ats under the names of Peter and John, and others, as has
been proved, Chap. XXI. I fuppofe therefore he rather in-
tended the Gofpel of Thomas.
CHAP. XLT.
TJjf Gofpel of Truth, a Forgery of the Valenlinlans. Sonte Ac-
count of Falentlnus. A Gofpel under his Name.
Numb. LX VIIL The G O S P E L of TRU TH.
THIS book was undoubtedly a compofure of the fecorid
century, and very early therein it is mentioned by Ire-
naeus a thus :
His igitur fie fe habentibus,
vani omncs et indo&i, et in-
fuper audaces, qui frufirantur
fpeciem Evangelii h , et vel
plures quam dj&as funt, vel
rurfus pauciores inferunt per-
Seeing thefe things are fo
(viz. that there are but four
Gofpels), it follows, that they
ure all filly and ignorant, as
well as impudent, who attempt
to make any alteration in the
fonas Evangelii Hi vero Gofpels, and make the au-
thors of the Gofpels to be
either more or fewer (than
four). But the Valentinians,
qui funt a Valentino, iterum
exiftentes extra omncm timo-
rem, fuas confcriptiones pro-
ferentes, plura habere glori- without any modefty, prb-
antur,. quam fint ipfa Evan- ducing feme writings of their
geliaj fiquidem in tantum own, boaft that they have
procefieruntaudaciae,utt quod
ab his non olim confcriptum
eft, Veritatis Evangelium ti-
more than the (four) Gof-
pels ; for they have been fo
very impudent, that they have
* Advcrf. Haere'f. 1. 3. r. n. ad without contiderin^ hi-> p r r-crding
fin. allegoiy of th- lour Golpels, and
b Thispafla^e is not intelligible, four ai.i-nal*.
in titled
CHAP. XLI.
The Go/pel of Truth.
tulent, in nihilo conveniens
Apoftolorum Evangeliis, ut
nee Evangelium quidem fit
apud eos fine blafphemia. Si
enim, quod ab iis profertur,
Veritatis eft Evangelium, dlf-
fimile eft autem hoc illis, quae
ab Apoftolis nobis tradita
funt ; qui volunt poffunt dif-
cere, quemadmodum ex ipfis
Scripturis oftenditur, jam non
effe id quod ab Apoftolis tra-
ditum eft Veritatis Evange-
lium. Quoniam autem Ibla
ilia vera et firma, et non capit
neque plura prasterquam prae-
dicta funt, neque pauciora
efie Evangelia, per tot et
tanta oftendimus.
401
intitled one, TJie Gofpel of
Truth, which was not long
fmce written by them, nor
does in any thing agree with
the Gofpels of the Apoftles ;
fo that they have really no
Gofpel but a mere forgery a ;
for if that Gofpel which they
produce, intitled The Gofpel
of Truth) be difagreeable to
thofe which have been deli-
vered to us by the Apoftles ;
every one may perceive (as
has been proved above from
the Scriptures) that the Gof-
pel of Truth is not one of thofe
delivered by the Apoftles. Be-
fides that I have above by fe-
veral good arguments evinced,
that only the (four) above
mentioned Gofpels are true
and juftj and to be received.
This paflage leaves us no room to doubt concerning the
defign and fcope of this Gofpel, being calculated to ferve the
purpofes of the Valentinian fcheme. The author of the fec"r,
Valentinus, was at Rome under Hyginus, about the year of
Chrift 142 (according to the Chronicon of Eufebius), but
according to the opinion of fome modern criticks, near twenty
years fooner; which indeed feems to me undeniably demon-
ftrated by feveral good arguments by our learned Biihop Pear-
fon b . He was one of the principal authors of the- G no/licks j
and of his fentiments we have a very particular account given
us by Irenaeus % Clemens Alexandrinus a , Tertullian c , Ori-
3 So I rranflate the word Blaf-
phemia, becaufe it at lealt iinpiks
lume injuftice done to the Apoltles.
b Vindic. Epift. Ignat. par. 2.
c. 7.
VOL. I.
c Lib. i et 2. adv. Hseref.
d Strom, lib. 3.
c De Praeiciipt. adv. Hxrctic.
c. 4.9. et Lib. adv. Valentin.
D d p-en,
402 The Gofpel of yalentinus. PART II.
gen % Epiphanius b , and feveral others, which I (hall not here
largely enumerate, but only give the reader the following fpe-
cimen. Having been educated in the Platonick philofopby at
Alexandria, he formed bis notions of Chrijiianity agreeable
thereto. He imagined certain gods, which he called JEones, to
the number of thirty, whofe names and pedigree (conformable to
the fabulous genealogies of Hefiod) he pretended to ajfign. Fif-
teen of them he would have to be male, and fifteen female*. Epi-
phanius has preferved their names ; they are fuch as thefe,
Ampfiu, Auraan, Bucua, Thartua, Ubucua, Thardeadie, &c.
That Chrijl brought a body with him from heaven, and pajjed
through the Firgin as water through a pipe. He ajjerted the
laivfulnefs of all forts of lujis to his Difcipks, allowing them to
force other men's wives, &c. denied the refurreflion, contended
for the transmigration of fouls, &c. Such were very probably
the contents of this Gofpel, fo pompoufly intitled, The Gofyel
of Truth, To be rejefted therefore by Prop. IV, V, VI,
VIII, and IX.
Numb. LXIX. The GOSPEL of VALENTINUS.
JLT is only mentioned by Tertullian thus c :
Evangelium habet etiam fuum Valentinus alfo hay a Gofpel
prseter hzc noftra. of his own, befides thefe of
ours.
This book, intitled The Gofpel of Valentinus, has been fup-
pofed by fome learned men to have been no other than the
Gofpel of Truth, made ufe of and forged by the Valentinians,
of which I treated in the laft fedion. This is fuppofed by
Dr. Grabe d , and after him by Mr. Fabritius 6 , becaufe, as
they imagine, Falentinus himfelf did not write any Gofpel.
This they gather from a pafiage of Tertullian f , which to me
3 Contra Celf. lib. ^. p. 77. cap. 49.
US. 5. p. 271. efpecially 1. 6. p. " Spicileg.Patr. t. 1.9.41,49,
298. et Expoi'. inRom. 1. 8. c. n. e Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. Nov.Teft.
'" Hxrei". 3L par. i. p. 380.
e De Praefcript. adv. Haeret. f Lib.jamcit. 0.38.
feems
CHAP. XLI. TJ)e Gofpel of Valentinus. 403
feems to imply no fuch thing : His words are, " Alius manu
" Scripturas, alius fenfu expofitiones intervertit. Neque
" enim fi Valentinus integro inftrumento uti videtur, non
" callidiore ingenio quam Marcion manus intulit veritati.
" Marcion enim exerte et palam machaera non ftylo ufus eft ;
" quoniam ad materiam fuam csedem Scripturarum confecit.
" Valentinus autem pepercit ; quoniam non ad materiam
" Scripturas, fed ad Scripturas materism excogitavit." i. e.
Some hereticks corrupt the Scripture with their bands (viz. by
adding and taking out) ; others do it by perverfe interpreta-
tions. For though Valentinus feems to make ufe of all the Scrip-
tures, he no lefs artfully than Marcion made his attacks upon the
truth. For Marcion corrupted not only fmall portions of Scrip-
ture, but made almojl a total dejtrufiion, defegning thereby to
make the Scriptures accommodate to his principles : but Valenti-
nus fpared them, becaufe his defign was not to accommodate the
Scriptures to his principles, but his principles to the Scriptures.
In this paffage it is plain, that Tertullian fays no more, than
that Valentinus did not corrupt the facred volume as Marcion
did, by taking out thofe things which were difagreeable to his
opinions ; he fays not (as thefe learned men imagine) that Va-
lentinus made no new Gofpel; nor is the fuppofition of his
having made one in the leaft inconfiftent with the defign of
this paflage ; which fhews the weaknefs of Dr. Grabe's argu-
ment, that the latter part of this book under the name of Ter-
tullian is not his, becaufe the author fays, Valentinus had a
Gofpel, and fo contradicts this former part of it, where he fays
he had not one ; Tertullian faying no fuch thing. But if
there really were any contradiction in thefe two places of
Tertullian, I (hould rather think the miftake was in the for-
mer, where he fays, Valentinus did not corrupt the Scriptures,
than in the latter, where he fays, Valentinus had a Gofpel of
his own; becaufe I obferve, that both Irenasus a and Origen b
lay the former crime, viz. of corrupting the Scriptures, to the
charge of that heretick, though the latter, much more plainly
than the former ; for when Celfus objects, that fome Chrifti-
Adv. Haeref. 1. i. c. i. h Contr. Celf. 1. z. p. 77-
D d 2 ans
4.04 The Gofpel of Valentinus. PART II.
ans had changed the firft Scriptures three or four times, or
more, &c. Origen anfwers, that this was not done by any per-
fons except the Difciples of Marcion, and Valentinus, and
Lucianus. I conclude therefore, that Valentinus had a Gof-
pel of his own, and that this was different from that called the
Gofpel of Truth made ufe of by his followers ; becaufe the one
was ufed, and fo probably forged by Valentinu?, but the other
more lately made by his followers j yet it is very probable
they were both defigned for the fame purpofes, and therefore
both by the fame reafon to be efteemed Apocryphal, by Prop.
IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX.
AN
AN
APPENDIX;
CONTAINING
AN ACCOUNT
OF ALL THE
SAYINGS AND HISTORIES
OF
CHRIST,
WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE WRITERS OF THE
FIRST FOUR CENTURIES.
TO WHICH IS ADDED,
A Collection of the DISCOURSES, HISTORIES, &c.
of CHRIST and his APOSTLES, which are to be
found in the Alcoran of MAHOMET.
A LTHOUGH I cannot but hope, that I have in the
J~\. foregoing part of this work fufficiently difproved the
claim of any of the loft books under the name of Chrifr, his
Apoftles, &c. whofe names are yet preferred, to Canonical au-
thority ; yet I judged it neceflary to add the following Appen-
dix : the defign of which will be evident from what follows.
Befides the Apocryphal Gofpels, whofe names areftill ex-
tant, and of which I have produced all the remaining Frag-
ments, it has been thought, and may feem probable, that there
have been feveral others, whofe names are now quite hft ; be-
D d 3 caufe
40 6 An Appendix. PART n.
caufe there are cited in the writings of the primitive Fathers
{tvera.\Jaying$ and hi/lories of Chrift and his Apoftles, which
are not to be found in any of our prefent Gojpeh. Now inaf-
much as thefe are generally fuppofed to be taken out of Apocry-
phal Gofpeli by feveral learned men, fuch as Mr. Dodwell,
Dr. Mill, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Fabritius, and others, as will ap-
pear in the fequel of this difcourfe : what I propofe here is,
to make as large a collefiion as I can of all thofe Accounts,
Sayings, Hi/lories, Doctrines, &c. of Chrift and his Apoftles,
which are not in any of our prefent Gofpels, but either are, or
may be fappofid to have been taken out of feme Apocryphal books,
andvjhich are mentioned by any writer ofthcfirjlfotir centuries
after Chrijl j and withal to make it appear, that none of thefe
accounts were taken out of Apocryphal books. And as in this
laborious attempt I propofed the eftablifhing the credit of our
prefent Canon, fo alfo the entertainment of the curious in
Chriftian antiquities. The reader learned in thefe things will
eafily obferve, that there are many accounts of the Apoftles
omitted in this collection, that are in the writings of the firft
four centuries ; but I defire it may be conlidered, that thefe
are purpolely omitted here, becaufe I take in none but fuch as
may, or have been fuppofed to, have been in fome Apocryphal
books ; whereas thefe are generally traditions not written,
and of which perhaps hereafter, in a more convenient place, I
may make a full collection.
Two or three things I muft premife to this work ; viz.
I. That I do not propofe to transcribe the various lections of
our Gijpels, that art to be gathered out of the writings of the
Fathers^ nor to make thefe pafs for fayings of Chrift, different
from any in our Gofpels^ which are only the memoriter citations
of the antient writers. To do this would be a work of endlefs
trouble, and of very little advantage j and I cannot but think
the labours of Dr. Mill in his collections of this fort were very
triflingly employed, as Dr. Whitby a has fufficiemly (hewn.
It is a matter paft all doubt, that all the primitive writers cited
* Txamtn variant. LcfHon. Mill. feft. i \u.
the
PART II. An Appendix. 407
the Scripture memorlter, or by memory without confulting
their copies ; which is not at all ftrange, if we confider the
forms of their volumes, being large fkins of parchment rolled'
up togetaer (as I have elfewhere fhewn a ), and that their
books were not divided into chapters and verfes, as ours now
are. Hence I fay> they cited memoriter frequently, and con-
fequently exprefied rather the fenfe andmcanlng^ than the words
of the author they cite; (i.) Sometimes quite changing his
words y and fub/iituting thofe of their own, which they thought
equivalent; (2.) Sometimes inferting their cwngloffes and ex-
plications^ and what they imagined needful to make the fenfe of
the fentence complete; (3.) Sometimes leaving out what ivas
not to their purpofe ; and nothing more commonly, than (4.)
joining fevcral different texts of Scripture together, and which
are related by fever al Evangetijis, as though fpoken by Chrijl at
one time. All this it were eafy to demonftrate by a thoufand
inftances ; and befides, the fa6l being fo notorious, I fhall here
take it for granted : he who has a mind may fee very many
examples of all thefe, cclle&ed by the learned Heinfius b and
Dr. Whitby, in the place cited.
II. I purpofe not to collect the differences of antient manu-
fcriptS) nor to lay down, as fayings or hi/lories of Chrift, any
of thofe which are to be found in any manufcripts now ex-
tant, and not in our prefent Gofpels, unlefs perhaps in one or
two inftances, where the difference will appear to have been
in manufcripts before the end of the fourth century. This I
propofe not here, becaufe it is a work rather belonging to the
integrity of the text, than the eftablifhment of the Canon.
III. I premife it as very probable, that many accounts and
fay ings 'of our Saviour were conveyed by tradition through the
firjl and fecond centuries. St. John tells us c , that our Saviour
did many other things, which, if they Jhould be written every
one^ he fuppofeS) that even the world itfelf would not contain the
books which Jhould be written. Some of thefe it is impoffible,
* Vindic. of Matthew, chap. xv. Nov. Teft. p. 4., 5, &c.
" Prolegom. in Exercit. Sacr. ad c Joh. xxi. 15.
D d 4 in
408 An Appendix, PART n.
in the nature of things, but muft be tranfmitted to the fuc-
ceedino; ages ; efpecially if, we confider, how remarkable our
Saviour's fayings and actions were, and how much taken no-
tice cf. Thefe Papias, Irenaeus, and 'many others fought
after; and indeed we can hardly fuppofe any one of fo little
curiofity, as not to deflre the knowledge of them, and confe-
quently of thcfe it is very probable feveral are to be found in
the moft antient monuments or Chriftianity.
Thefe things prernifed, I come to confider the paffages
thcmfelves, which are in the antient writers, relating to Chnit
and his Apoftles ; and which not being to be found in any of
our Gofpels, are or ir.ay be fufpecled to be taken out of fome
others.
[A 7 ". B. I Jkall produce thefe paffages according to the order
of time, in which the writers are fuppojed to have lived)
who mention them.]
I. -^Saying of ' Chrijl mentioned by St. Paul^ASls xx. 35. not
to be found in any of our Gofpcls.
I 'have fhewed you all things,
how that fo labouring you
OU S ht tO fu PP rt the weak
an d to remember the words
. , T . , r
01 the Lord Jefus, how he
&&1/61V.
This faying of Chrift has been fuppofed by fome to be
taken out of fome Apocryphal Gofpel no^v /off-", by others, to be
taken out of a book entitled, The Book of the Sayings of
Chriftj which is cited in T/je Recognitions of Clemens*, and by
Turrianus c , to be taken out of the Conjiitutions of the dpo-
- Vid. Heinf. Exercit. Sacr. in lib. 2. p. 130. ad Voc. Verbcrum
Act. xx. 35. Dom. Lib.
Sixt. Sem-nf. Biblieth. Sanft. c Praefat. in Conftit. Apoftol.
PART ii An Appendix. 409
Jttes^ for which opinion he alfo cites Euthalius, a bifhop co-
temporary with Athanafius : but there is not the leaft evi-
dence for the truth of either of thefe opinions, becaufe had
St. Paul really cited any book, he would, according to his
cuftom, have given fome intimation that he did fo, either by
mentioning the author's name^ or the title of the book, &c. Be-
fides, as to the firft of thefe opinions, it has not the leaft ap-
pearance of truth ; and as to the two latter, I (hall think it
enough at prefent to fay, the books, from whence the paflage
is fuppofed to be cited, were made long after St. Paul's time.
Neither of thefe conjectures being probable, feveral learned
men, as Beza% Chemnitius b , Heinfius % &c. have thought
that the Apoftle does not refer to any particular faying of
Cbrift, but to feveral of our Lord's fcyings in the Gojpel^
which he intended to comprise or -abridge in this ; fuch as that,
Matt. xix. 21. that Luke xvi. 9. and the parable of the ta-
lents, Matt. xxv. But this opinion feems very improbable,
becaufe the Apoftle exprefsly refers to the very words of
Chrift, and fays not only tiyu r2 Ks/pis 'iwa, but uv-rof J^s.
That which feems therefore moft likely, is, that Paul received
this pajfage by tradition from the Apoftles, or Difciples of
Chrift, with whom it is certain he frequently converfed, and
from whom he received many accounts of fac~t ; and perhaps
it is not unlikely he was then told it, when he went up to
Jerulalem from Antioch, with the charitable collections of the
Chriftians there for the indigent brethren at Jerufalem, Adls
xi. 30.
II. A Saying in the Epijlle of Barnabas , Chap. IV. afcribed
to Chrift.
Sicut dicit Filius Dei, Re- As the Son of God faith, Let
fiftamus omni iniquitati^ et odio us refi/l all iniquity, and hate
habeamus earn. it.
* Annot. in loc. p. 40.
Exam. Cone. Trid. Par. I. ^ Loc. iam cit.
III. A Say-
4.IO An Appendix. PART 11.
III. A Saying afcrlbedto Chrijl In the fame Epijlle, Chap. VII.
, puriv, ol $Xo*T; pe So they, faith Jefus,
llw, x\ ci^c^i p* T ? would fu me, and arrive t,
my kingdom, muft receive me
/
through the fuffenng of many
troubles and affliflions.
The celebrated Archbifhop Ufher a imagines it an evidence
of the great antiquity of this Epiftle under the name of Bar-
nabas, that in it are cited feveral of the Apocryphal books,
the very names of which are now quite loft. Mr. Dodwell b
aflerts not only of Barnaba?, but Clemens Romanus, Hermas,
Ignatius, and Polycarp, the fuppofed writers of the firft cen-
tury, or Apoftolick age, that they promifcuoufly made ufe of
our Gofpels and other Apocryphal books. Dr. Mill follows
him exactly, and is fomewhat more fanguine in his expref-
fions c . They, i. e. the Apojlolick Fathers, fays he, cite and
alledge, without any difference, the Apocryphal Gofpeh and the
infpired books of the Apojiles. One would imagine they had
very clear proof for the fupport of thefe afTertJons, and that
Barnabas, Clemens, Hennas, Polycarp, and the reft, had
named, or at leaft referred to fome fuch writings, or books. But
cf this I dare aver, there is not one fingle inftance in all thofe
Fathers to be found ; and though fome of them have fome
paflages not in our Gofpels, yet there is not any reafon to
conclude they were taken out of others, as I fhall (hew in the
particular examination of them : and firft as to thofe of Bar-
nabas, which are now under confideration, only firft obferving
that Mr. Fabritius d fuppofes alfo that both thefe paflages
were taken out of fome Apocryphal Gofpel. I fhall confider
each of them diftin&ly.
* See the remaining part of the Dr. Fell's Edition.
preface to an edition of this Epiille, b Dirfrrt. I. in Iren. . 39.
which he intended to have pub- c Prolegom. in Nov. Tcftam.
Jiftu-d, but was confumed at Oxford, . 144, &c.
with all his notes, only a few in the " Cod. Apccryph. Nov. Teft.
Corrector's hand, by the great fire Par. j. p. 330, 331.
there, 1643. See the Preface to
As
TART II. An Appendix. ATT
As to the firft, it is evident it could not pofTib^y be any
faying of Chrift, becaufe // is delivered in the plural number^
LET Us refift all iniquity, and let Us hate it. Thefe, I fay,
could not be the words of Chrift, becaufe his commands art
never delivered in the plural number, as relating to himfelf and
to his Apoftles; betides, it is abfurd in the nature of the thing
for a perfon under the character of Chrift to command himfelf\
eipecially confidering that he zvas incapable of all Jin. If
therefore they ware not the words of Chrift, it is plain they
are no more than the author's explication of forr.e words of
his; and though he prefix the words, Sic did: Pi/ius Dti^fi
fays the fon of God; it is plain that they cannot be taken in
their literal frnfe, but muft mean. This is the command of
Chrift to us, or be has fpoken to this purp?fe^ that we fhould
avoid and hate all fin ; or // is the doctrine winch he has deli-
vered*: and fo indeed it is in many parts of our Gofpels, and
the main defign of them all, and therefore was not taken out
of any Apocryphal book.
As to the latter pafTage, it was either taken out of that pa f-
fage of Paul and Barnabas, Ads xiv. 22. where it is laid they
exhorted the,churches to continue in the faith, and fay, w
mujl ally through much tribulation, enter into the kingdom tf
heaven : which are very near the fame words with thofe of the
fuppofed Barnabas under confide ration, and fo that is falfely
afcribed to Chrift, which was kid by Paul and Barnabas ; or
elfe the paffage is an allufiin to federal places of our Lord 1 !
difcourj'es, in which he afiures his followers, that, in order to
become his true difciples, they muft depend upon a variety of
troubles and fufferings, as he does Matt. x. ib, 22. Luke xiv.
27. John xvi. 33. and in feveral other places ; and this I fup-
pofe no one -can think improbable, who confiders how fre-
quent thefe fort of citations are in the writings of the Fathers,
and particularly in this Epiftle.
But if after all it fhould be thought, the^fe pafiages in the
Epiftle of Barnabas were taken out -of fome Apocryphal Gof-
pel ; I will add, that feeing it is no hard talk to prove (as I
* See inftances of the Lke fcrt of Aft. xx. 35.
ijpsrech in Heini". Excrcit. Sacr. in
hope
412 An Appendix. PART n.
hope fully in the next Part of this work to do) that this Epi-
ftle was not the compofure of Barnabas, but of fome other
perfon under his name, the credit of our Canon cannot
thereby be hurt ; for the moft that can follow from thence is,
that the Apocryphal books have been cited by fome heretical im-
pojlor of the fecond century.
It will not be foreign to my purpofe to infert here, that the
Author of this Epiftle under the name of Barnabas faith,
ch. v. that when Chrift chofe his Apoftles, he made choice
of fuch &Taj ii-Ttep -Eracroo aipetpr'uu cuwpurrjgtit, who were exceeding
great finners : which, though it be not afTerted in either of our
Gofpels, yet feems to be collected from thence, viz. where
Matthew isfaid to be a publican , Matt. ix. 9, 10. Peter de-
fires Chriji to depart from him, becaufe he was a finful man,
Luke v. 8. and where he is related to have denied Chrift,
Matt. xxvi. 70, &c. Paul ftyles himfelf a persecutor and blaf-
phemer, and the chief of finners, i Tim. i. 13, 15. This is
well obferved by Origen againft Celfus to have been the
meaning of Barnabas in this place 3 , though Jerome b , by mif-
take, afcribes this to Ignatius, and not to Barnabas.
IV. A Saying afcribed to Chriji in the fecond Epijlle 'of Cle-
mens to the Corinthians, Chap. IV.
He is fuppofed to have been the fame Clemens, who is
mentioned by St. Paul, as his fellow-labourer, Phil. iv. 3.
I . Aia rare rauT r'pair I. For this reafon, that we
vpvwrw a o K-J ? io 5 - might do thefe things, the
E\ nrs air 1 i,*S truwy^oi Lord hath . faid > ***& ?
, xv Jhould be joined to me even in
tv TW xoATrw wa, >tai an ' ' . . .,
' ' x , my bofom^ and do not objerve
? ****<f** *- my commandments, I wili re-
?, xai \fi upV j e n you , and fay to you, Depart
aV las, sx d(6 from me, I know not whence
- ye are, ye workers of iniquity.
Orig. contr. Crlf. lib. i . p. 49- b Lib. 3- adv. Pelag. c . i .
V.
PART II. An Appendix. 413
V. Another Saying afcribed to Chrijl and Peter^ in the fame
Epijlle, Chap. V.
2. Aiyet yoio o Kyoto;' 2. For the Lord faith, Te flail
"Ecr^c- w? >'* u paV'Au- be as lambs ' in the **%/* f
>. o v j.\ ' r-r- wolves: but Peter replying,
Y.W. ATTCXCiCm? dt LUTflCJ* r / 5
, v v ,.. , , faid, What if the wolves
Eav XH diz<r7rzpy,uc-iv ot AD- . . . , .
Jhoitla tear in pieces the lamas?
TW nsTfa' Mn x fo&Mr$ow the lambs fear the wolves after
roc, device, ra? Auxa? /X,ET TO death, and do not ye fear thofe
diroSoutiiv aura' xal u'usiV w^<? f^j ^/// j^w, and (af-
jari (potr<r3- raj aVojcTmckla* terwards) can do you no harm-,
/;)/;7Z w ^ has P er
v^wr death* to cafl both
J
a ^ , ~ /<?/ and body into hell fire.
o-Jtx.]/in> vy.zt;
t^ovr/x. ifactzv
TO a,7ro-
VI. Another Saying fifcribed to Chrlji^ in the fame
>. VIII.
3. Ac'y ya^ KU^JO? lv 3- For the Lord faith in
T EJayyjA/oj' El TO ^Y.^OV the Gofpel, Unlefs ye have
, ' > \ / / ^i 1 /)/ //;^/ which is little* who
XX T^-,]<rT, TO jUiya TK ^
, ^ . , x x t ^ w/// P'i'y^ you that which is
ucuv ow<r ; A^yw yao uw-tv, ? -n r r
1 ' * '
f a ; th f u i ; that
lv -croAAa Tsriro? E-I>. w,-/;/'^ is leajl, is alfo faithful
in that which is much.
VII. Another Saying afcribed to Chrij}, in the end of the fame
Chapter.
4. 'Af * 8K TSTO Af'yeT 4- This therefore is what
[ the Lord J faith ' AV ^ ^ wr
fle/h chafie. and your feal (\.e.
x.ai TV;:/ <r?ipayida ac-wiAov, -^ y "
v c. v" , , , / baptifm) unaeffieJ. that [o ye
tvx TT,V L^-fiv yAuviM a?roAa- . . . ... ,.",
may obtain everlajling life.
G>iT.
VIII. An-
4 1 4 An Appendix. p A R T 1 1.
VIII. Another Saying afcribed to C7;r//?, in the end of that
Epiftle.
5. 'EjrffaTJiS-fjf aJroc o 5 The Lord himfelf being
Kvg.o? uVo Tivo?, HOTS j a(ked b 7 a certain perfon,
' r P<nX, W "O- when his kin dom {hould
v x . / xv come ? replied. Wben two
izn fai -roc. ouo EI/, xai TO - ... . .
v , \ x /
H C JO M% M TO ft(WV
^T X T?f S-nAfia? art * e <rv
art S-^-.L'. female neither male nor female.
The confideration of thefe, orfome of thefe paffages, influ-
enced Mr. Dodvvell and Dr. Mill to aflert as above, that Cle-
mens and the other Apoftolical Fathers promifcuoufly and in-
difFerentiy made ufe of ours and other Apocryphal Gofpels.
c< Clemens^ fays Dr. Mill a , both in his former Epijlle to the
" Gyrintbrairt) and the fragment of bis fecond Epiftle to them^
* C ( l f '* be his) takes feme teftimonics cut of thefe Gofpels^ which
" were in ufe among the Chriftians before the publijhing of our
*' prefint Gofpels, and fomc^ as it feems^ out of ours, but in a
" mixed, conjufed manner ', &'c." But as in this latter aJJ'ertian
he and the learned writer, whom he follows, are moft appa-
rently miftaken, each of the Apoftolical Fathers having plainly
made ufe of our Gofpels (as I hope to fhew hereafter), fo alfo
in the former, as will appear by a particular criticifm on the
paifages here produced, which muft be thofe which he refers
to, there being no other in the Epiftle that can be fuppofed to
be taken out of Apocryphal books. And whereas the Dr.
aflerts, that Clemens in his former Epiftle to the Corinthians
cites Apocryphal Gofpels, he is moft notorioufly miftaken ;
there being not one pajjage in that whole EpijHe, that with any
reafon can befuppofed^ cr I believe ever has been fuppofed to have
been alledged out offuch books.
But as to the pafTages in the fecond Epiftle here produced
of which I have collected five :
The firft, which is in Chap. IV. appears moft plainly to
Prclegofn. in Nov. Ttft. . 13?.
PART ii. An Appendix. 415
be taken out of St. Luke's Gofpel,ch. xiii. 25, 2.6, 27. The
latter part of the paflage is in almoft the very fame words,
and perfectly the fame fenfe, in ver. 27. and the former part is
no lefs evidently a contraction of ver. 25* 26. and a very com-
mon way of citing in the writings of the Fathers. There is
no need therefore to fuppofe this taken out of any Apocryphal
Gofpel ; and I cannot but obferve, that Dr. Mill himfelf in
another part of his work, viz. in his note on this place of
Luke (forgetful of what he fays in his Prolegomena) produces
this pajfage out of Clemens, and fuppofe s it to have been taken
either out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ or Egyptians, and to
have been taken into one of thofe Go/pels out of this place of
St. Luke^ and by thofe who took it thence corrupted and interpo-
lated. If we lay his thoughts together, they are thefe : Cle-
mens Romanus took this paflage out of fome Apocryphal
Gofpel made before any of the prefent Canonical ones : this
Gofpel was either that of the Nazarenes, or Egyptians ; for
thefe were made before any of ours % yet this very paflage was
taken out of St. Luke's Gofpel, and inferted into one of thefe;
i. e. in fhort, St. Luke's Gofpel was made before the Gofpel
of the Egyptians and Nazarenes, and the Gofpel of the Egyp-
tians and Nazarenes was made before St. Luke's .GofpeL
Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus.
The fecond paffage^ viz. that Chap. V. (as to the words of
Chrift) is related in the fame words by St. Matthew, chap.
x. 16, 26, 28. and St. Luke, chap. x. 3. and chap. xii. 4, 5.
Wherefore we have no need to fuppofe Clemens to have taken
it out of any Apocryphal Gofpel : and though indeed there
be an infertion in it of a queftion propofed by Peter to Chrift,
viz. What if the wolves jbould tear in pieces the lambs ? To
which our Lord is made to reply, Fear not, &c. This feems
to have been a groundlefs tradition (of which there were
great numbers in that time), becaufe, by a little reflection on
the feries of our Lord's difcourfe, in the places now cited of
Matthew and Luke, there will feetn to have been no fign of
an interruption in it, nor indeed well could be. The learned
* Prolegom. in Nov. Tclt. . 35. 38.
Cote-
4i 6 An Appendix. PART ir.
Cotelerlus a therefore had no ground to fuppofe this taken by
.Clemens out of an Apocryphal Gofpel.
The third cf tbefe pajjages is in part alfo cited by Irenaeus
thus b :
Et ideo Dominus dicebat in- Wherefore the Lord faid to
gratis exiftentibus in eurr. ; thofe, who v/ere ungrateful
Si in medico fideles non fuijits, to him, If \e have not been
quod magnum ejl quis dabit faithful in that which is little,
vobis ? who wilt give you that which
is great ?
Dr. Grabe in his notes on this place conje&ures, that
Ireneetts transcribed tbefe words out of the Gofpel of the Egyp-
tians ; but this is a mere groundlefs conjecture. Dr. Mill c
goes farther, and fuppofes the paflage to have been originally
in fame Apocryphal Gofpel, which was publijhed before curs, and
confequently that Clemens, who lived, according to him, before
the fettling of the Canon, took it out of that ; but as to Irenseu?,
he fuppofes indeed he read it in his (opy of Luke, chap.' xvi.
10. &c. but that it was not any part of St. Luke's" writing, but
an interpolation or infirtion into the copies of that Gofpel, taken
out of fo?ne Apocryphal one, which had this parable of the unjuji
Jieward more at large than it was related by Luke, and being
from thence firft inserted by fame curious perfon into the margin
of St. Luke, was afterwards, by fome carelefs fcribe, transferred
into the text or body of the book. But for all this bold con-
jecture, there is not the leaft evidence produced. The cafe is
plain ; the latter part of the paflage under confideration is in
fo many words in our prefent copies of St. Luke, chap. xvi.
10. and the whole meaning of the former part in the next
verfe. The words in Clemens are, If ye have not kept that
tchich is little, who will give you that which is great ? The
words in Luke are, If therefore ye have not been faithful in
the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your truji the true
riches? \. e. as is very plain by the whole defign of the pa-
* Annot. in Ice. c Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam.
k Adv. Haeref. lib. i. c. 64. . 374. "
rable a
PART ii. An Appendix. 417
rable, If you have not been faithful, and made a due itfe of tie
lejfer enjoyments of this life, who will entruji you, or hoiv can
you expeft the greater things and enjoyments of the other ?
There is no need therefore of fuppofmg either any Apocry-
phal Gofpel, or interpolated copy, out of which Clemens or
Irenzus took thefe words. If there were, we may as well
fuppofe the fame in ten thoufand inftances at leaft, where the
Fathers have thus laxly made their citations out of the books
of the Old and New Teftaments. And whereas it may
be objected, and perhaps be thought ftrange, that Clemens
and Irenaeus Jhould agree to paraphrafe, or exprefs, our Savi-^
cur's words fo near the fame : I anlwer, that it was hardly
probable they fhould have paraphrafed them any other way,
becaufe Chrift himfelf gives the fame explication of them,
ver. 10. and fo our beft Paraphrafts and Expofitors have done.
As to the fourth pajjage, although Dr. Grabe b , and Mr. Fa-
britius have imagined it to be a dijll ntt Saying of Cb ;//?;
and the latter fays, it was taken oat of an Apocryphai Gojpel,
which he conjectures to be the Gcfpel of the Egyptians, it ap-
pears to me plainly to be only the words of Clemens, or the
Author of the Epijlle, in explaining the preceding faying of
Chrift ; as any one may perceive by the context ; and accord-
ingly was taken by the prefent Archbifhop of Canterbury in
his Englifh tranflation, though either his Grace, or his printer,
was very much rniitaken, in putting the word foul, for the
Greek atyxy'do. ; which word, by the way, is a gocd evidence
that this could not be any Saying of Chrift, who never made
ufe of this word to denote baptifm, which even according to
Mr. Fabritius in this place it does ; and perhaps an evidence,
that this Epiftle under the name of Clemens was not written
by him, or any other perfon of his time.
The lnjl pajjage was indeed in the Gofpel of the Egyptians ;
for Julius Caffianus urges it thence, as we read in Clemens
Alexandrinus, Strom, lib. 3. p. 465. and accordingly I ha\e
produced it above in the fecond Part of this work, ,Chap. XVL.
* See Grothu, Hammond, Whit- c Cod. Apocryplv. Nov. Tcft.
by, Le Ckrc, Sec. Par. i . p. 333.
c SpicUeg. Pa:r. t. i.p. 13.
VOL. I. Ee where
41 8 jfn Appendix. PART n.
where I have largely proved that Gofpcl to be Apocryphal,
and a very filly forgery; and for this realbn we have fufficient
ground to reject- it, as not really one of our Saviour's, efpe-
cially when we confider how unlike it is to the known ftyle
and manner of his fpeaking ; for as I have elfewhere faid, that
was perfectly clear, eafy, and familiar; this is myfiical, in-
volved, perplexed, if not abfurd and obfcene, more like the
iilly ambiguous anfwers of the Delphick Oracles, than the ra-
tional and plain difcouries cf Jefus Chrifl. What remains
here is only to enquire, whether this Gofpel was cited in this
Epiftle under the name of Clemens, or this paflage taken out
of it ? Which is not very evident, as I conclude,
I. From the manner in which the author introduces the
paflage, 'E.^ifwrrStit; ^TOJ o K&^iof lira THO:, i. e, 1 he Lord him-
felf being afked by a. certain perfon^ &c. which words imply
that hew as utterly ignorant, who the perfon was that afked
our Saviour the queftion : but had he really cited, or made
ufe of this Gofpel, he could not have been ignorant, feeing it
was there exprefsly faid, that Salome was the perfon who ajked
the question, as is evident from the place juft now cited in
Clemens Alexandrinus.
2. The faying or paflage itfelf is fucJ^ as can hardly be ima-
gined to be cited or transcribed by a perfon of the worth and cha-
racter of Clemens, St. Paul's companion-, it is not likely that
he fhould have any regard to a book fo iilly, impious, and
ridiculous, as the Gofpel of the Egyptians has been proved to
be ; befides, if it was an impofture, he cannot be fuppofed to
be ignorant of it : once more, as the paflage itfelf is abfurd
and foolifh, I conclude, he would never have urged it as the
words of Chrift. If therefore this Epiftle was really wrote
by Clemens, I think it very evident, that this paflage was in-
terpolated, or perhaps rather added to the end of it; for they
are the laft words of the Epiftle, and an imperfect fentence,
making, as the prefent Archbifhop of Canterbury fays % an
* Preliminary Difcourfe to his Translation of the Apoftolick Fathm,
p. i2y.
PART II. An Appendix. 410;
abrupt condufion : and this is the more probable, becaufe the
Epiftle ends perfectly and juftly at the clofe of the eleventh
Chapter. Nor are fuch corruptions uncommon in the writ-
ings of the Fathers, of which Mr. Daille has obferved many
inftances a ; and among which thofe, who contend for the ge-
nuine antiquity of the firft Epjftle of Clemens to the Corin-
thians, are willing to reckon that part of it b , where Danae
and Dirce, tiuo noted names among the antient Heathen poets^
are introduced among the Cbrifiianf offerers.
3. Upon the whole, I look upon this Epiftle not to be the
writing of Clemens, but fame one after his time^ and accordingly
we find it rejected, as fpurious, by Eufebius c , Jerome d , Pho-
tius e , and others, of which I fhall treat more largely hereafter.
So that if really any Apocryphal Gofpel was cited in it, it
will be no way detrimental to the credit of our prefent Canon.
J only add, that even the paiTage itfelf now under confider-
ation, if it really was taken out of the Gofpel of the Egyp-
tians, by the author of the Epiftie, feems no mean argument
to prove the Epiftle itfelf not to be written by Clemens j for
as it is unlikely that Clemens fhould cite fo filly a book as
this Gofpel was, fo much more fo, that he fhould cite this
paflage, the apparent defign of which, arid indeed, as far as we
know, of the whole Gofpel (as has been above ihewn, Chap.
XVI. of this Part), is to celebrate perpetual virginity, and the
unlawfulnefs of marriage j a doctrine which, however careiTed
by the pretended fucceiTors of Clemens in the Chair of Rome,
1 believe, was never contended for by the true Clement, who
was the companion of St. Paul, but a notion efpouled by the
Hereticks, againft which St. Paul himfelf more than once has
wrote. See I Tim. iv. 3. and ColofT. ii. 21.
Befides Barnabas and Clemens Romanus, Mr. Dodwell
and Dr. Mill ailert (as above) that Ignatius, Herma?, and Po-
lycarp, have made ufe of the Apocryphal Gofpels in common with
thofe now received , but in thefe inftances they are more egre-
1 See his right ufc of the Fa- c Hift. Eccl. !. 3. c. 38.
tlu-rs. d Catalog. Vir. illuftr. in Clem.
" Chap. VI. e Biblioti. God. ia6.
E e 2 gioufly
4 20 An Appendix. PART il.
gioufly miftaken than in the former; for as to Hermas asd
Polycarp, I do affirm, there is not in their writings one paf-
fage different from our prefent Gofpels j nor have either of
thefe writers, or any other (that I know) produced fo much
as one example j and as to Ignatius, though there be indeed
in his Epiftle to the Smyrnseans, c. 3. a Saying afcribed to
Chrift, which is fuppofed by Jerome and many later writers
to be taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes (which I have
above produced, Chap. XXVII. of this Part), yet I have
there proved the contrary, and that the paflage was not taken
out of any Apocryphal Gofpel ; but out ef that of St. Luke
xxiv. 39.
IX. A Hiftory of a Woman accufed before our Saviour of many
Crimes, which was expounded by Papias. See Eufeb. Hift.
Eccl. lib. 3. c. 39.
THIS Papias was, as I have above {hewn, a difciple of
St. John r and an acquaintance of Polycarp. See Ch. XXVII.
of this Part.
What this Hiftory was, we are not now certain. That
which makes it confiderable here is, that Eufebius fays, it was
in the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ though (as I have largely
proved in the place of this work laft cited) Papias did not
take it thence; to which I here add, that it has been thought
by feveral learned men, that it is no other than the hi/lory cf
the adulterous wsman, which is in St. John's Gofpel^ ch. viii.
i, &c. So Erafmus -, Sixtus Senenfis b , Beza c , Grotius 1 ",
Father Simon e , Dr. Hammond f , and many others ; and in-
deed the opinion is fo probable, that I have not met with any
thing that is urged againft it, except that the woman men-
tioned by Papias was accuied before our Saviour of many
crimes (TO-* 77oMrj ^,jTi.K onx.^.r^i'Krn:') but the woman men-
tioned by St. John is only accufed of adultery. This is urged
. Annot. in Job. viii. 3. e Critic. Hiftor. of the New
T> Biblioth. Sanft. lib. 7. p. 599. Ted. par. i. c. 7. p. 67 Sf}\.
c Ar.not. in Joh. vii. 53. f Annot. iu Job. vii. 5$.
* Annot. in Loc.
by
PART IT. dn Appendix* 421
by Baronius a, and Dr. Whitby b ; the latter of whom, for
this reafon, fuppofes, that Papiasfpea&s of the woman of Sama-
ria; who, faith he, was accitfed of 'many fucb fins. But to this
it is cafy to anfwer : either,
1. That the Evangelifts do not always relate all the circum-
Jlanccs ofajlory y -zs is well known; and fo perhaps the wo-
man might be accufed of fome other crimes, which St. John
has not mentioned : or,
2. Adultery being a complicated crime, which included f eve-
ral others, might be very juftly thus exprefied by Pspias in
his Commentaries : or,
3. Perhaps it may not be an unjuft tranflation, if we ren-
der 7ro?Arj fityu&p/o*? great Jins^ rather than many fins ; and in
this fenfe the words might be very juftly ufed for the crime of
adultery ; and that the word w&^s is thus often ufed to denote
magnitude^ as well as multitude^ I dare affirm, and am able to
prove by many inftances. However,
4. Nothing can be more extravagant than Dr. Whitby's
conje&ure, that the woman fpok en of by Papias, and that of Sa-
maria, were the fame, becaufe, fays he, they were both accufed
of many crimes ; for it does not appear, that the woman of Sa-
maria was ever accufed before Chrift of any crimes at all.
See the Hiftory, Joh. iv.
Upon the whole I conclude, that the fame hiftory which
was written by John was expounded by Papias ; whence there
is farther evidence of that which I have above proved (Chap.
XXVII.), that Papias did not ufe the Gofpel of the Naza-
renes.
Whether this hiftory of the adulterous woman, in the
eighth chapter of St. John, be a genuine part of his writing,
or an interpolation out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ I {hall
not take upon me here to enquire ; that queftion belonging
rather to the text, than the Canon of the New Teftament.
It is certain that it is wanting in the Syriack Verfion, and
moft antient manufcripts ; of which fee above, Chap. XVII,
Annal. ad Ann. Chr. 99. N. b Annot. in Joh. via. 9.
9. apud Simon, Loc. cit.
E c 3 and
422 An Appendix. PART II.
and Dr. Mill's Notes on the place. He who has a mind to
read more on this may confult Erafmus, Grotius, Beza, Si-
mon, Hammond, Whitby, and efpecially Dr. Mill, in the
places above cited.
X. y/Difcourfe afcribed to Chrijl by Papias, and fame others,
who converfed with St. John the Apojlle^ preferred in Ire-
n&us adv. H&ref. lib. 5. cap. 33.
Prasdicfca itaque beneditio ad
tempora regni fine contradic-
tione pertinet, quando regna-
bunt jufti furgentes a mor-
tuis : quando et creatura re-
novata et liberata mtiltitudi-
nem fruciificabit univerfae ef-
cae, ex rore cceli et ex ferti-
litate terne: quemadmodum
Prefbyteri meminerunt, qui
Joannem Difcipulum Domini
viderunt, audifTe fe ab eo,
quemadrnodum detemporibus
illis docebat Dominus, et di-
ccbat : Venient dies, in qui-
bus vinese nafccntur, fingulae
decem millia palmitum ha-
bentes, et in uno palmitedena
millia brachiorum, et in uno
vero palmite dena millia fia-
gellorum, et in unoquoque
flagello dena miHia botruum,
et in unoquoque botro dena
millia acinorum. et unum-
The aforementioned bleffing
(viz. the bleffing of Ifaac on
his fon Jacob, Gen. xxvii.
27, 28.) undoubtedly relates
to the times of that king-
dom, in which the righteous
fliall reign after their refur-
reclion from the dead ; when
the creature being made new,
and delivered from bondage
(fee Rom. viii. 21, &c.), fnall
produce prodigious quantities
cf all forts of food, through
the dews of heaven and the
fruitfulnefs of the earth. A-
greeable to which the Elders,
who faw John the Difciple of
our Lord, have related, that
they heard him declare what
the Lord faid concerning thofe
times, viz. That he faid (the
following words), The days
will come, in which there will
fpring up vines , each of which
fnallbaveten thoufandbranches^
and every one 'ofthefe branches Jhall have ten thottfand lejjer
branches^ and every one of thefe branches Jhall have ten thoa-
fand twigs, and every one of thefe twigs fnall have ten thou-
jand clufters of grapes^ and every clujler of grapes flmll
have
PART II.
An Appendix.
423
quodque acinum exprefTum
dabit viginti quinque metre-
tas vini. Et cum eorum ap-
prehenderit aliquis fanctorum
botrum, alius claoiabit : Bo-
trus ego melior fum, me
fume ; per me Dominum be-
nedic. Similiter et granum
tritici decem millia fpicarum
gcneraturum, et unamquam-
que fpicam habituram decem
millia granorum, et unum-
quodque granum quinque bi-
libres fimilas clars mundas ;
et reliqua autem poma et fe-
mina, et herbam fecundum
congruentiam iis confequen-
tem : et omnia animalia iis
cibis utentia qua; a terra ac-
cipiuntur, pacifica et confen-
tanea invicem fieri, fubjeda
hominibus cum omni fubjec-
tione.
have ten thousand grapes , and
every grape, when it is prejfed,
Jhall yield Jive and twenty mea-
jures a of wine ; and when any
of the Saints foall lay hold
upon one of thefe clujters, an-
other /hall cry out, I am a
better clufler than tbee, take
me, and by me blefs the Lord\
in like manner^ one grain of
wheat fnall bring forth ten
thousand ears^ and every ear
jhall have ten thousand grains^
and every grain Jhall yield ten
pound of neat meal^ and in a
like proportion to thefe Jhall be
the product of apples and feeds^
and herbs according to their
kinds , and alfo all animals, who
feed upon thefe foods ^ which
are the produce of the earth,
Jhall be peaceable^ agreeing
with each other, and in a moft
perfefi fubjeflion to men.
Thefe things, fays Irenaeus b , are related by Papias, a
hearer of John, and acquaintance of Polycarp, in the fourth
book of his work.
XI. Another Hiftory and Saying of ' Cbrift, In the fame place of
the fame author.
Et adjecit dicens, Hasc autem And he farther adds (viz. Pa-
credibilia funt credefitibus. Et pias), faying ; but Judas, fays
Juda, inquit, proditore non he, who betrayed him, did not
a The word Metretas is ufed
Joh. ii. 6. and contained at leaft
180 gallons of wine. See Godwin's
Mofes and Aaron.
b Loc. jam tit.
believe
PART u.
credente, et interrogate ; believe thefe things, but en-
^uomodo ergo tales genlturez quired, How the Lord could
a Domino perficientur ? dix- bring about fuel) an increafe ?
ifle Dominum, Vtde^unt qui The Lord replied, They who
venient in ilia. arrive to that jl ate (or come
to that kingdom) jhall fee.
Thefe two pafTages feem indeed probably enough to have
been in fome antient Apocryphal Gofpel, were it not that Ire-
nasus intimates they were received by tradition ; and Papias
dealt much in fuch ftories, as Eufcbius informs us a . I fuppofe
I need be at no pains to prove that thefe were not the words
of Chrift ; and I cannot but wonder Dr. Grabe fhould make
any difficulty of difbelieving the tradition b . I will only make
two or three brief remarks on this head.
Firft, That the doRrine of the Millennium, or ChriJTs per-
fonal reign on earth, feems to owe its original to Papias. So
Eufcbius exprefsly fays c ; and perhaps on this account we meet
with the title of Papianiftee among the hcreticks in Juftinian's
Code, lib. i. tit. v. leg. 5.
Secondly, The generality of the antient Chriftians fell into
this opinion. So Eufebius exprefsly faith d .
Thirdly, Papias feems to have borrowed it from the Jews ;
for it is well known, and even from the Gofpels, that they
had the expectations of a temporal kingdom from the Meffias;
and their oldeft writings aflure us, they expected fuch things
in 'it, as Papias and his followers did. See Galatin. Arcan.
Cathol. Verit. 1. 10. c. 4.
Fourthly, It feems very probable, that as Papias was the
author of this doctrine, fo of this pajjage afcribed to Chrift^
and calculated to fupport it c .
A IlitV. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39. d Ibid.
> Spicilep. Patr, t. a. p. 231. e See Dr. Whitby's Tieatife of
c Hift. Eccl, 1. 3. c. 39. the Millennium.
XII. >/ Saying
PART Ji. An Appendix, 425
->
XII. A Saying afcrlbed to Chri/1 by Jujlin Martyr. Dialog,
cum Tryph. Jud. p. 267.
Aio xa o IS/AST^* Kuo? Wherefore our Lord Jefus
>, 'Ex oT? av Chrift hath faid :
/>y f&Mi tf/W / VJtU judge you.
This is a very noted pafTage, and has been not only cited in,
feveral of the antient books, but taken notice of by feveral of
the moderns, infomuch that for this reafon Juftin is reputed to
have made ufe of the Apocryphal books. Every body knows
(fays Cafaubon a ) that J*fti* Martyr and the other Fathers
have frequently appealed to Apocryphal books ; but I know not
one inftance which has been afligned for the proof of this,
befides the paflage which we are now upon. It requires
therefore confideration, and the more, becaufe Juftin, being
one of the firft Chriftian writers whofe works are extant, his
rejecting all other books befides thofe now received, is a
mighty confirmation of our prefent Canon. But I come to
the paflage, and to enquire what has been faid of it.
i. Langus (Juftin's Latin tranflator) propofes two con-
jectures concerning this pafiage, viz. either that it is a cita-
tion of fame words of Chrijl which are in John v. Luke xii.
and xix. and more regard had to the fenfe and meaning of
thofe places, than the words j or elfe that it was taken out of
fame Apocryphal book b .
The laft of thefe conjectures I fhall prefently examine
largely j as to the firft, viz. that the pajjage is an allujion to
fame words of Chrijl ; I obferve, that though perhaps it may
not exactly be the cafe, yet it is not very abfurd ; indeed I
know not certainly what places in the Evangelifts Langus re-
fers to, becaufe he only cites the chapters at large, and not
the verfes i but I fuppofe he meant thofe, John v. 2730.
* Exercit. adv. Baron. Annal. b Vid. Sylburg. Annot. in Loc,
p. 54- Ju'in.
and
426 An Appendix. PART II.
and thofe in Luke xix. n 27. in which places there is a
plain declaration that Chrift, \vho is conftituted judge, would
be no refpe&er of perfons, but deal to every man according to
his works. And this is the undoubted meaning of the Saying
in Juftin. I fay therefore, this conjecture is not very ab-
furd, becaufe the Fathers ufually cite thus compendioufly.
But there feems to be this againft it, that the pailage is in the
lame words in many of ths Fathers ; and it is hardly pro-
bable that they fhould paraphrafe the fame way.
2. Dr. Cave 1 fuppofes it taken cut of tin Apocryphal
Gofpelofthe Nazarcnes.
3. Dr. Grabe is of the fame opinion b .
4. Dr. Fell in his notes on the fame faying of Chrift, which
is in . 40. of the little book of Clemens Alexandrinus, enti-
tled , >nis Dives falvetW) fays, Clemens took it out of feme Apo-
cryphal GofpeL
But againft this opinion I argue,
I. That Jujlin does not in any other part of h':s writings cite
or take any thing cut of any Apocryphal book ; and therefore it is
furpriftng he Jhould do it here. He cites our prefent Canon,
and particularly our four Gofpels, continually ; I dare fay,
above 200 times ; and is it likely he fhould appeal to an Apo-
cryphal Gofpel in this one place, and efpecially when he might
have found that which was equally to his purpofe in ours ? I
leave the reader, who is unprejudiced, to judge.
II. It is probable Jtijiin Martyr took this pajjage out of the
Prophecy of Ezecbu'l, and that he did not himfelf prefix to it the
'o ityitngO* K&i6' 'l*5-aj Xjrc; elwE*, i. e. our Lord "Jefus
aid, but only K^-i^ ii-, The Lord hath faid, and that
fome fcribe ignorantly imagining thefe to be the words of
Chrift, inferted in his copy the words -W'Tf*- and 'i^S? Xpr>',-.
/"Vr/?, For the proof of this 7 appeal to the context, or f tries
ofyuftin's difcourfe. In which a queftion is debated between
Juftin and Xrvpho, whether the Ebionites, or fuch who pro-
feiled faith in Chrift, and obedience to the Ceremonial Law,
could be faved. Juftin declares he thought they might, if
1 Hift. Liter. inMatth. p. 8. * Spicileg. Patr. t. i. p. 3*7.
they
PART ir. An Appendix. 427
they did not endeavour to pervert the Gentiles to their opi-
nion, but that thofe of the Jews who denied Chrift, though
they lived according to the Mofaick law, could not be faved
without repentance in this life } for, fays he, the goodnefs of
God is fuch, that he will accept thofe who are truly penitent,
as he declares by Ezechiel, but reject thofe who perfift in their
wickednefs. Then follows the paflage we are about, Where-
fore the Lord faith ; which alfo follows in Ezechiel in that
place which Juftin refers to ; fee Ezech. xviii. 26 30. And
indeed it is remarkable, that this goth verfe is now in the Sep-
tuagint Verfion more like the words of this paflage than any
of the preceding are to what Juftin cites, as will appear by
Comparing them ( J Ex.a.Tov y.ct,ra, Trc o$o dv-ra yfwu vfj.c^ 'tiyn Kv-
^t-). Nor would it be at all ftrange, if there were a much
greater difference, confidering how unlike the prefent copies
of the Greek Verfion are to thofe in Juftin's time, and parti-
cularly to Juftin's own copy of that tranflation ; which every
one who has read Juftin cannot but obferve with furprife; and
thofe who have not may fee in Vaillant's DifTertation con-
cerning the places in the New Teftament cited out of the
Old, and Archbifhop Ufher's Syntagm. de Septuagint. Interp.
c. 4. p. 42, &c. But,
Secondly, That which feems to put the matter paft all
doubt is, that Clemens Alexandrinus a citing the fame paflage,
exprefsly cites it as the words of God the Father , and not of~
Cbrift, having juft before alfo quoted the preceding verfes in
Ezechiel. This Dr. Grabe has alfo obferved, which makes
it fomewhat unaccountable that he fhould in the very fame
paragraph fuppofe it taken out of the Gofpel of the Naza-
rencs.
Thirdly, Confidering the feries of Juftin's difcourfe, it
would have been very abfurdfor him to have cited a faying of
Chrift tojhp the mouth of Trypho, who was a Jew^ and there-
fore would yield no regard to it, efpecially when he had feve-
ral paflages in the books of the Old Teftament, which his
adverfary owned, to have produced, which were as much to
* In Lib. Quls Dives falvetur, . 4.3.
his
428 Jin Appendix* PART jr.
his purpofc, and really more particularly exprefied his mind,
than any words in the New.
XIII. A Hiftory of Chrijl's Baptifm y related by JujUn Mar-
tyr. Dialog, cum Tryph. Jed. p. 315.
Kat TC-TI fXSi'vr^ T* T^TS And when Jefus came to the
phy river Jordan, where John was
*^ ^P'tfng. ^ Jeiiis was de-
\ v fcendi n^ into the water, afire
l TO bV
^ itv/j kindled in Jordan. And
-
terj the Apoftles of this our
ra -m ra \joy^(? t cJj tsi- Chrift have wrote, that the
Holy Ghoft did alight upon him
of } O.
That which is peculiar in this relation, and not in our Go
pels, is, that a fire is fold to be kindled in Jordan^when Qir'ift
was going down Into the river to be baptised j and fomething
of the fame nature we find there was in the Goipel of the Ebi-
onites, or Nazarenes, viz. that at Chrift's baptifm after the
defcent of the Holy Ghoft, and the voice from heaven, a great
light fame around the place. (See the paflage at large out of
Epiphanius, in the foregoing Part, Chap. XXV. Numb. 11.)
On this account fome learned men have imagined this hiftory
to have been taken by Juftin Martyr out of this Apocrypha!
Gofpel. Thus thought a certain learned friend of Mr. Dod-
well', and Dr. Mill b 5 but herein they are moft evidently
miftaken, becnufe Juftin's account, and that in the Ebionitc
Gofpel do fo very much difagree in circumftances. Juftin
relates, that as Chriji was defcending into the river, the fire
was kindled^ and then after that u,as the dejcent of the Holy
Diflert. in lien. ii. 9. Prokgom. . 269, Tc 766.
>> Annot. in Matt. iii. 16. &
Gfajt,
FART n. An Appendix* 429
Gb0ft, and the voice from heaven : on the contrary, this Gofpel
feith, that the light was not till after Chrijl had ascended out of
the water^ and the Spirit had defccndcd^ and the voice cajns
down from heaven. Befides, if we look carefully into the
paflages, we fhall eafily perceive they are different, not only
becaufe of the difagreement, as has been faid, in point of time,
which there is between them, but becaufe the fubjedls are
quite different. The one fpeaks of a fire kindled in the
river j the other of a great light encircling or /hining around
all the place ; which are two things fo different, that I fup-
pofe, if this had been cbferved, no one would have imagined
that Juftin took his account out of the Ebionite Gofpel. But
farther, he who will be at the pains to confider what opinion
Jitjiin had of the Ebionites, and their fcheme 3 , will hardly per-
fuade himfeif that Father made ufe of their idle and filly Apo-
cryphal books. Nor is there any thing that I have feen to be
urged on the other fide, befides what Dr. Mill gathers from
the words ty^a.> aVro*oi, i. e. the Apoftles (fpeaking of feve-
ral of them) wrote this, that Juftin referred to the Gofpel of
the twelve Apoftles, which was the fame with that of the Ebi-
onites, or Nazarenes. But it is eafy to anfwer, that thefe
words, the Apojlles wrote^ refpeft only the latter part of the
fenfe, viz. the Holy Ghoft's alighting upon Chrift in the form
of a dove, and not the former, becaufe the verb tw^TT^a* is in
the infinitive mood, but the other verbs are in the third per-
fon; and for this reafon Dr. Grabeb, from whom Dr. Mill
borrowed this argument, rejects it, as not fufficient to prove
the point. That therefore which feems moft probable upon
the whole is, that this circumftance at our Saviour's baptifm
was related by Juftin only as what he had received by tradi-
tion ; and if I miftake not, this was founded upon that pa jf age
in three of our Evangelifts, viz. that the heavens were opened;
by which I know not what elfe can be underftood befides
fome lucid phsenomenon in the air. a II femble que les
1 Dialog, cum Tiyph. Jud. p. b Spicileg. Patr. tern. i. p. 19,
265, &c. 20.
?' nuages
430 J Appendix. PART n.
" nuages s'ecartcrent tout d'un coup, et qu'une flamme de-
*' fcendit de 1'entre-deux. Au moins les homines ne peu-
cc vent pas voir une autre ouverture du ciel, et 1'on difoit
" communement, que le del s'cuvroit, lors que cela arri-
" voit 3 :" It is probable that the clouds divided fuddenly, and
that a flame of fire descended from between them. Otherwife
men could not pojfibly fee any opening of the heaven ; beftdes, we
commonly fay, the heavens are opened, when there is f itch a pba-
nomenon in them. Hence it might eafily pafs into a common
opinion, that there was a fire at our Saviour's baptifm ; which,
with the addition of one circumftance, is the fame as Juftin
fays.
It is neccflary here to add, that this fame hiftory was alfo
in the Apocryphal book, entitled, The Preaching of Paul and
Peter, in the pafTage above produced, Chap. XXX. Numb. 7.
and feems to be referred to in the Latin poem of Juvencus
upon the Gofpels thus ;
IJac mcmorans vitreas penetrabat flumims undas,
Surgtnti mamfefta. Del profintid claret.
And Dr. Mill informs us alfo, that it is to be found in a very
antient Manufcript at Paris.
XIV. A Hiftory of Chrijl, in his younger years in Jujiin
Martyr. Dialog, cum Tryp.h. Jud. p. 316.
TV 'Ir,c-a 7ri And when Jefus came to
TQV 'lofiainv, v.x\ yo^ifo/xt'va Jordan, and was reputed the
uV' e - fon of J fc P h the "rP 6 "^*
< and making a mean figure
yoy,- . . c
" , (either in refpecl of his per-
i/a, x.a f ,^ , r-
(on or garb) as the Scriptures
raZr* have foretold, (fee Ifa. liii. I.)
yxg TO. Tfxronxa t'^ya cij- an d himfelf was efteemed a
ya^T6 av3"ca.'7roij wv, y,co- carpenter , for he ivcrkcd^when
r:o, xt uy*, ^a TB'TWV xal he was here on earth, at the
* Cleric. Annot. in Mat. iii. 16.
carpenter's
TART II. dn Appendix. 431
T rr t ; J^aicG-jV/j,- npGoXx carpenter's trade, making
\ thus making a pattern
of righteoufnefs, and a labo~
rious life.
There is at this day extant a Gofpel of the Infancy of our
Saviour (of which more hereafter), in which we read of the
actions and miracles of Chrift, during the interval of his mi-
nority, and particularly of his working with his father in the
carpenter's trade. Accordingly, Chap. XXXVIII. we read,
that Jofepb took him along with him to all the places where he
was fent for to do bufinefs, to make gates and milk-pails, and
fieves, and trunks, and that when Jofepb intended to make any
thing longer or Jhorter, wider or narrower, as foon as Chrift put
his hand to the work, it ivas injlantly done, according to Jo-
fepb' s intention, fo that he had Indeed but little occajion to work,
not being very dexterous at his trade. It may perhaps be
thought, Juftin took what he fays out of fome fuch Apocryphal
books ; but inafmuch as this book was a forgery long after
Juftin's time, and it does not appear, there was any fuch book
in his time, it is much more probable, either that he relates
only what he had received by tradition, or elfe that what he
here faith, was his glofs upon thofe words of Mark, c. vi. 3.
in which Chrift is called by his own townfmen 5 TIT, the
carpenter. Origen indeed afierts \ that it is no where to be
read in the Gofpels received by the Churches, that Chrift was a
carpenter ; which he never would fo pofitively have aflerted
againft Celfus, bantering our Saviour becaufe he was a car-
penter by trade, unlefs he was well aflured cf the fact. It is
probable therefore Chrift was not called fiy.ruv^ the carpenter,
in any copies of St. Mark which Origen had feen ; and ac-
cordingly, I obferve, firft, That in the parallel place in
St. Matthew, c. xiii. 55. he is not called TS'XT^, but T/KTSXGS vll< ,
not the carpenter, but the carpenter's fan. Secondly, That
Contr. Cell".
432 An Appendix. PART u.
many antient Manufcripts, in this place of Mark, inftead of
TeV.Twr, read o ra T/xroro? vlos, viz. the carpenter's fan. It is not
to my prefent purpofe to make any enquiries into the life of"
Chrift, before his publick miniftry ; it is generally thought^ as
Juftin fays, that he followed bis father's trade of carpentry. So
Erafmus 3 , Eftius b , Chemnitius , Grotius ", Lightfoot c ,
Dr. Cave f , and many others.
Thus much concerning Juftin Martyr, till whofe time there
is the greateft reafon to conclude the facred text of the New
Teftament continued very pure and incorrupt ; foon after the
Hereticks of thofe times made many and large interpolations
and additions to it ; fuch as Marcion, Valentinus, and others,
whereby they frequently make both Chrift and his Apoftles to
fpeak what they judged moft agreeable to their own fenti-
ments. It would be endlefs to collect: all thefe, nor would it
be of any fervice in fettling the Canon, and indeed but little
in fettling the true reading of the text ; Irenaeus and Tertul-
lian have mentioned feveral of them ; Epiphanius has made a
large collection of Marcion's alterations in the Gofpel of
Luke, and St. Paul's Epiftles. I fhall think it funicient to
produce the following remarkable initance of an addition to
the Gofpel hiftory made by the Gnofticks in the fecond cen-
tury, and perhaps afterwards inferted in fome Apocryphal
Gofpel. The inftance I mean is that out of Irenseus adv.
Haeref. lib. I. c. 17. Speaking of the Gnofticks, and their
fpurious Scriptures, he adds,
yjjc-i SI '; They have alfo forged this
TTO KOLKZIVO TO fKJixojmpx, falfe ftory, that our Lord
wj TB Kvoj'a -rot. h* TX Si- (when he was a child, and
learning his Alphabet *) of
* Annot. in Matt. xiii. 55. et Harmon, of the New TclL
Mar. vi. 3. .8. ir. fine.
b Tn Difficil. Loc. Script, ad f Hiltr. Literar. in Chrift.
Mar. vi. 3. E This partnthtfi, I have added
c Harmon. Evangel, vol. 3. nut of the old Latin tranrt.-ttion ;
p. 587. the Greek is pc!t;i vc(i in Epiplui-
" Annot. in Matt. xiii. 55. mu, Hxrcl'. 34.. ^ iS.
his
PART II. v/ Appttidix. 433
avrw pn'<ravw?, xa- his fchooJmafler, when he
w? 06s JfiK, V aAipa, a- faid to him, as is ufual,y^y A;
TO A?a' traXw Chrift anfwered A j again,
when d* ^aft" bid him fa X
B, the Lord faid to him, Do
\ Tr , _ , , V0 firjt tell me what A ,
TOV Kucio^* 2,u uot -Grporeoov ' ] i i ,, ,
s r r s tf?7 ^ ^^^ j Wl n te n y m w h at
Ml r^Vt TO aA ? a, xi Tor^ g ^ And thjs they fo ex _
f ol Ig5 T.' ir TO P^T. Kal pount j, as jf h? a i one unc ] er _
TaTo ifaywroi.1 ug aura ju&'j/a ftood the myftery revealed
TO olyvurov lTr^ot.pw%> o t<px- in the letter A.
fV TW T-jVo) T8 A(p<X,
This paflage is in the Gofpel of the Infancy, publifhed by
Cotelerius in Greek, c. vi. and in that tranflated out of Ara-
bick into Latin by Mr. Sike, c. xlviii. though with fome va-
riations and additions in both, efpecially the laft ; where it is
faid, that upon Chris's refufmg to fay the letter B } his majler
threatening him with the rod, he run through all the Alphabet,
told his majler the meaning of the letters, &c. which he ad-
mired, and faid he believed he was born before Noah.
XV. A Saying ofCbrift, in Irenxus adv. Hteref. lib. i. c. 17.
xi iv T u'gDXt'yai, But that which (Chrijl) has
faid, / have often defired to
hear one of thofe fayings, but
have found no one who could
s ~ , \ tell me, they (viz. the Gnof-
$11 ra ivos rev , ,
ticks) interpret concerning
vwKfnraj, God, whom they have not
known.
Dr. Mill a thinks this paflage to have been in one of the
Gofpels of the Valentinians, or Gnofticks; but I fear he is
herein much miftaken; for though Irenaeus had mentioned
1 Prolegom.^. 331.
VOL. I. F f their
434 An Appendix. PART II.
their Apocryphal books in the beginning of the Chapter, yet
he had left thatfubject, and was giving inftances of their absurd
interpretations of the true Gofpels; and this he affigns as one ;
fo that I am apt to think thefe words were in Irenaeus's copy
of one of the four Gofpels, becaufe it is certain he acknow-
ledged no other .
XVI. .//Hiftory of the age ofChri/f, in Jrenaus adv. Haref.
lib. 2. cap. 39.
Quia autem triginta annorum
aetas primae indolis eft juve-
nis, et extenditur ufque ad
quadragefimum annum, om-
nis quilibet confitebitur ; a
quadragefimo autem et quin-
quagefuno anno declinat jam
in atatem feniorem j quam ha-
bens Dominus nojler docelat^
ficut Evangelium et omnes fe-
niores tejlantur, qui in Af.a
apud Joannem difcipulum Do-
mini convenerunt) id ipfum
tradidijje Us "Joannem. Per-
manfit autem cum eis ufque
ad Trajani tempora. Qui-
dam autem eorum non folum
Joannem, fed et alias Apo-
ftolos viderunt, et haec eadem
ab ipfis audierunt, et tef-
tantur de hujufmodi relatione.
Forafmuch as a young man
firft arrives to a perfect ma-
turity at his thirtieth year,
and continues therein till the
fortieth, as every one muft
acknowledge, and that from
his fortieth or fiftieth year he
begins to decline towards old
age, to ivbicb age our Lord
having arrived did teacb y as
the Gofpel and all the elders
do tejlify t ivho attended upon
yohn^ the Difciple of our Lord>
in Afia ; (affirming) that
John himfelf gave them this
account. Now he continued
with them till the time of
Trajan, and fome of them did
not only fee John, but alfo
other Apoftles, and received
the fame account from them,
and they affirm this fame tra-
dition to be true.
This is indeed fomcwhat furprifing^ viz. that Irenaeus
{hould fo exprefsly affert, that ChriJ} lived and taught beyond
his fortieth, if not till bis fiftieth year j whereas it ft a thing
Adverf. Hxref. 1. 3. c. n.
moft
PART II. An Appendix. 435
moft notorious, that Chrift was crucified between his thirty
third and thirty fourth year. His arguments to prove it arc
as extraordinary as his aflertion, viz. That fince be came into
the ivor Id to fave perfons of all ages, viz. infants, little ones,
boys, young men, and old men, it was necejjary be Jhould pafs
through all thefe degrees of age. But if this will prove any
thing, it muft prove Chrift to have lived much longer than
Irenaeus contends for, and not only to the age of fifty, but
even to the age of the antediluvian Patriarchs ; and even, for
the fame reafon,to the age of Methufalem himfelf. It is ftrange
indeed he fhould fo pofitively urge the teftimony of St. John
for this notorious falfehood, and fay that he delivered it to the
Prefbyters of Afia ; for this cannot be fuppofed true, without
fuppofing alfo at the fame time, that our accounts in all the
Gofpels are falfe. Indeed, the next argument, which he ufcs
in the beginning of the next Chapter, is fomewhat more
plaufible, viz. from thofe words cf the Jews to our Saviour,
John viii. 57. Thou art not yet fifty years eld, and h aft thou
fien Abraham ? Whence, fays he, it appears, that be was near
fifty, they gathering this either from the rolls of the tax (in
which every. one's name and age were written), or from bis
countenance. But neither is this argument of any force, be-
caufe if v/e fuppofe Chrift to have been, as he really was, no
more than thirty three, the Jews might very well be fuppofed
to aflc their queftion thus, viz. either,
1. Becaufe our Saviour, being a mar; of forrows, and ac-
quainted with grief, and having gone through infinite fatigues
and labours", might very probably be thought eight or ten years
older than be really was ; which is all that need be fuppofed to
make the Jews' queftion juft and pertinent, and is a very
common thing : or, which feems to me to have been the
cafe:
2. Nothing is more common in fuch cafes, than for perfuns
to exprefs themfelves by a round number, not confining them-
felves when the fubjedl is fuch as does not reftrain them to
any exact particular number b .
1 Ilai.Iiii. 3. * Vici. Grot, ad loc.
F f 2 Irenaeus
436 An Appendix* PART ri.
Irenacus therefore is certainly miftaken in this matter, al-
though he plead Apoftolical tradition for the fiipport of his
notion ; and it feems plain that he was drawn into the miftake
by a too warm oppolition to the Gnofticks, who aiTerted, that
Ckrift did not live to the end of bis thirtieth year, but was cru-
cified in the twelfth month of bis mini/try*. And here by the
way I cannot but obferve, that feveral of the moft celebrated
Fathers have coincided with the Gnofticks in this opinion,
and aflerted that Cbrijl preached but one year, and Buffered in
the end of his thirtieth. Thus Tertullian ", Clemens Alexan-
drinus c , Lactantius d , in the places cited in the margin.
But to return to Irenasus, however abfurd the preceding
hitfory is, it cannot be fuppofed with any reafon, that it was
in any of the Apocryphal Gcfpels, unlefs we were to fuppofe
with the great annalift Cardinal Baronius % that this pajjage
was foijled into the works of Iren&us; but for this there is not
the leaft evidence, as the learned Jefuit Petavius has well de-
tnonftrated in his notes on Epiphanius f .
XVII. A Saying afcribed to Chrijl in Athenagoras, Legat.
pro Chrijlianis, c. 28.
Ila'Aiif u'/wi XsywTOf T Ac- Again, the Word faith unto
ya, '<* riff ^ia T^TO sx ^u- us > V an y one fa" 11 k fi a u '-
" / man a fecond time, becaufe it
^r, OTi r,C5(TV
pleafes him, &c
It is not very eafy to determine any thing certain concern-
ing this paflage. Pfaffius 5 fuppofes it to have been in fome
Apocryphal Gofpel, and an addition to thofe words of Chrift,
Matt. v. 28. and fo makes the following words to be a con-
tinuation of it, viz.
See lib. i. cap. i. and lib. 2. Fathers, b. 2. c. 4-.
<rap. 36 38. of Trenaeus. f Haeref. 51. Alog. in DIafrib.
b Adv. Ju.ixos, c. S. 2. de anno et die Dorn. Pafl".
c Strom. 1. i . p. 34-0. p. 145, 146.
* Lib. 4. c. 10. , g Apud Fabrit. CoJ. Apocr.
' Annal. t. i. Arw 34. n. 137. Nov. left. P. 3. p.
*pud Daille, of the right ufe of the
And
PART ii. An Appendix. 437
Ki HTip'ooTo?, T; K a- And intimates, that we ought
, ^* A- " be f d ' l l creet in k ' l ff ln ^ tha *
t> " < it may rather be a civil falu-
.: on, us
* 4 tattONj becaufe if we defile
atioi Tzce.- . , . , , a
an unchajte
wriff. eternal life.
It is evident thefe laft words cannot be the words of our
Saviour, becaufe they are delivered in the plural number, we
fhall not attain eternal life, which is unlike enough to any
thing that ever Chrift faid. Befides, if the words be clofely
confidered, it will appear that the latter part is an explication
of, or inference from, the former, the one being delivered in
the third perfon,the other in the firft j if therefore either part
be to be efteemed as the words of Chrift, it can only be the
former j although indeed it may be juftly queftioned, whether
Athenagoras intended any fuch citation, becaufe when he cites
any thing of Chrift, he prefixes $*<?} to it, i. e. (The Lord)
faith ) as he does twice in this fame paragraph. Conradus
Gefnerus, the translator of Athenagoras, feems to have
thought the fame when he tranflates the words, nix ii*r x*'-
yoTij TB Xoyt?, &c. Rurfus quum religis nojlra nos doceat^ adding
Si cut vir quidamfantfus fcripfit^fi quis, &c. Again our reli-
gion teachetb us^ as a certain holy man hath wrote, that if any
one, tsc. But perhaps Athenagoras might have fome fuch
words in his copy of St. Matthew, which were at firft indeed
a marginal glofs upon thefe words, ch. v. 28. If any man
looketh upon a woman Jo as to lujl after her^ 3Y. but afterwards,
as was very ufual, crept into the text : and this may feem the
more probable, he having juft before cited thefe words of
Matthew.
XVIII. A Saying afcribed to Chrijl in Clemens Alexandrinus t
Strom. 1. i. p. 346.
$9fij T3t jw,- Seek thofe things which are
JUIKC upH/ gt'faf^ and thofe things which
are fmall Jhall be added to you.
F f 3 Dr.
438 An Appendix. PART n.
Dr. Grabe 3 and Dr. Mill b imagined this paflage to be
taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarene* ; which indeed, if it
fhould be true, would be no credit to this Gofpel, becaufe (as
I have above proved, Chap. XXVIII.) Clemens abfolutely
rejects the authority of all Gofpels, befides thofe four now re-
ctived ; but the truth is, he could not take it thence, becaufe
he did not underftand the Hebrew language, in which that
Gofpel was written, and (as I have c fhewn) no tranjlation of
it was made till Jerome made his. Mr. Fabritius d conjectures
more probably, that thefe were the words of fome copies at
that time interpolated into Matt. vi. 33. Seek firft the king-
dom of God and his righteoufnefs^ and all other things Jhall be
added unto you : but neither is this fo, becaufe the fame Cle-
mens in another place e cites thefe words of Matthew, as they
are in our prefent copies, and not as they are here. Nothing
therefore is more evident than. that Clemens, in the paffage
under confideration, refpe&ed the fenfe of Chrift's words,
without precifely tranfcribing them, i. e. rather chofe to ex-
pound the words, than literally to cite them j and this is moft
undeniably proved by another place which 1 find in the fame
Clemens f , where he both produces the text, and thefe words
as an CXpofition, Zr^iTrt ^E tsfi-rw rr,t fiato-frt'w tut tifotvctn x.oii rr t t
&*aocn,'vj;' Tdv-ro. y&f ptyst.**' TO. o fxix^a no.1 tsifl rot j3io, ravrct
&cffTi$vfft-cti if f i. e. Seek firft the kingoom of heaven, and
(its) righteoufnefs, Thefe are the great things^ and thefe things
fhall be added unto you, Thefe are the fmall things, and fuch
as concern this life. Hence alfo Origen, who was one of the
fcholars of Clemens, does more than once in his works para-
phrafe thefe words of Chrift in the fa.rie manner -.
XIX. A Saying afcribed to Cbrijl, and cited by moji of the
antient Fathers.
ai. Be ye flcilful money-changers.
* Spicileg. Patr. t. i. p. 14.. Par. i. p. 319.
6 Prolegom. in Nov. Teltam. r Pxdagog. lib. a. p. 198.
j. 64.8. & . 695. & in Matt. vi. f Strom. L iv. p. 4.88.
33. Vid.ccntr. Celf. lib. 7. p. 361.
c Chap. XXVII. &deOrat. ^. a.
Cod. Apocr. N 7 ov. Teftam.
It
PART II. An Appendix. 439
It is furprifing to obferve how many of the primitive writ-
ers of Chriftianity have cited this pafiage in their works ;
Clemens Alexandrinus*, Apelles b , Origen', Dionyfius Alex-
andrinus % Cyril of Jerufalem e , Pamphilus f , Athanafms *,
Jerome h , Cyril of Alexandria 1 , befides feveral more, have
cited it; Cotelerius, Ufher, Valefius, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Fa-
britius, Mr. Whifton, Dr. Mil!, and others among the mo-
derns, have obferved it ; though I know not any fufficient re-
marks that have been yet made concerning its true original ;
for which reafon I defign more particularly to difcufs it. // is
fuppofed by mojl to have been taken out of the Hebrew Gcfpel of
the Nazarenes ; fo Cotelerius ', Ufher ', Valefius m : but this
muft needs be a miftake, becaufe very few of the Fathers un-
derftood the language of that Gofpel, and a verfion was not
made of it till Jerome had made his, as is above proved,
Chap. XXVII. That which appears to me moft probable
upon examining the places of the Fathers, where this pafiage
is cited, 1 {hall reduce into the following diftincl obfervations.
1. None of all the writers, who have mentioned it, do cite
it as the faying or words of Chrift -within the fir/1 four centuries^
except Origen, Jerome, and the Heretick Apelles.
2. 77;<? meaning of the paffage, r(ne *<> rfxvriZfrat, Be
Ikilful money-changers, is the very fame with that exhortation
of the Apojlle, I Theff. v. 21. Prove all things^ viz. that as
money changers they fhould be careful to diftinguifti between
that which is good and bad, and like them try and prove all.
This is evident from the defign of every citation, but more
clearly from the explications which the Fathers themfelves
1 Strom, lib. i.p. 354.. h Epift. ad Miner, et Alex, in
b Apud Epiphan. Hzref. 44- . fine.
.2. ' Apud Coteler. Not. inConrtit.
c Tom. 19. in Jo-inn, viii. 20. Apoftol. 1. 2. c. 36.
d Apud Euicb. Hilt. Eccl. 1. 7- K Loc. cit.
0.7. ' Piolea;orTi. inEp'.ft. Ignat. c.8.
c Cattch. vi. in fine. m In Euub. Hilt. Ecci. 1. 7.
f Apolog. pro Orig. in initio. c. 7.
Epilt. ad Si 1 tar.
F f4 , fcave
44^ dn Appendix. PART ir.
have given of theie words. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus
compares a perfon ignorant in loglck, and not knowing bow to
dijlinguijh between things, to an ignorant money-changer, who
cannot aiftinguijh good money from- bad 3 , and eifewhere b ex-
prefsly calls them the oWi/*j Tct<iri$Txs, i. e. tibtfiilful money-
CfJSngers, TO xJs^Vvcv n^y^a, r& K.vg'ut a.<xo ra 'Zca^ap^apay^.aTo; alx,-
vginKraj, who can diftinguijh the bad money (pretending to be
the Lord*s) by its Jl amp and charaffer, i.e. herefy from truth}
and Jerome, after having cited the paflage, Be Jkilful money-
changers, adds for illuftration", like tbofe who rejeft that for
counterfeit coin, which has not the image of Cafar fo Jiamped
upon it as it ought to have. Once more, in the Apojlolical
Conftitution$ A , after the paflage produced, in the next paragraph
we read, Be as jkilful dealers in money, who rejecl that which
is bad, and keep that which is good. It is plain therefore, to
mention no more inftances, the fcope of the exhortation is,
that we be careful in proving, trying, or examining things (as
the money-changers do their money), and this is the very fame
as St. Paul fays, Prove all things. Which being fo, I ob-
ferve,
3. The Fathers cite this paffage as the faying of the Apojlle^
and do all of them (except Origen and Jerome) cite it injlead
of this very paffage of Sf. Paul, (i 1 hcfl*. v. 21.) Prove all
things. This is as evident as any thing can be, by a view of
the places : Dionyfius Alexandrinus calls it crinr**** <pu*i- i- e.
the Apojlle's jaying . Cyril of Alexandria in feveral places
calls it the words of Paul '. Cyril of Jerufalem , Pamphilus ,
and others, add the following words of'Paul in the end of this
verfe and vcr. 22. Hold j "aft that which is good, and abjlain
from the appearance of evil.
4. It is evident therefore, this was not any faying of Chriji,
but of Paul; and fo not taken out of any Apocryphal Gof-
pel.
1 Strom. 1. 6. p. 655. e Apud Eufeb. 1. 7. c. 7.
* Strom. I. 7. p. 754.. f Apud Cotcler. loc. cit.
e Epift. ad Miner, et Alex, in * Catech. vi. in fine,
fn -. h Apolog. pro Or^gene in bit.
Lib. z. c. 36, 37.
There
PART ii. An Appendix* 441
There are indeed two difficulties attending this hypothefis,
viz. How fo many Fathers could agree to cite St. Paul's words
thus different from what they are in our prefent copies, and how
Origen, Jerome^ and Apelles, werefo mi/laken in citing it as a
faying of Chrift.
As to the firft, I frankly own I believe it proceeded from an
early interpolation in the text ; fome one, oppofite to St. Paul's
words, writing for explication J? ^.I^M -17 <** rai in the mar-
gin, he who tranfcribed that copy inferted it in the text with
the addition of the verb yiVtc-St, which he apprehended needful
to complete the fenfe.
As to the latter ; viz. Origen, Jerome, and Ajjelles citing
it as a faying of Chrift, I anfwer,
Firft, That it is not ftrange Jerome fhould do fo, when
Origen had done it before him, becaufe he fo much followed
him, and depended upon him.
Secondly, Either Origen failed in memory, and wrote
down that as a faying of Chrift, which, if he had examined,
he would have found to be St. Paul's j which is very com-
mon : or elfe,
Thirdly, Some fcribe made the addition ETOX; Kvfk, i. e.
the command of God, as an introduction to the pafiage, which
they often did; and in doing fo were ften miftaken.
Fourthly, Whereas the Heretick Apelles quotes the paf-
fage, as being EiayA?.^, in the Gofpel; we may fuppofe
him either mijlaken, or elfe that he ufes the word Gcfpel in a
large fenfe, to denote St. Paul's Epiftle ; and this cannot feem
ftrange to thofe who confider, that the word Gofpel is fre-
quently ufed not only in the New Teftament for the DoSirint
of the Gofpel, but is alfo by the primitive writers frequently
put for any book of the New Tejlament. Thus Clemens Ro-
manus calls the Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians tfa
Gofpel of Paul * : or perhaps, Apelles might read thefe words
in the falfe Gofpel which he made ufe of, and which after-
Epift. ad Corinth. I. c. 47. Jnnius ard Cctjkrius on that place
See above, Part II. Chap. III. and of Clemens.
wards
44 2 An Appendix, PART it
wards went under his name (fee Part I. Chap. VII. Numb.
IV.) ; into which, being fo noted a faying, it was inferted
out of this place of St. Paul's Epiftle.
It cannot be improper here to obferve, that Mr. Whifton *
urges this pafTage, becaufe it is cited by Dionyfius Alexandra-
nus as an vraXwti <?ii-/;, i. e. an Apojlolical faying (and, as he
thinks, out of the Conftitutions) ; as a ftrong aud almojl un-
deniable attejlation to the Conjlitutions of the Apcjlles, and ima-
gines thlsfucb a citation as cannot fairly be fet ajide by any.
But I fuppofe, even iMr. Whifton himfelf will allow, that the
foregoing remarks do fufficiently overthrow his argument;
and I muft obferve, that aVoroAfx* QW may as well be tranf-
lated the ivords of the Apojlle in the fingular number, as the
words of the Apojlles in the plural.
XX. A Saying afcribed to Cbrijl in Clemens Alexandrinus,
Strom, lib. 5. p. 578.
Ou yoio qSwiiv, $r,<r\, wot?- For the (Lord), fays he, hath
?y rm declared without envy in fome
G W> M y fecret is to me,
and the children of my boufe.
xai TOIJ iiia*; TA oix.8 pz,
I do not know any one who has obferved this pafiage be-
fides Mr. Fabritius, who places it among the fragments of the
Gofpel of the Nazarenes b , and in his note conjectures, that it
was perhaps in the Gofpel of the Egyptians ; but for want of
a more clofe examination, this learned writer is apparently
miftaken in both his conjectures, as will evidently appear by
the following remark ; viz. That
Clemens did not cite thefe words as the words of Chrift,
but as the words of the prophet Ifaiah ; for
j. Tljey are now to be found in fever al copies of the Septua-
gint Ferfion o/*Ifai. xxiv. 16. with but little variation. In the
Eflay on the Conftit. p. 165. b Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. p. 361.
Scholia
PART ii. An Appendix, 443
Scholia of the Greek Verfion I find it afferted, " That in
w fame copies are the following words , TO pvripot p.cv l^col, TO pvrii-
" pox pa iu.o\ y.xl rot? taoK. They are alfo in Procopiits^ though
" noted with an afierijk. "Jerome fays, they iiuere not origl-
" nally in the Sepfuagint, but interpolated out ofTbtodotlori's
" Greek translation. Cbrvfo/tom and Theodoret alfo read it."
(See the Cambridge Scholia on the Septuas;int). Agreeable
to this the old Latin Vulgate renders itfecretum meum mihi^
fecretum meum mibi ; and though our Englifli tranflators ren-
der it my leanntfs, my lear.nefs^ woe unto me, yet in the margin
for leannefs they have put my fecret to me ; nor indeed is there
any better way of interpreting the Hebrew word ~n, which
properly denotes a fecret^ and is thus underftood by the Chal-
dee interpreter here, as it is commonly alfo ufed in that lan-
guage ; fee Dan. ii. i8 } 27, 28, &c. and hence the Angel Ra-
ziel is fo called, quia Deo a fecretis eft.
2. It being plain that thefe words were in the Greek copies
of Ifaiah, I add, that Clemens cited them thence : this is undeni-
able, unlefs we fuppofe him by miftake to have taken thefe to
be the words of Chrift, which were the words of the prophet,
and to have cited accordingly; but that he really was not mif-
taken, is evident; for he had in the words next before cited
the prophet Ifaiah, and then adds, y v p <p$oi/u>, Qw, for with-
out envy he faid, i. e. the prophet faid ; for that verb cannot
poflibly relate to any one elfe, no other noun having been be-
fore ; and though the noun Kt'^- immediately follow, yet it
has its proper verb w*pr,7/7i, toe Lord bath declared ; but fay-
ing and declaring being the fame thing, both the verbs cannot
refer to that noun ; and confequently one or other of them
muft be fuperfluous, and not wrote by the author at firft : but
this is the latter, becaufe we certainly know the prophet wrote
thofe words, but do not know that Chrift did fpeak them. It
is therefore evident that Clemens did not write the words
9r ? 4>ffA* o Kt'f*' tf TH Evcty&.>u, the Lord hath declared in a
certain Gofpel, but they were inferted by fome ignorant tran-
fcriber, who imagined them to be the words of Chrift, and by
adding the word 7r;^.>.jo when the word <p5<r)* fo immedi-
ately
444 An Appendix. PART n.
ately preceded, he plainly betrayed his ignorance and interpo-
lation. This is yet farther confirmed by Clement's citing, as
he does in the next paragraph, the fame prophet thus, 9r^x
srfoiprrr?, and again the prophet faith^ which he could not have
faid, had he not cited him before. All this is fo evident, that
I think it may be fairly urged as an inftance to fupport fome
conjectures which I have made above, concerning the inter-
polations of the fcribes in antient manufcripts.
XXI. A Hiflory of ' Cbri/1, and his Parent s t in Orig. contr.
Celf. 1. i. p. 22.
sx
* - ~
eaixr;?
<T avru xai JTTI TW
otvrov ytyovivou 'I*-
>
ty-
x*i O.TTO
TSXTOV^*
uq
TGV
?, xatW twuptuv
TIVOJV Tsrjioa<r3-K, eip' T? Ai-
c-f ( avuvovT*,
He ridicules (viz. Celfus) our
Saviour, that he was born in
a mean village of Judaea, and
J
of a mean poor woman, who
got h e r bread by fpinning,and
was tu med away by her huf.
band, who was a carpenter,
becaufe fhe was charged with
adultery. Again, he adds,
Aat when ^e was turned
out b y her hu{band > nd
fcandaloufly wandered about
tne countries, the privately
. ,. ., T r , ,
brought forth Jefus, and that
he being through poverty ob-
]i ge d to work as a fervant in
Egypt, and there having learnt
^ ome ^ rt f powerful arts,
which are much re P uted in
E gyP f ' he retumed much
lifted up with his arts, and
. . . P . .
thought becaufe of them he
deferved to be efteemed as a
God.
Whether
PART II.
An Appendix.
445
Whether Celfus met with this in any Apocryphal Gofpe!,
or no, I cannot tell j fomething of this fort we meet with ia
fome Apocryphal books extant in St. Auftin's time, under the
name of Chrifr. Concerning the magical power by which he
wrought his miracles, fee above, Chap. XIV. If he took it
out of fome fuch book, it can no way affect the credit of our
Canon, that fuch an enemy mould be fond of fuch ridiculous
writings. But I rather think it was a forgery among the
Jews, than any part of an Apocryphal Gofpel.
yoi(>
XXII. A Hiftory of our Saviour's Relations^ according to tie
Flejk, in Epiphanius, Haeref. 78. . 7 et 8.
How could a man fo old have
a young virgin for his wife,
having been a widower fo
many years after his firft wife's
deceafe ? For Jofeph was the
brother of Cleophas, the fen
of James, firnamed Panther.
Both thefe were the fons of
him who v.as firnamed Pan-
ther. This Jofeph married
his firft wife out of the tribe
cf Judah, by whom he had
fix children; four of which
were males, and two females,
as appears by the Gofpel of
Mark and John. His firft-
born was James, who was fir-
named Oblias (which fignifies
a wall), and was called the
TV?, and he was a Nazarite,
ctTTEo to
Ma'c
xov xa xxm
J l\ia.v, loj
which
An Appendix.
PART n
r, M,'
which denotes a My perfsn
he was much about forty years
of age. After him he had a
him Simeon, afterwards Jude;
and two daughters, one called
Mary, another Salome : and
his wife died, and after many
F ars of widowhood he mar-
ried Mary, when he was up-
, r ..
wards of fouricore years old.
,, , . Ayr ,
Then he took Mary, as the
Ky.Ta.yuv
c? xa i/ T
I know not whence Epiphanius colle&ed this fo particular
account of our Saviour's family ; there was indeed an Apocry-
phal and fpurious piece under the name of James, and another*
intitled, The Gofpel of Peter -, in one of which Origen fays it
was affirmed, Tbat.JoJepb bad children by a former wife, before
lie married Mary ; and Jerome alfo fays, this was infeveral of
the Apocryphal Gofpels. He adds, that the former wife's name
was Efcha h . But it does not at all appear, that Epiphanius
made any ufe of fuch books, who is ever moft forward to de-
clare againft them ; and as to this hi (lory it feems to be
formed upon a very common tradition among the Fathers,
that Jofeph had children by a former wife, which they very
zealoufly contend for, in order to fupport their prevailing opi-
nion, which they were fo fond of, viz. the perpetual virginity
of Alary. And it is on this very fcore Epiphanius mentions
it here, againft the Antidicomarianite,who denied it c .
See above, Part II. Chap. XX.
Numb. xxiv.
" Conrncnt. in Mitth. xii. 49.
c See Bifliop Pearfon on the
Creed, p. 175.
XXIII. An
PART ir. An Appendix. 447
XXIII. An Anfwer of the Apojlles to Chrift, in Jerome. Dia-
log, contr. Pelag. Hseref. lib. 2. c. 6.
CHRIST having reproved them for their unbelief of his
refurre&ion j
llli fatisfaciebant dicentes, Se- They were fatisfied, and faid,
culum ijiud iniquitatis et in- " This age is the fubjlance of
c redulitatis fubjlantia ejl, ques li Iniquity and unbelief \ which
nonfinit per immundos fpiritus " through the (influence of )
veram Dei apprehendi virtu- " evil fpirits y will not faffer
tern', idcirco jam nunc revela " the true power of God to be
jujlitiam tiiam. " perceived', therefore even
" now manifejl thy jujlice."
This pafTage Jerome, in the place cited, affirms was in
fome copies of St. Mark (especially the Greek ones), in the
end of the laft chapter, viz. after ver. 14, and becomes confi-
derable here, only becaufe it has been fuppofed by feveral
learned men to be taken out of fome Apocryphal Gofpels. So
Erafmus, and Father Simon a , to whom Dr. Mill b fubfcribes,
and adds a very probable conjecture, that it was taken out of
one of the Manichsean Gofpels, and perhaps that of Thomas ;
which, if indeed it be true, yet does no vvayafFet the credit of
our prefent Canon. For befides that I have above proved
the Gofpels of the Manichees to be Apocryphal ; fo this paf-
fage itfelf proves the book which contained it, out of which
it was inferted into Mark, to have been fuch c . As to its
being interpolated into the laft chapter of Mark, I have here
no concern, that matter belonging to the queftion about the
integrity of the text. I (hall only add, that this chapter of
that Gofpel has fuffered many alterations j for in many copies
a Erafm. in Mar. 16. et Sim. b Prolegom. in Nov. Teftaiu.
Critic. Hilt. Nov. Teil. Par. i. ^. -24-. et V.i Loc.
c. ii. ' Vid. Rra: ::. et Mill. oc. cit.
the
448 dn Appendix. PART n,
the loft twelve verfes are entirely omitted : Jerome fays \ they
were to be found but in few copies ; and almoft all the Greek
books had them not. I mention this, becaufe Dr. Mill b
fuppofes the interpolated verfe, which I am now confidering,
did appear fo plainly fpurious, that fome ignorant tranfcribers
left out the reft of the chapter upon the account of that.
XXIV. A Queftion of the Apojlhs^ and Reply of our Sa-uiour t
preferred in St. Aujlin, contr. Adverf. Leg. et Prophet,
lib. 2. c. 4.
Sed Apoftolis, inquit, Domi- But, faith he (viz. the Mani-
num noftrum interrogantibus chee,againft whom he writes),
de Judseorum prophetis, quid when the Apoftles afked our
fentiri deberet, qui de adventu Lord, What opinion Jhiuld be
ejus aliquid cecinifie in prze- entertained of thofe jfewijh
teritum putabantur ? Com- prophets , who -were fuppofed
motus talia etiam eos nunc formerly to have foretold things
fentire refpondit, Dimififtis relating to his coming ? He
vivum qui ante vos eft, et de being angry that they fhould
mortuis fabulamini. Quid think any fuch thing at that
mirum, quandoquidemhoctef- time, anfwered, Ton difre-
timonium de Scripturis nefcio gard him ivho is alive, and
quibus Apocryphis protulit, fi among you^ and deal in idlejlo-
de prophecis Dei talia con- ries about thofe who are dead.
finxerunt hzeretici, qui eafdem But it is no wonder, feeing
literas noil sccipiunt ? he took this teftimony out of
fome Apocryphal books, that
the Hcreticks, who do not receive the fame (facred) books,
ihould forge fuch things of the prophets.
Concerning this faying there need no more be faid, but that
though it was part of an Apocryphal Gofpel, yet it was taken
thence by a wretched Herctick, and with this defign to prove
his doftrine of the neceflity of not regarding the antient Jew-
a Epift. ad Hedib. Quzft. 3. Annot. in Mar. xvi. 14.
ifh
PART II. An Appendix. 449
ifh prophets. Dr. Mill a conjectures it was taken out of the
Gofpel of Thomas, in which though he perhaps may be right,
yet he is miftaken in fuppofmg it to have been ever interpo-
lated into either of our prefent Gofpels.
XXV. A Saying in fame Gofpel, according to the Opinion of
Jerome, in Ezech. xvii.
Tale quid et illud Evangelii Something like that are the
fonat, Eft confufio quae ducit words of the Gofpel, There is
ad mortem, et eft confufio a Jhame which leadeth to death)
que ducit ad vitam. and a Jhame which leadeth to
life.
Concerning thefe words, Mr. Fabritius b feems rightly to
guefs, that Jerome failed in point of memory, citing that out
of the Gofpel which is not there ; perhaps he meant thofe
words in the book of Ecclefiafticus, c. iv. 21. which are not
much unlike : There is a Jhame that bringeth Jin^ and there is a
jbame which is glory and grace.
Thefe are 'all the Sayings and Hi/lories of Chrift which
have fallen within my obfervation, and which were neceflary
to be produced, in order to fliew they were not taken by any
ecclefiaftical writers out of Apocryphal Gofpels. Some be-
fides thefe I have obferved, which I regard not, as being no
way prejudicial to the Canon, becaufe either found in books
evidently fpurious and of uncertain age (fuch as thofe in the
Conftitutions under the Apoftles' nantes, of which the reader
may take the following inftance out of B. IV. c. 3. It is
laid by the Lord, Woe to thofe that have and receive in hypo-
crify, or who are able to fupport themfelves^ yet will receive of
other 'j, for both of them /hall give an account to the Lord God in
the day of judgment) ; or becaufe they are only the various read-
Ings of different copies , and interpolation cffcribes in their ma-
4 Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. . k Cod. Apocr. Nor. Teft. Par.
714,725. 3. p. 524..
VOL. I. G g nufcripts^
45 <dn Appendix. PART II.
nufcriptS) which were wrote long after the end of the fourth
century, and of which the reader may fee many inftances in
Dr. Mill's Notes on the Gofpels; fee Matt. xx. 28. xxiv. 31.
Mar. xvi. 8- Luk. vi. 5. Joh. in. 5. vi. 25. But befides
either of thefe, there are now to be found in the Alcoran of
Mahomet feveral Difcottrfes, Sayings and Hi/tories, as of
Chrift and his Apoftles, which are not to be found in any of
our prefent Gofpels. My defign indeed obliges me not to
take any notice of thcfe, becaufe the impoftor lived about two
hundred years after that time, to which I have confined my-
felf in the whole of this difcourfe, and at a time when there
was not the leaft difpute among the Chriftians about the Ca-
non of the New Teftament, but all in every country univer-
fally agreed in receiving the fame books as Scripture. How-
ever I thought it not unsuitable to prefent the reader with the
following collection which I have made out of the Alcoran of
the Sayings, Hijiories, DifecurfeSy &c. which are therein
afcribed to Chrift, his Apoftlcs, &c. for the following rea-
fons:
1. Becaufe the pafiages being fo large, and undoubtedly
many, or moft of them taken out of Apocryphal books, will
afford us more clear and enlarged notions of thofe books, as
being made up of idle, fabulous, and incredible relations,
which confequently will be no fmall ftrengthening to our pre-
fent books in the Canon, whofe accounts are fo much more
confident and rational.
2. Hereby we fhall fee what wretched, perverfe, and un-
juft ideas the Mahometans are neceffitated to have of the
Chriftian religion, who know little or nothing of Chrift, but
what is contained in the following collection.
3. We hereby alfo perceive how unfair the artifices were,
which the impoftor made ufe of againft Chriftianity in the
compiling his Alcoran, who chofe to make his collections
concerning Chrift, and the Chriftian affairs, out of thofe fpu-
rious and Apocryphal books, which were at that time almoft
univerfally reje&ed by Chriftians, and not from the genuine
and allowed records of Chrift's Apoftles.
4. Such
PART II. An Appendix. 451
4. Such a collection as the following having not yet been
made (to my knowledge) by any, I thought it might be fome
entertainment to thofe who have any curiofity in thefe things,
to fee at one view what Mahomet and his followers believe
concerning Jefus Chrift, as it is contained in their Alcoran.
A Collection of the HISTORIES and SAYINGS of
CHRIST, and Things relating to him, which are
to be found in the Alcoran of MAHOMET.
[N. B. In this collection I have followed the laft Eng-
lifti tranflation of the Alcoran, done out of the French,
which was translated out of Arabick by the Sieur dc
Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and refident for the French
King at Alexandria.]
I. Chap. II. Intitled, Of the Caw, p. 72.
MAHOMET introduces God thus fpeaking, " We gave
" the Laiu to Mofes, and after him fent many prophets ;
u we infpired kno^vledge into Jefus the fon of Mary, and
es Jtrengthened him by the Holy Ghojl ; but you arofe agalnjl
" the prophets that came contrary to your affections ; you belled
" one party and flew another?' The fame in part we read in
the fame chapter, p. 89.
II. Chap. III. Intitled, Of the Lineage of "Joachim^ p. 96,
97, &c.
GOD elected Adam and Noah, the lineage of Abraham,
and the lineage of Joachim; the one proceedeth from the
other ; God knoweth and underftandeth all things. Re-
member thou, how the wife of Joachim faid, " Lord, I vow
" unto tkee the fruit that is in my womb free and exempt from
" all affairs, toferve thee in thy temple. Accept him from me,
G g 2 whs
45* dn Appendix. PART n.
" w bo offer him to thee with affection ; then underfiandejl and
11 knwoejl all things. When (he was delivered, {he faid,
" Lord) I am delivered of a daughter, thou knoweft thou baft
" given her to me; I have named her Mary : I will preferve
u through thine ajjijlance her and her pojlerity from the malice
11 of the Devil. Accept her, Lord, with a pleafing accepta-
tl tion, and caufe her to produce good fruits" Zachary had
the care of the education of this daughter ; and whenfoever
he went into his oratory, he there found a thoufand forts of
different fruits of divers feafons. He faid one day, " O Mary!
11 Whence do thefe good things proceed ? She anfwered, They
" proceed from God, who enricheth without mtajure whom he
" pleafeth" Then Zachary prayed to the Lord, and faid,
" Ltird^ give me a progeny that may be pleafing to thee, and
" that may obferve thy commandments j Lord, hear my pray-
'* ers." The Angel called to him, and faid to him, " I de-
" dare to thee from God, that thoujhalt have a fan called John^
" heJJ)all affirm the MeJ/ias to be the Word of God; that ht
tt Jhallbe a great perfon, chajle, a prophet, and one of the jfi*/?*
** Lord, anfwered Zachary, How Jh all 1 have a fan, I am old,
" and my wife is barren ?" The Angel faid to him, " So God
a doth as pleafeth him. Lord, faid Zachary, Give me fame.
" fign of the conception of my wife. *fhe fign that 1 will give
" thee, anfwered the Angel,^//^, That thoujhalt not fpeak
u in three days, but by figns :" Remember thou thy Lord
often, praife him evening and morning. Remember thou,
how the Angel faid, " O Mary, God hath chofen and purified
<c thee above all the women of the world; O Mary, obey thy
" Lord, praife him, and worfiip him with thofe that worjhip
" him" I relate to thee how the matter part j Thou wert
not with the Minifters of the Temple, when they caft in their
pens to draw lots, and to fee which of them fhould have the
care of the education of Mary, neither when they entered upon
this difficulty. Remember thou, how the Angels faid ; " O
Mary, God declareth unto thee a word, from which Jhallpro-
ceed the Mcjjias, named Jfj'us* the fan of Mary, full of ho-
u nour in this world, and that Jhall be in the other in the num-
" ber of inter ctffors with his Divine Majf/iy. He Jhall fpeak in
the
PART II. dn Appendix. 453
4( the cradle as a man betwixt thirty and fifty years, and /hall be
" in the number of the Jujl." She faid, " Lord, how /hall I
" have a child without the touch of a man ?" He anfwered, " So
" God doth as pleafeth him j when he createth any thing, he
<c faith) Be thou, and it is. I will teach him the Scriptures^
<{ the myjleries of the Law, the Old Teftament, and the Gof-
pel, and he /hall be a prophet fent to the children of Ifrael.'*
Jefus faid to the children of Ifrael, " / come to you with evi-
44 dent /igns of my mijfton from your Lord', I will make unto
* 4 you ofthejlime of the earth the figure of a bird; I will blow
44 upon it, prefently it /hall be a bird, and by the permijjion of
44 God /hall 'fly ; I will heal them that are born blind, and the
11 leprous ; 1 will raife again the dead ; I will teach you what
44 you /hall eat, and what you ought not to eat. This /hall fervt
" you for injiruElion, if you believe in God. I am come to con-
44 firm the Old Teftament, and what hath been taught you here-
" tofore. Certainly it is lawful for you to eat things that have
te heretofore been forbidden. I am come to you with Jigns of my
" mijjion, that tejlify thc.t I am truly fent from your Lord.
<c Fear God, and obey me ; God is my Lord, and your Lord t
" wor/hip him\ this is the right way" When Jefus knew
their impiety, he faid, " Who /hallfujiain the law of God in
" my abfer.ce?" The Apoltles anfwered him, " We will fuf-
" tain the law of God; we believe in his Unity. Be thou a
44 witnefs before God, that we refign ourfehes wholly to the
tc pleafure of his divine Majejly. Lord, we believe in what
thou baft commanded, and we have followed the prophet, thy
44 Apojlle ; write us in the number of them that profefs thy
" law." The Jews confpired againft Jefus, and God caufed
their confpiracy to turn againft them ; he knoweth the de-
figns of confpirators. Remember thou, how the Lord faid,
" Jefus, I will caufe thee to die ; I will elevate thee to my-
" fclf, and remove thee far from infidels, and prefer thofe who
44 have obeyed thee to infidels at the day of judgment Jefus
is with God. A little after, viz. p. 100. We believe in God
in what he hath infpired into us, in what he infpired into
Abraham, Ifmael, Ifaac, Jacob, and the tribes ; in what was
ordained by Mofes, by Jefus, and generally all the prophets.
G g 3 Such
454 -An Appendix. PART II.
Such as (hall be impious towards Jefus having believed the
books of Mofes, and (hall augment their impiety againft Ma-
Cornet, dial] never be converted, fhall err eternally.
III. Chap. IV. Intitled, OfWamen^. 124.
GOD imprinted infidelity in their (the Jews) hearts ; they
{hall never believe in his law, except very few of them, be-
caufe of their malice, and the blafphemies they vomited againft
Mary ; They faid, " We have Jlain the McJJiah, Jefus the
" fon of Mary, the prophet and Apojtle of God." Certainly
they flew him not, neither crucified him ; they crucified one
among them that refembled him. Such as doubt it are in a
manifeft error, and fpeak not but through opinion. Certainly
they flew him not. On the contrary, God took him up to
himfelf; he is omnipotent and prudent in all his adlions.
Such as have the knowledge of the Scripture ought to believe
in Jefus before his death : he (hall be a witnefs againft them
of their actions at the day of judgment. In the next page
The Meffiah, Jefus, the fon of Mary, is a prophet and an
Apoftle of God, his word and fpirit, which he fent to Mary :
believe therefore in God, and his prophets, and fay not, There
be three Gods : put an end to that difcourfe , you Jhall do well ;
for there is but one God : praifed be God, he hath no fon j
whatever is in heaven and earth obeyeth him : it is fufficient
that he is witnefs. The Mefliah efteemeth it no difhonour
to be the fervant of God, neither the angel, nor the cheru-
bim.
IV. Chap. V. Intitled, The Chapter of the Table, p. 129.
CERTAINLY, he that faith, that the Mejffiab, the fon of
Mary, is God, is impious; fay to him, Who can hinder God
to exterminate the Mejp.ah and his mother, with whatfoever is
in the earth, when it (hall feem good to him ?
V. The
PART II. An Appendix. 455
V. The fame Chapter, p. 132.
" WE fent, after many prophets, Jefus the fan of Mary, who
" confirmed the antient Scriptures. To him we gave the Gof-
" pel full of light, to condufl the people to the right way, with a
11 confirmation of the Old Tejlament, a guide and injiruflionfor
" the righteous." They that follow the Gofpel ought to judge
as it is commanded in the Gofpel.
VI. The fame Chapter, p. 134, 135.
CERTAINLY they, who affirm the Meffiah, the fen of
Mary, to be God, are impious. The Meffiah commandeth the
children of Ifrael to worfbip God, his and their Lord. The.
entrance into paradife is forbidden to him, that fhall fay, God
hath a companion equal to him j hell fhall be his habitation, and
the unjuft (hall find none to protect them at the day of judg-
ment. Such as affirm, there are three Gods, are impious :
there is but one God. If they defift not from fuch difcourfe,
they ihall burn in the fire of hell : if they turn and implore
pardon of God, he will be gracious to them, and merciful.
The Meffiah, the fon of Mary, is a Prophet and Apojlle of
God, like to the prophets that came before him ; his mother is
holy, and both of them did eat and drink. The Infidels are
accurfed by the tongue of David, and of Meffiah, the fon of
Mary, becaufe of their difobedience, &c.
VII. The fame Chapter, p. 138, 139.
HE fhall fay to Jefus, " O Jefus, fon of Mary, remember
" thou my grace towaras tbee, and thy mother : I Jlrcngthen<.d
" tbee with the Holy Gkojl : thou fpakejl in thy cradle as a
" man of forty or fifty years. Thee did I infirutt in Scripture
" and knowledge, the Old Tejlament and the Gofpel. Thou didjl
"form of earth the figure of a bird, didft breath upon it, and it
" did fy ; thou didji cure the lorn blind, and the leprous, and
tc didjl revive the dead. I delivered thee from the Jews, when
4 tbo.u c{idjl preach to them my commandments, and wroughteft
G g 4 miracles.
456 An Appendix. PART II.
miracles, which the wicked affirmed to be magick and in-
" chantment. Remember how thou didft command thy Apojlhs
" to believe in me, and obey my prophet, and how they faid, We
" believe in one fole God ; be thou witnefs that we entirely re-
" ftgn aurfelves to the will of God. Remember thou that the
" Apoftles faid, O Jcfus fon of Mary ; can thy Lord fend us
" from heaven a table covered with meats to fatisfy us?" Jefus
anfvvered them, " Fear God, if you believe in his Law." They
faid, lt We have an appetite, and defire to eat of the food of
" heaven, for the repofeofour hearts, and to know ifthoufpeak-
" eft truth^ of which wefiallbe witnejfis." Then faid he, " O
" God, my Lord, caufe to dejcend upon us from heaven a table
" covered with meat. This day Jhall be celebrated by us, and
" them that Jhall fucceed. Tliis Jhallbe a fignoftbyomnipctency,
" enrich us with thy grace ; thou pojfejjejl all treafure." God
faid to him, " I will caufe to defcendfrom heaven the food which
" thou defirejl ; and whc fc 'ever Jhall be impious, Jhall bepunljhed
" with torments, that no man yet hath fuffired." He (hall fay
at the day of judgment, " O Jefus, fon of Mary ! Didjl thou
" enjoin the people to war/hip thee and thy mother as two
" gods ?" Jefus fhall anfwer, " Praifed be thy name, I will
" take heed of Jp caking what is not ; thou knowcjl if I have
"faid it-, thou art omnifcient; thou knowejt what is in my
"foul, and I have no knowledge of^vbat is in thee ; / delivered
u nothing but what thou didjt command me to fpeak, viz. \Vor-
" fhip God your Lord and mine. I am witnefi from the time
*' / was in the ivorld, until thou didjl caufe me to die, thou didjl
" obferve the deportments of the people ; thou feejl ally if thou
" chajlifejl men, they are thy creatures ; if thou daft pardon
" them, thou art omnipotent and wife. Then Jhall God fay, <5c.
VIII. Chap. VI. Intitled, Of Gratifications, p. 146.
*' WE gave knowledge to Abraham, Jfaac, and Jacob hi?
u fon. We before injlrufted Noah and his lineage in the right
" way. Wi taught it David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Mofes,
" Aaron, Zachary, St. John, Jefus the fon of Mary, Eliah,
" IJhmael y
PART ii. An Appendix. 457
IJhmael, Jojhua, Jonas and Lot. We gratified them alovt
* e the refidue of the -world"
IX. Chap. IX. Intitled, Of Converfion, p. 178.
THE Jews have faid, that the Son of God is mojl powerful :
the Chriftians, that the MeJJiah is the Son of God: their word?
are like the words of Infidels that preceded them, but God
fiiall lay upon them his curfe. Confider how they blafpheme ;
they adore their do&ors and priefts, and the MeJJiab alfo, the
fen of Mary, who commanded them to worjhip one God alone 5
there is but one fole God, there is nothing equal to him.
X. Chap. XIX. Intitled, Of Mary, p. 246, &c.
ZACHARY, the fervant of thy Lord, remembered his
grace, when he in fecret prayed to his Lord, and faid, " Lord y
" my bones are become feeble, and mine head is white with old
" age j Lord) I never was rejected in my prayers^ bear my
" petition, give me a fon to fucceed me, that may be mine heir,
" heir of the lineage of Jacob, and be pleajing to thee. O Za-
" chary ! I declare unto thee, that thoujhalt have a fon named
u John ; no man hath yet been called by that name." He faid,
*' Lord, bow Jhall I have a fon ? My wife is barren, and I am
<{ too old." It was anfwered him, " The thing Jhall be as I
" have faid unto thee ; it is eafy to thy Lord, who created thee."
He faid, " Lord, give me feme fign of the conception of my wife"
He faid to him, " Thou Jhalt not fpeak for three nights" Then
went he out of his oratory, and made figns to the people to
make their prayers morning and evening. " Oh John ! learn
" the Scripture with affeftion : we from his infancy gave him
"knowledge, clemency, charity, piety, ajfeRion towards his fa-
" ther and mother, and not violence and difobedience. We blejjed
" the day of his nativity, the day that he Jhall die, and the day
" that he Jhall rife again" Remember thou what is written
of Mary, " She retired towards the eajt into a place far remote
"from her kindred, and took a veil to cover her. We fent her
4< ourfpirit in the form of a man .' /he was afraid, and faid, God
will
458 An Appendix, PART ir.
*' will preprve me from thee, iftbou have his fear before thine
" eyes." He {aid, Ci Mary, I am the meffenger of God, thy
" Lord, who fn all give thee a Jon aclive and prudent" She
anfwered, " Hew jhall I have a fan without the touch of a
*' man ? I defire not to le unchajie" i ;e faid, u The thing
" Jhall be as I have told thee ; it is eafy to thy Lord\ thy fan
" Jhall be a token of the omnipotence of God, and of his fpecial
" grace toward fitch as fnail believe in his divine maje/ty." She
became with child, and retired fome time into a place remote
from people, where fhe fuftained the dolours of child-birth at
the foot of a date-tree, and faid, tc Why am not I dead?
<l wherefore am I not in the number of perfons forgotten ?"
The angel faid to her, " Jfflitt not thyfejf; God hath placed
" a brook under thee ; Jhake the foot of this palm, and the dates
" Jhall fall '; gather them up-, eat and drink, and ^va]h thine
'* eyes : fay unto them that thou JJjalt meet, that thoufajlejl, and
" haft made a vow not to fpeak to any one, until the faji be ac-'
*' complified." Her parents met her while {he bare her infant,
and faid unto her, " Oh Mary ! behold a Jlrange thing : Oh
" fi/fer of Aaron ! Thy father did not command thee to do evil,
c * neither ^vas thy mother unchajle." She made figns to her
infant to anfwer them : they faid, " How Jhall the infant in
< the cradle fpeak ?" Then her infant fpake, and faid, " / am
' the fervant of God : he hath taught me the Scriptures , hath
t made me a prophet, blejjed me in all places, and commanded
* c me to pray u*>to him: he hath recommended to me purity
*' through the Tubole courfe of my life, and to honour my father
<{ and mother ; he hath not made me either violent, or malicious:
w praifed Jhall be the day of my birth , tue day that I Jhall die,
" and the day of my refurrcftion" Thus fpake Jefus, the fon
of Mary, with truth, of which ye doubt ; God approveth not
the difcourfe of them who lay, He hath a fon. Praifed be God.
XI. Chap. XXIII. Intitled, Of true Believers, p. 271.
" WE created Jcfus and Mary his mother ; they are
tf of our unity ; we eJiabUJbed them in an eminent place, where
c * tbryjlayed near a fountain.'*
XII.
PART Hi An Appendix. 459
XII. Chap. XXXIII. Intitled, Of bands of Soldiers, p. 314.
REMEMBER thou, we received the promife of the Pro-
phets, of thee, of Noah, of Abraham, of Mofes, and of Jefus,
the fon of Mary, to worfhip but one God : we received a
ftrong promife. See to the fame purpofe, chap. 42. p. 356.
XIII. Chap. XLIII. Intitled, Of Counfel, p. 362.
THE people would not hearken to the fon of Mary, when
he fpake to them by parable : they faid, Our gods are more
profitable to us than his lies and queftions : on the contrary,
they were refractory. He is our fervant ; we conferred on
him our grace, and made him like to the other prophets of the
children of Ifrael. Had it pleafed me, I had created angels on
earth in your place. The coming of Jefus, the fon of Mary,
(hall be a fign of the certainty of the day of judgment ; doubt
not concerning that day. He faid unto me, Follow me, it is
the right way j beware, left the devil feduce you ; he is your
open enemy ; / come to teach you the commandments of God, to
refolve the doubts, and judge the differences that are among you :
fear God, and obey him ; he is your Lord, and mine j worjhip
him, it is the right way. The people doubted his dodlrine,
but mifery fhall be upon the wicked. A little after, p. 363.
If God have a fon, whom fhall we firft adore ? Praifed be
God, king of heaven and earth, the matter is not as the In-
fidels deliver it.
XIV. Chap. LVII. Intitled, Of Iron, p. 395.
WE fent Noah and Abraham, &c. We fent Jefus, the fon
of Mary: we taught him the Gofpel : we put civility, cle-
mency, and chaftity into the hearts of them that followed him.
We did not command them to keep virginity ; they kept it of
their own accord, becaufe of the defire they had to pleafe Gcd.
They have not obferved their Law, as they ought ; many have
been difobedient j but we have rewarded thole among them
who believed. O ye that believe in Jefus, fear God, and be-
lieve
460 An Appendix. f ART II.
Jieve in his Prophet : ye {hall have double the reward of
God's mercy ; he iball pardon your fins, &c.
XV. Chap. LXI. Intitled, Of Array, p. 403.
REMEMBER thou, that Jefus, the fon of Mary, faid to
the children of Ifrael, 1 am the mejjenger of God; he hath fent
me to confirm the Old Tcjlament^ and to declare to you, that there
Jhall come a Prophet after me, whofe name Jhall be Mahomet.
When he came with miracle?, reafons moft intelligible, and
arguments infallible, they faid that he was a magician ; who
is more impious, than he that blafphemeth againft God?
A little after in the fame chapter.
JESUS, the fon of Mary, faid to his Apoftles, Who will
maintain the Law of God with me? he Jhall be fupported and
pntefted of God. The Apoftles anfwered, We will maintain
it. One part of the children of Ifrael believed in Jefus, and
another rejected his Law : lue gave fuccour to them that be-
lieved againjl their enemies^ and they were vicarious.
Thefe are the paflages which are in the Alcoran concerning
Chrift, his Doctrines, Dlfcourfes, Aftions, &c. Concerning
them I intend not to make any particular criticifm, or re-
marks ; but only to attempt the proof of this one proportion,
that Mahomet took manyormoji of thefe paj/ages out offomefpu-
rious and Apocryphal Gofpeh of the GnoJIicks^ and other antient
Hereticks.
This is a facl-, as far as I know, yet unknown, yet un-
proved in the world, although it evidently appears to be of
conf.derable confequence. It is indeed a common obfervation,
that in the compiling of the Alcoran the impoftor made ufe
of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Teftament, and
took many parts of his book out of both, which is indeed true;
but he who will with any carefulnefs compare what he feems
to have borrowed from the Scriptures with the accounts re-
ferred to in the Scriptures themlelves, will be not a little fur-
prifed
PART II. An Appendix. 46..
prifed to fee the difference ; and be the more eafily induced to
believe, that he mojl commonly made ufe offotne Apocryphal and
fpurious writings. For the evidencing of this I propofe the
following remarks :
Firft, Mahomet has not in any one place of the Alcoran
cited either of our prefent Gcfpels^ cr any book of the New Tef-
tament by name. 'I his I ajSett upon a ftrict perufal of the
whole book, although 1 have obtervul five or fix paffages
therein, which feem very plainly to be taken thence : fo for
inftance, fpeaking of charity, he adds, It will cover many fins
(Ch^p. II. Of the Cow, p. 91.) ; which are the very words of
St Peter in his firfl: Epiftle, cap. iv. ver. 8. Charity Jhall cover
a multitude of Jin s. Chap. VII. Of Prifons, p. 15 7. he makes
ufe of our Saviour's rrjetaphor, which is in three of our Gof-
pds a , Of a Camel's pajjing through the Eye of a Needle : and
in the fame page manifeftly borrowed his defcription of the fu-
ture ftate of men from our Saviour's parable concerning Dives
and Lazarus^ Luk. xvi. Particularly, when he fpeaks of the
Aaraf) or Separation between the blejfed and damned^ he alludes
to thofe words of Abraham to Dives, ver. 26. Between us and
you there is a great gulf fixed : when he makes the damned to
cry to the blefled, Give us of the water which you drink > he
alludes to that, ver. 24. where the rich man is reprefented, as
crying to Abraham to fend Lazarus, that he might dip the tip
of bis finger in water^ and cool his tongue. Again, to omit
other inftances, Chap. XIV. Of Abraham^ p. 219. he bor-
rows that phrafe cf Jude, ver. 4. of turning the grace of God
into lafcivioufnefs.
Secondly, It was utterly inconfi/ient with the whole intention
of Mahomet's impojlure^ that he jhould in any one -place cite- by
name any one of our Gofpels, or indeed any of the books of the
New Tejiament. This is plain to any one who is acquainted
but in the leaft degree with the Alcoran. For whereas in all
the genuine writings of the New Teftament, Jefus Chrift is
reprefented as God, and as the Son of God, Mahomet conti-
nually obliges his followers to believe the contrary : he many
* Matth. xix. a^.. Mark x. 25. Luk. xviii. 25.
times
4&2 An Appendix. PART ir,
times denies him to be either God, or the Son of God, and
fometimes pronounces everlafting damnation and mifery
againft thofe who believed otherwife. Befides the paflages
above, Numb. IV, VI, IX, XI, and XIV, I have obferved
near twenty places in the Alcoran, where Mahomet exprefies
and infinuates the fame; which, for the fake of the curious
reader, I have fet down at the bottom of the page a . Now
the reafon why the impoftor thus frequently and ftrenuoufly
declares againft the Scripture account of Chrift's divinity, ap-
pears evidently to be this ; becaufe he, having it in his inten-
tion to appear a perfon more great and eminent than Jefus
Chrift, faw this impoflible to be effe&ed, if the accounts in
the genuine records of Chriftianity, and the received writings
of the Apoftles, were credited and looked upon as true. As
therefore he did not appeal to thefe books, fo we perceive
plainly that it was inconfiftent with his defigns to do it.
Thirdly, Mahomet was very likely to be furnijhed ivith the
fpurious books, and Apocryphal writings of the New Teftament.
It is indeed certain that himfelf could neither write nor read,
as he exprefsly fays of himfelf twice in the fame chapter
of the Alcoran (Chap. VII. p. 165.), where God is firft in-
troduced, commanding perfons to believe in his prophet, ivho
could neither -write nor read; and a little after, he exhorts
them in thefe words, Believe in God, and in his prophet, who
can neither read nor write : but though he was thus a per-
fectly rude and illiterate barbarian, he was artful enough to
procure proper affiftances for his work. This is fo notorious,
that it feems by his own words to have been what he was
commonly reproached with, viz. that he did not make the Al-
coran himfelf, but others helped him. So in the chapter in-
titled, Of the Alcoran (Chap. XXV.) In the beginning we
read, They fay that the Alcoran is but a fable of thine own in-
vention, with the affiftance offome other perfon, but they lie and
blafpheme : but notwithftanding this character of his oppofers,
a Chap. iv. pag. 115, 121. Ch. 239, 241. Ch. xxvii. p. 289. Ch.
vi. p. 148, 152. Ch. x. p. 193, xxxi. p. 310. Ch.xxxvii. p. 335.
195. Ch. xiv. p. 219. Ch.xvi.p. Ch. x!i. p. 352.
.-.ig.Ch. xvii. i Cfe vviii. p.
the
PART II. An Appendix. 4^3
the fal is certain. The commentators on this place of the Al-
coran fay, the perfons here meant, who were ailiftanti tc Ma-
homet, were the fervants of a certain fword-fmith at Mecca,
who were Chriftians, with whom Mahomet was ufed often to
converfe, for the better informing himfelf from them in the
Old and New Teftament 3 . Befides thefe, we find he had the
afliftance not only of a Perfian Jew, named Abdia Ben Salon,
afterwards called Abdollah Ebn Salem, who furnished him
with his (lories out of the Old Teftament and Talmud, but
alfo of a Chriftian monk, commonly known among Chrifti-
ans by the name Sergius, but among the Eafterns by the name
Bahira ; from whom he received his accounts of Chriftia-
nity b , as well as from Joannes Antiochenus , and others.
As to Sergius, we are afTured d he was a Neftorian monk of
Syria, who, being baniftied from his monaftery, fled to
Mecca, and there entered into confederacy with Mahomet.
Hence it cannot be thought ftrange, that he fhould be fur-
nifhed with the ftories of Chrift, by thefe Chriftian accom-
plices, which he made ufe of; and if we confider the charac-
ter of Sergius, who was his principal aiftftant, it will appear
evident that he gave him his relations concerning Chrift only
out of fuch as were Apocryphal books. Sergius was a Nef-
torian : the diftinguiming tenet of that feel: was, that Cbrijl;
was net God ; and this was the impious aflertion of many of
thofe hereticks, who forged the Apocryphal writings which I
have examined in the preceding work. This was the doc-
trine of Cerinthus % of the Nazarenes f , Eoionites g , Theodo-.
tus Byzantius, and his followers h , the Alogians ', and many
others of thofe hereticks, who made ufe of fuch books to fup-
port their herefy, as the Gcfpel of Cerintbus y or Nazarenes, the
Preaching and Revelation of Peter^ &c. The Neftorians
See Dean Prideaux's Life of cul. feptirr.i. p. 1209.
Mahomet, p. 35, 36.
b See Vincent. Bellovacen. Spe-
cul. Hiftor. 1. 23. cap. 4.1. 66.
apud Forbes. Inftit. Hiftor. Theo-
log. lib. 4.. c. 3. p. 177. and Pi i-
deaux's Life ot" Mahomet, p. 37,
e Spanheira. Hift. Chriftian. Se-
Prideaux. Loc. cit.
Tertujl. de Praslcript. c. 48.
piphan.
Id. Hse
Haeref. 28.
Haeref. 29.
Id. Hserel". 30.
Tertull. de Pnefcript. c. ult.
Epiphan. H:eref. 51.
therefore
4^4 *" dpptndix. PART n.
therefore being hercticks of the fame fort, very probably made
fe of the fame books ; and confequently Mahomet, being
aflifted by Sergius, was very likely to be furnifhed with the
old fpurious and Apocryphal books.
Fourthly, Although the importer mentions no books from
whence he borrows his accounts of Chrift, yet in one place he
cites a hijlory of the Virgin Mary, and of Chrift, as being
written, i. e. as out of fome book. The place I mean is that
Chap. XIX. Of the dlcoran, above in my collection, Numb.
X. He introduces the hiftory of Mary thus, Remember than
what is written of Mary, &c. This he did, I fuppofe,
through forgetfulnefs, becaufe I have not obferved another
fuch place in the Alcoran.
Fifthly, Several of the pafTages in the preceding collection
out of the Alcoran may be certainly proved to have been in
Apocryphal books : for inftance,
1. The ftory of the wife of Joachim, Numb. II. above,
viz. her devoting Mary to the fervice of the Temple, feems
plainly to be taken either out of the Prot-evangelion of
James, Chap. IV. or the Gofpel of the Birth of Mary,
Chap. II. (which are two Apocryphal books now extant, and
will be produced in the third Part of this work) in both which
this fame account is related.
2. The account of ChriJPs fpeaking in his cradle, Numb.
III. is related in the Gofpel tranflated out of Arabick by Mr.
Sike, under the title of '77; <? Gofpel of the Infancy of ChriJ},
Chap. I. which fhall alfo be in the next Part.
3. The ftory of Chrift's making a bird out of the flime of the
earth, when a child, related Numb. II. and Numb. VII. is alfo
in the fame Gofpel of Chrijl's Infancy, Chap. XXXVI. and
the Gofpel of the Infancy in Greek, under the name of 77;0-
mas, publifhed by Cotelerius, Chap. II.
4. The ridiculous fi&ion, Numb. III. concerning CbrijTs
not being crucified, but another crucified in/lead of him, appears
rr.anifeftly to be taken out of fome old Apocryphal book.
However furprifing the account may feem, it is fa<St, that Ba-
filides, and feveral others of the antient hereticks, not long
after Chrift, positively affirmed that Chrift was not crucified,
but
PART II* Jin Apptridix, 465
but Simon the? Cyrenean in his room ; who, when he carried
the crofs of Chrift, was fo transformed into the likenefs of
Chrift, that he" was taken for him, and crucified in his ftead ;
and at the fame time Jefus took the form and appearance of
Simon, and flood by laughing at their miftake. This we find
in Irenseus a , Tertullian b , and Epiphanius c ; and I have
above proved d , that there were a fe& of Chriftians called Do-
ceta:, in the very beginning of the fecond century, for this rea-
fon, that they thought Chrijl did not really fuffer^ but only in ap-
pearance. This opinion of Chrift, I have fliewn in the place
cited, was very probably in the Gofpel of Bafilides, and the
Gofpel of Peter, if they were not the fame book j and the in-
comparable Photius tells us, he read it info many words in the
fpurious Atts of the Apojlles, forged by Leucius Charinus c .
From all which I argue that Mahomet, or his afliftants for
him, dealt in Apocryphal books, and took this paflage thence \
becaufe there werenot, that I know of, at that time in the world,
any fet of perfons who entertained that impious opinion, that
Chrijl did not fuffer^ from whom they could have it. I can-
not forbear remarking here, that though Mahomet, according
to his Apocryphal books, does in this place deny the death and
crucifixion of Chrift, affirming another was crucified in his
room, and he immediately translated by God to heaven ; yet
in another place, viz. that above produced, Numb. II. he in-
troduces God himfelf, faying to Jefus, I -will caufe thee to
die, 1 will raife thee to myfelf> &c. than which nothing can
be a more palpable and grofs contradiction. But the Al-
coran is exceeding full of fuch, arid fo are thofe Apocryphal
books, out of which it was compiled.
Thus J have endeavoured to fhew, whence Mahomet took,
his accounts of Chrift. Jf any {hould yet enquire, why he
did not cite and name tiie Apocryphal books from which he
borrowed ? I anfwer ;
j . That he ivas ever willing to gratify and be complacent to
the Chriftians : this is a common obfervation j and as Dean
* Adv. Hseref. 1. i. c. 23. * Par. II. Cb. XXI.
k De Prsefcr . adv. Hsei , c . 46 . e Se? the place produced at large,
k Hasrti'. 24. S. 3. in the place laft cited.
VOL, I. H Prideaux
466 An Appendix. PART it.
Prideaux well obferves % // was bis ufage through the whole
fcene of his impojlure^ to fatter the Chriftians on all occafans.
Now to have cited thofe accounts out of books, as of authority
among the Chriftians, which really were not fo, but inftead of
that rejected by them, would have expofed him to their fe-
vered refentment, and fo obftru&ed the reception of his
fcheme.
2. The truth is ; Mahomet durjl not with fafety to his de-
fign cite any book. His doing this had been a proof, that he
was either able to read himfelf, or had fome afliftants with him
in the compiling of his work ; both of which he denied, as his
followers do Itill ; who, when they are prefled, how without
miracles they can prove his miflion, give this anfwer, That
inftead of all miracles is the Alcoran: for that Mahomet, who
was an illiterate perfon, that could neither write nor read, or
that any man elfe, by human wifdom alone, fhould be able to
compofe a book fo excellent in eloquence and doctrine, as
they will have that to be, is what they will not admit pof-
fible'.
COROLL. I. From the foregoing difcourfe it is eafy to fee
the reafon and foundation of the Mahometans charging the
ChriJlianS) with having altered and corrupted the Go/pel of Je-
fus ChrijL This is a charge frequently laid againft us in the
Alcoran (fee Chap. III. p. ico. Chap. V. p. 129.), and has
been commonly obferved by thofe who have wrote of the Ma-
hometans. See Grotius c , Forbes d , Prideaux 6 , Toland f ,
and Mangey %. Sir John Chardin h gives us a more parti-
cular account; the fubftance of which is, " That though
" God hath fent into the world 124000 prophets, there were
" only five of them who had the laws of publick worlhip
* Life of Mahomet, p. 53. et e Lifecf Mahomet, p. 15,16.
132. f Nazarenus, ch. 4.
b Prideaux\ Life of Mahomet, * Remarks on Nazaren. c. 6.
p. 31. h Travels to Periki and the Eaft-
c De Verit. Relig. Chrift. 1. 6. Indies. Vid. Fabric. Cod. Apocr.
$. 3- P. 3- P- 367.
" Inftitut. Hiftar. Theolog, lib.
4. e. 4, &c.~
given
I>ART 11. An Appendix. 467
" given them, viz. Abraham, Mofes, David, Jefus Chrifr,
" and Mahomet : that thcfe books were fent to thefe five
" prophets by the angel Gabriel ; and each, when it came, fu-
" perfeded the tie of the other ; that thefe books were either
<f fent by little and little, as the Alcoran a j or by diftincl
" books, as the five of Mofes ; or altogether, as the Gofpel.
" That when God took any of thefe prophets to himfelf, he
" took the facred book alfo, and only left a copy, except the
" Alcoran ; which, being the laft book that was to be given,
** was preferved. Hence they imagine no truly divine book
" on earth, but the Alcoran. They neverthelefs very much
" refpecl our Old and New Teftament, kifs them, and lay
" them upon their heads. They acknowledge them to con-
" tain many truths, but they allow them Rot fo much autho-
" rity ; becaufe they fay, they are not the fame -which the pro-
" phets Msfes and Jtfus delivered^ butfome corrupted abridg-
" ments. Hence the Mahometan doctors hold the reading of
" them vain and unprofitable ; and fome of them judge it cri-
" minal." And a little after ; As to the Gofpel, which
" they call Ingil, they hold, that Chrift took it with him to
" heaven again ; that the Apoftles wrote down each of them
" what they could remember j and that this is the Gofpel
" which the Chriftians have now, different from that which
" Chrijt took up to heaven^ and only an hiftorical account of
" what that prophet faid and did ; which hath been fince cor-
11 rupted in many places by the firjl Chrijiians. To prove
u thiF, they fay, we need do no more than compare the Gof-
" pel with the other facred books ; for in them God ftill
' fpeaks, and not the prophet ; whereas the Gofpel is nothing
" but a hiftory of what the prophet did. They add, that the
<c true Gofpel began with thefe words, O prophet, I have
is fent my me/finger, or angel^ before tbee, to prepare the way,
" &c. An idle fancy, founded upon the firft words of St,
" Mark's Gofpel."
' So Mahomet lays himftlf. Alcoran, cK. 25. p. ill.
H 2 Agreeable
4-68 4* Apptndix. ? ART n
Agreeable to the preceding account of Sir John Chardin,
is that of Mr. Herbelot in his Bibllotheque Orientate in
French 3 . " By the word Gofpel (in their language Ingll)
" in the Alcoran, the Muflulmen do not underftand that which
is among the Chriftians,/0r they believe that corrupted;
" but a chimerical GofpeL, which, they fay, was fent from God
" h J e f u$ Cb r fi> an ^ of which there is nothing remaining but
*.' w bat is cited from the Alcoran That which they cite
" from the Gofpel, whether hiftorical or doctrinal, hath fome
'* foundation in our Gofpels ; but they always give it fome
" new turn, that it may not appear to be borrowed from the
" Chriftians, and that they may perfuade the ignorant that they
have among them the true originals, which they never yet
were able to produce But they among them, who arc
*' better inftru&ed in Chriftianity, will confefs, that the Gof-
" pel which the Chriftians now have, as well as that which
" was in the time of Mahomet, is the true Gofpel of Jefus
cf Chrift, and has nothing elfe in it ; only they aflert, that it
" is altered and corrupted by the ChrijHans y as well as the
" Old Teftament by the Jews."
Thus univerfal is the charge of the Mahometans againft
the Chriftians' Gofpels a that they are altered and corrupted.
It is avowed and efpoufed by that intolerable fophift and jug-
gler in writing, Mr. Toland ; which, though it may be ealily
anfwered by other arguments, feems no way capable of fo full
an anfwer, as by the preceding account. For if, as I have
largely proved, Mahomet took his account of Chrift out of
Apocryphal and fpurious books j and neither thefe accounts,
nor any thing like them, are to be found in our prefent Gof-
pels ; his followers were under a fort of neceflity of falling
into this miftake concerning the Chriftian books : for when,
upon a fearch made into them, they found none of thofe things
which are faid concerning Chrift, or afcribed to Chrift in the
Alcoran, they muft neceflarily believe, either (i.) That they
were forgeries of Mahomet ; or (2.,/) That he took them ont of
' Apwd Fabric. Ice. cit. p, 370, &t.
fome
PART II. An Appendix. 469
fame fpurious and fabulous books, or (3.) That he took themout
of the genuine Gofpels, which are fence that time altered. But
as no one can fuppofe they would conclude either of the for-
mer, they muft inevitably conclude the laft ; and fo we at once
fee, how it came to pafs they charged our Scriptures with
corruption, and how groundlefs that charge is.
COROLL. II. Hence it appears, that Mr. Toland's notion
in his Nazarenus, that the Gofpel of Barnabas, which is in
Prince Eugene's pofleflion (of which above, Part II. Ch.
VIII.), is that referred to in the Alcoran, and by the Maho-
metans, is perfectly whim/teal and ridiculous ; for befides that
that Gofpel appears plainly a late Mahometan forgery, it is
evident Mahomet took his accounts from other books.
After my preceding collection out of the Alcoran, of the
fayings and hijlories of CHRIST, and obfervations thereupon,
it may not be unfuitable to add the four Sayings or Difcourfes
afcribed to CHRIST by the Mahometan doctors, which are
collected by Levinus Warner % and referred to by Mr. To-
land in his Nazarenus b , and afterwards transcribed by Fabri-
cius e . They are thefe :
I.
Dixit Jefus, films Mariae, fu- Jefus, the fon of Mary, upon,
per quo pax fit, Qui opibus whom be peace, faid, He, who
inhiat, fimilis eft ei, qui a- thirjls after riches ', is like to
quam maris potatj is, quo him who drinks fea-water.
plus bibit, fitim plus provo- Such a perfon, the more he
cat, nee bibere defiftit, donee drink, the more he increafeth
pereat. his tbirfti nor will he give
over drinking, till he die.
1 Not. ad Centur. Proverb. Per- b Ch. vii
ficor. Proverb. 61. e Cod. Apoc.
H 7 IL
470
An Jppet
PART II.
II.
Dixit Jefus, films Marias, Jo-
anni, filio Zacharias, Cum
quifpiam aliquid de te com-
memorans vera loquitur, De-
um lauda ; fi mendacia pro-
fert, Deum magis lauda ; au-
getur enim opus tuum in ca-
talogo operum tuorum, idque
fine omni tuo labore, hoc eft,
illius bona opera in catalogum
tuum referuntur.
Jefus, the fon of Mary, faid
to John, the fon of Zacharias,
When any one relates that
which is true concerning tbee,
praife God ; if he fays that
which is falfe concerning thee,
praife God the more ; for fo an
addition is made to thy worts
in the catalogue of them, and
that wit hold any pains of thine ;
that is, his good works ft/all be
placed in the catalogue of thine.
III.
Jefu beatse memoriae aliquan-
do mundus vifus eft inftar
anus decrepitae ; cui illc, Quot,
inquit, maritos habuifti? Jpfa
adeo multos fe habuifle re-
fpondet, ut numerari non pof-
fent. Mortui igitur illi, in-
quit Jefus, te reliquerunt ?
Imo vero, ilia ait, ego occidi
et fuftuli illos. Turn Jefus,
Mirum, inquit, eft adeo infi-
pientes efle alios, ut cum vi-
dcant quomodo reliquos trac-
taris, tui tamen amore fla-
grent, et de aliis exemplum
lion capiant.
On a certain time, the world
did appear to Jefus of blefTed
memory in the form of a de-
crepit old woman, to whom
he faid, How many hitjbands
have 'you had? She anfwered,
She had fo many that they
could not be numbered. Je-
fus replied, So then^ are they
all dead, and have left you ?
Yes, replied {he, I have killed
them, and taken them ofF.
Then faid Jefus, // isftrange
others fnould be fo infatuated,
that when they perceive how
you have dealt with others^ they
Jhould be (o fond of you, and not
take warning by others*
IV.
Tempore Jefu, tres aliquando
iter faciebant, qui thefaurum
Upon a time in the days of
Jefus, there were three per-
fons
PART II.
An Appendix.
471
invenientes, Efurimus, inqui-
urtt, ideoque unus ex nobis
abibit, et cibum coemet. Li-
nus ille, qui ibat allatum ci-
bum, Confultum, inquit, erit,
ut cibum venenoinficiam, quo
vefcentes illi moriantur, e-
goque folus thefauro potiar.
Quod fecit ; cibo venenum ad-
mifcuit: fed et duo illi viri in-
ter fe convenerant, ut cum ci-
bum apportaret, eum interfi-
cerent, quo foli thefauro fru-
erentur. Cum igitur cibum
veneno mixtum afferret, eum
occiderunt; et ipfi cibum il-
ium venenatum comedentes,
ftatim funt mortui. Cum
ecce Jefus tranfiens cum apo-
ftolis fuis dicebat, Hasc eft
conditio mundi ! Ecce quo-
modo ternos hofce tractaverit,
et ipfe tamen poft hos in ftatu
fuo perfeveret. Vae illi, qui
petit mundum ex mundo.
fons travelling, and having
found a treafure, they faid,
We are hungry ; let one of us
go and buy food. He wha
went to fetch the food, faid, /
will contrive to mix pot fan with
the food, that when they eat
thereof, they may die, and I
alone pojfefs all the treafure.
Accordingly he did, and mixed
poifon with the food. In the
mean time the two men a-
greed, that when he brought
back the meat, they would
kill him ; fo, when he brought
back the meat mixed with
poifon, they flew him ; and
they, when they eat the poi-
foned meat, prefe'ntly died. At
which time Jefus paffing by
with his Apoftles, faid, Such
is the condition of the world !
See how it has dealt with thefe
three perfons, and it continues
Jlill the fame. Wo unto him
who feeks the world by the
war Id (or by worldly means).
H 4
INDEX
N D
X
TO THE
FIRST VOLUME.
ABDIAS, his ridiculous hiftory
of the Lives of the Apofties,
315.
ACE, Aco, Acco, Acu, were
the Syriack and antioit names of
Ptolemais, 103.
AD ULTEROTTS Woman, hiftory
of, John viii. wanting in many
antient Greek MSS. and efpe-
cially in the prelent Syriack Ver-
lion, in.
AtcoR A N, a co-lleftion of the Htf-
fories and Sayings of Chrift, and
things relating to him, to be
found in 11,451, &c. Vide MA-
HOMET.
ALOGIANS, their error concerning
St. John^s Gofpel,*.
AMBROSE places the Gofpel of
Matthias among fpur'rous and re-
jefted books, 254. cenfares the
Gofpel of Thomas, 398, n. A-
poctyphal books cited by him,
33. why he read them, 129, n.
AMIR A, his obfervation on the
Chaldee and Syriack languages,
93, n.
and Revelation of
Paul the fame book. iz6. Vide
PAUL.
ANDREW, his A&s and Gofpek
not extant, 119. his Afts cen-
fured as Apocryphal by Eufe-
bius, 148, n. by Philaftrius,
ibid. n. by Epiphanius, 149, n,
by Pope Gelafms, 1 50, n. Other
books under his name declared
i'purioiis by Auitin and Inno-
cent I. 152, 153, n. his Gofpel
| ' Apocryphal by Gelafius, 1 53, n.
ANONYMOUS author of the works
under the name of Dionyfms, hi*
catalogue of Canonical books,62.
ANONYMOUS author, his frag-
ment tf the Preaching of Peter,
3S 2 -
APELLES, an Apocryphal Gof-
pel under his name not extant,
119, n. nor mentioned by any
writer till Jerome, 156, n. His
age and principles, 157, 158, n.
APOCRYPHAL books extant in the
Apofties'' times, 23. A cata
logue of thofe mentioned in the
fecond century, 30. which are
not extant, ibid, of thofe which
?re jyctant, 37. Keafons why fo
meuy
INDEX.
many were extant fb early in the
Chnllian Church, 58. what
books are fo, 63 to 85. Some
mentioned though not extant,
119 10156. made out of the pre-
fent Canonical, 127. never ap-
pealed to by Chriftian writers, as
of authority, 128. citetl by the
Fathers to ftiew their learning,
119. or becaufe the perlbns a-
gainft whom they wrote, did re-
ceive than, &c. ibid.
APOLLONI us, his account of The-
mifon and his Epiftle, 391.
APOSTLES TWELVE, Apocry-
phal Gofpel according to them
not extant, 119. feems to have
been a different name of Mat-
thew's Hebrew Gofpel, 126, n.
An account of it by Origen, Am-
brofe, and Jerome, 158, 159, n.
Their Ah under the names of
Leucius, Lenticius, Leontius^and
-Leuthon, one and the lame book,
236. the fame with the Apocry-
phal Acls under the names of
John, Andrew, and Thomas,
&C.240.
APOTACTICKS, a fort of heretlcks
fo called, 22. They erbemed
the Apocryphal Acls of Andrew
above other Scriptures, and why,
151.
AF.ABICK, a dialeft of the Old
Hebrew, 92.
ATHANASIUS, Apocryphal books
mentioned by him, 33. his cata-
logue of Canonical books of the
New Teftament, 61, n. condemns
Peter's Acts for Apocryphal, 325,
n. 393, n. dots the like by thoic
of Thomas, 393. As aii'o his
Gofpel, 398, n.
ATHENAGOP.AS afcribes a parti-
cular faying to our Saviour,
4.36.
AVSTIV, Apocryphal bocks men-
tioned by him, 35. His cata-
logue of Canonical bookb, 61.
His opinion of C'hrilV s Epiftle to
Peter and Paul, iS8. Difp'-ita-
tion with Fauflus the Manichee,
193, n. He proves the fpurious
Afts of the Apoftles to have
bum written by Leucius, 24.0.
His account of the revelation of
Paul, 317, 310,11.
B
BAI.V/IVV, his conjeclure con-
cerning the decree of Gelafm*,
156. -
BARNABAS, his Gofpel not extant,
119. An account ot it by Ge-
lafius, 160. Two fuppoied
fragments of it, 161. Another
large Italian one, wherein Maho-
met ^is named for the Paraclete,
164. therefore reafonably con-
chided a Mahometan forgery,
167. The author's and Dr.
Mangey's conjectures conceraing
the original of it, 169,1 70.
BARONIUS, his high opinion of the
Nazarene Gofpel, 284, n.
BARTHOLOMEW, Iv.s writings and
Gofpel not extant, 119. fet-ms to
have been a different name of the
Hrbrew Goipel of St. Matthew,
126. The hock under his name
proved fpuiiuus, 171. and by Je-
rome and Gelafius accounted
Apocryphal, 172, n. is the He-
brew Gofpel of St. Matthew in
terpolated, ibid. .n.
BARUCH, Book of, its error con-
cerning the captivity, 10.
BASTLIDES, his error concerning
the crucifixion of Chrift, 12, n.
his Go'.pelnot extant, 119, 177.
only juft cited among the Apo-
crypha! books by Oiigsn, Am-
brofc, and Jerome, 175, n. His
age and tenets, 176, n. his com-
ment arks, &c. 177.
BAXTER, Mr. a citation from him
concerning people's rrmuTnefs in
enquiring into the genuine-lids of
the Scriptures, 14.
BEDA, his ilntiments of the He-
brew or Nazarene Goipel, 283,
n.
BEZA, his opinion that St. Paul
wrote feveral other Epirtles be-
fides thole \vj now have, 136,
157, n. Of a laving of Chrift
mentioned by St. Paul, A6~U xx.
35. p. 409, n,
BUR MET, Bifhop, a citation out of
him
I N D E X;
him concerning the neceflity of
tradition to eftablifh the Canon
of the New Teftament, 58, n.
CAIANITES, a feet of the Gr.of-
ticks, &c. 234- forged a piece
under the name of Judas, ibid.
their tenets, 735, n.
CAJETAN queftioned the authority
of the Revelation, 9.
CAIUS, Prelbyter of Rome, Apo-
cryphal books mentioned by him,
31.
CALVIN queftioned the authority
of the Revelation, 9. fuppofed
St. Paul to have written more
Epiftles than we now have, 136,
137, n.
CANON of the New Teftament
more difficult to fettle, than that
of the Old, 2, 3. The original
of the word, and when firft ap-
plied to Scripture, 19,20. Pri-
mitive Chriftians did well agree
about books Canonical, 4.1. and
did generally receive the fame for
fuch, as we do now, ibid. Tra-
dition of the antients, the princi-
pal method of determining it, 53.
A demonftrative indication of a
true Canon, 63. Canonical
books, which, ibid, none of them
loft, 130. A noted objection to
this anfwered, 133. The bare
citation of a book in facred writ-
ings does not prove it Canonical,
135.
CANTERBURY, prefent Archbi-
fhop of, a citation out of him
concerning the Apoftolical Fa-
thers, 5. a miftake of him in
putting the word Soul for the
Greek ctyQuy'^a, ^lo.
CAPELLUS, his proof of the dox-
ology at the end of the Lord's
Prayer, &c. IT 6, n. thought St.
Paul to have wrote other Epiftles
than thofe we now have, 136,
137, n.
CARTHAGE, Council Third, its
catalogue of Canonical books,
62.
CASAUBON, a citation from hhn
concerning the early rile of Apo-
cryphal books, 40. his opinion
ot the Nazarene Golpel, 284, n.
CASSIODORUS, his conjecture con-
cerning the Hypotypoies, 374, n.
CAVE, Dr. thinks the decree of
Gelafius concerning Apocryphal
books to be fpurious, 156, n.
His miftake in thinking the Ana-
baticon and Revelation of Paul
to be two different books, 319,
n. his opinion that the Judgment
of Peter was the fame hook with
the Shepherd of Hermas, re-
jected, 336. his favourable fen-
timent of the Preaching of Peter,
356, n.
CELSUS, his objection to our Savi-
our, as a magician, 191. banters
the Chriftians under the name of
Sibyllifts, 364, n.
CERINTHUS, his Gofpel and Re-
velation not extant, 120. feems
to have been a different name for
the Hebrew Gofpel of Matthew,
126. mentioned only by Epipha-
nius, 178, n. his age, tenets,
&c. 179. A ftory of St. John
the Apoftle and him at Ephefus,
ibid. n. he is referred to in Acts
xv. ibid, his Golpel the lame
with the Nazarenes, 181. his
Revelation mentioned only by
Caius or Gains the Prelbyter,
182, n. not the fame as St.
John's, 183. but a ridiculous
forgery compiled out of the Ca-
nonical Revelation, 184, 185, n.
CHALDEAN Language. VideSy-
RIACK.
CHARDIN, Sir JOHN, his account
of the charge of the Mahometans
againft the Chriftians for jcor-
nipting the Golpel, 466, n.
CHARINUS. Vide LEUCIUS.
CHEMNITIUS, his opinion of the
faying of Chrift mentioned by
St. Paul, Acts xx. 35. p. 409,
n.
CHRIST our Saviour, his Epiftle to
Peter and Paul, feme other books
under his name, an Epiftle of hit,
produced by the Manicheans,
and a hymn, which they pretend
he
I N D E X,
ne taught his difeiples, not ex-
tant, izo, 186. not mentioned
till Auftin's time, except an E-
piftle to Abgarus, &c. ibid, that
to Peter and Paul proved out of
Atiitin to be a ridiculous for-
gery, 1 88. another book men-
tioned under his name, 190. he
is falfely charged by the Jews
and Ct-lfus, as a magician, 191.
*n idle trite ftoi y or' the former
to the fame purpofe, Ibid, a fpu-
rions Epiftle of his among the
Minichces, 193, n. a hymn
forged by the Prifcillianifts un-
der his name proved fpurious,
1 95, n. a faying of his mentioned
by St. Paul, 408. others afcribed
to him in the Epiltle of Bar-
nabas, 4x19. others by Clemens,
luppoled to be the fame men-
tioned by St. Paul, 412. a frag-
ment in his name cited by Ire-
nasus,4i6, n. adiicourfe aicribed
to him by Papias, 4.22. another
by the fame, 4.23. a faying of his
out of Jiiftin Martyr, 4.25. hif-
tory of his baptifm by the fame,
428. another concerning hitn in
his younger years, by the fame,
4.30. a faying of him in Irenaeus,
433. hiftory of his age in the
fame, 434. a faying afcribed to
him in Athenagoras, and a con-
timiation of it by Pfaffius, 436.
another by Clemens Alexandri-
jius, 437. another by the fame,
442. another cited by moft of
the antient Fathers, 438. hifFory
of him and his parents by Origen,
4.44. of his relations according
to the flem in Epiphanius, 445.
an anfwer of the Apoftks to him
in Jerome, 447. hiftories and
fayings of, and things relating to
him, to be found in the Alcoran
of Mahomet, 451 . four particular
fayings afcribed to him by the
Mahometan doctors, 469.
CHRYSOSTOM makes no mention
of the adulterous woman in John
viii. p. in.
CLARKE, Dr. a miftake of his
concerning Mr. Dodwell, recti-
fied, 5. n.
CLEMENS AtEtfANnRiNus, A-
pocryphal books mentioned by
him, 30. makes no mention of
the adulterous woman in John
viii. p. iii. his testimonies of
the Goip-1 of the Egyptians,
198. n. "his interpretation of i
Cor. vii. i. and i Tim. iv. 3.
. p. 209. n. mentions the tradi-,
tions of Matthias, 255. His ac-
count of the Nazarene or Hebrew;
Gofpel, 262. n, does not appeal
to the Hebrew Gofpel as of any.
authority, 297. cites fragments of
the Preaching of Peter. 345. Ob-
iervation on the Hypotypoies of
Clemens, &c. 370. n. that book
not his, 37 3. the citation of it by
Theodotus. examined, 375.
CLEMENS ROMANUS, contempo-
rary with St. Paul, his teitiinony
of St. Paul's ruft Epiftle to the
Corinthians, contrary ro the opi-
nions of , many modern learned
men, 138.
CLEOBIUS, author of feveval Apo-
cryphal books, 39.
LE CLERC, Mr. his opinion of fe-
veral Epiftles of St. Paul, not
extant, and {anguine remark on
thofe that are, examined, 136.
His fentiments of the Egyptian
Gofpel, 203. cenfure ot Dr.
Grabe, 208, n. His opinion the
fame with Dr. Whitby's con-
cerning the Nazarene Gofpel,
188, n.
COLLINS, Dr. was of opinion that
St. Paul wrote an Epiftle to the
Corinthians, previous to thofe
two extant, 137, n.
CONSTANTINE Emperor, cites a
Greek acroftick concerning
Chrift, 364, n.
CORINTHIANS, a fpurious EpjfHe
of theirs to Paul, and another of
Paul to them, 144, 145.
COSIN, Dr. a mittakc of his recti-
fied, 56.
CYPRIAN, Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 32. his account of
the Chriftian meetings, 67.
CYRIL, Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 33. his Catalogue
of Canonical books, 61. inftruc-
INDEX.
tkins to his catechun:in concern-
ing the Scriptures, 67, n. his
diitinclion of books Canonical,
and fuch as were doubted of, 69,
n. Account of the Gofpel of
Scythianus, 3 84., n. Cenfure of the
Gofpel of Thomas, as the Gof-
pel of one of the Manichees of
the fame name, 397, n.
DAILLE, Monf. demonftrates the
ipurioufneJs of a book under the
name of Bartholomew, mentioned
by the fuppofed Dionyfius the
Areopagite, 171. a miftake of
his rectified by Bp. Pearfon,
ibid, n. another concerning Bar-
tholomew's Gofpel, 174. he
thinks the EpilUes of Ignatius to
be fpurious, 295.
DANIEL the Prophet, a citation
out of him, whereby the Chaidce
and Syriack languages feem to
be lynonymous, 95.
DE DIEU, his observation on the
affinity of the Chaldee and Sy-
riack languages, 95, n.
DIONYSIUS the Areopagite, one
of St. Paul's converts at Rome,
170, n.
DocT/E, a branch of the Gnoi-
tick Hereticks, 332. Aippofed to
forge Peters Gofpel, which likely
may be the fame" as the Goipel
of 'Baiilides, ibid.
DODWELL, Mr. a fslfe opinion of
his, concerning the books of the
preftnt Canon, efpoufed by Mr.
Toland, refuted, 42, n. 133. he
thinks Petar'* GnfpeJ was a for-
gery of the Docetae, 332. his ac-
count of the ay;e of Fatian, 390,
n. a miftake of his concerning the
promiicuous ufe of the Golpcls
and Apocryphal books by the
Fathers of the firit century, 4-J o,
n. 414,419.
DOXOLOGY at the end of the
Lord's Prayer, various opinions
of it, 115.
DRUSIUS, his proof of the Doxo-
logy, &c. n6. his opinion of the
foppofed loft pieces of Paui ; 136,
1 37> 0.
Dv PIN, Mr. the only perfon who
has purpofely written on the Ca.
non of the New Teftament, 17.
defeats in his performance, ibid.
his miftake about the word Eu-
charifi,! 14,11- another concerning
the time of the Syriack Verfion,
ibid, his cenfure of the Egyptian
Gofpel, 202, n. of the Goipel of
Eve; and a miftake of his, 224,
n. his fentiments of the Nazarene,
or Hebrew Gofpel, 185, n. his
opinion of the Anabaticon and
Revelation of Paul, 390* n. a
miftake of his concerning Phi-
lip's Gofpel rectified, 383,
EBIO KITES, what part of the New
Teftament they rejected, 8. the
Apocryphal A6ls of the Apoftles
made ule of by them, 120. not
extant, ibid, feems to have been
a different name of the Hebrew
Goipel of Matthew, 126, 217.
their Apocryphal Afts, 220.
their Gofpel the fame with the
Nazarenes, &c. 221. They ufed
the Afts of Peter, 326, n.
efteemed St. Paul their great e-
nony, 360. they and the Na/a-
renes always declared Hereticks
by the Catliolick Church, ibid.
EGYPTIANS, their Apocryphal
Goipel not extant, 120. tefti-
monies of the antients and frag-
ments of it, 197. fentiments oi
modern writers concerning ir,
zoi. five arguments proving ir
Apocryphal, 204. it was nevei
cited, nor appealed to, by Cle-
mens, 206. but utterly reje6tc<l
by him, 207. compofed by eaiU-
Hereticks, and probably
tians, 209, 216. Their Tlr.-ra-
peutse bore a great agreemtii!:
\vitl the EflVnes, 213.
r, or ELX^US, a falie prg-
pliet about the time cf Trajan.
A. c. 114. founder of the feel of
the Helkefaites, &c. 225.
ENCRATITES, Apocryphal Goi-
pei of, not extant, 120. c deemed
th: fpurious Ails cf Andrew
abort
INDEX.
above all other Scriptures, and
why, 151.
EPIPHANIUS, Apocryphal books
mentioned by him, 34. his Cata-
logue of Canonical books, 61.
his ceniure of the Apociyphal
Acts of Andrew, 149, n. of
the Egyptian Golpel, zoo. He
the only antient writer that men-
tions the Acts of the Apoltles,
received by the Ebionites, 217.
and the Gofpel of Eve, 212, n.
His cenfure of the Helkel'aites,
az6, n. Account of the Gofpel
of Judas Ifcariot, 234. of the
Encratites, Apotacticks, and Ori-
genians, 243. A iniftake of his
concerning the Lucianifts recti-
fied, 25*. he charges the Ebio-
nites with forging books under
St. Matthew's name, 2 5 3 . men-
tions the Gofpel of Marcion,
263, n. his doubt whether Me-
rinthus.and Cerinthus were not
one and the fame perfon, 265.
his account of the Nazarene or
Hebrew Golpel, 271, n. declares
Paul's Revelation a forgery, 317,
n. his opinion of the Anabaticon
of Paul, 320. rejects the Acts of
Peter as fpurious, 326, n. his
account of the Gofpel of Scythi-
anus, 385, n. his account of the
principles of Tatian, 388, n.
cites the Acts of Thomas, 395,
n. his hiltory of Chrift according
to the flefh, 445.
ERASMUS, qudtioned the autho-
rity ot the Revelation, 9. lays
the hiftory of the adulterous wo-
man was wanting in moft Greek
copies, Sec. in, n. his acknow-
ledgment of rinding the doxo-
logy at the end of the Lord's
prayer in all the Greek copies,
115, n. Sentiments of the Gof-
pel of the Nazarenes, Thomas,
Matthias, the Egyptians, Twelve
Apoftles, and Nicodemus, 201,
n.
ESSENES, the great agreement be-
tween them and the Egyptian
Chriftians, 213.
EUCHARIST, in what fenfe the
word is uied by Juftin Martyr,
114, n.
EVE, Apocryphal Gofpel of, not
extant, 120. has been obferved
by feveral modern, though only
by Ephiphanius among the an-
tient writers, 221, n. proved to
be a forgery of the Gnotticks,
224.
EUSEBIUS, his account of feveral
books of the New Tettament not
received by fome, who were not
hereticks, in the firft ages, 8.
n. 270. Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 32. his Catalogue
of Canonical books, 60. method
of diftinguiming between books,
which are, or are not to be re-
ceived, 64 to 70, n. he excludes
the Shepherd of Hermas from
the Canon, 70, n. cenfurts tHe
Apociyphal Acts of Andrew,
148, n. his account of a piecs
wrote by Agrippa Caftor again it
Balilides, 177. he declares the
Acts of Peter, Thcmas, &c. to
he heretical forgeries, 241, n.
ranks the Gofpel of Matthias
among heretical books, 254. his
account of the Nazarene or He-
brew Golpel, 268, 270. he
makes no ufe (as Mr Toland
falfely fuppofes) of the Nazarene
Gofpel, 299, n. rejects the Acts
of Paul as fpurious, 314. and
the Afts of Peter as not Cano-
nical, 325, n. as alib his Gofpel
3'?o, n, a fragment from him ot
'The Preaching of Peter, 354. lie
rejects Peter's Revelation as not
Canonical and ipurioiis, 3-2, n.
376. is wrongfully charged by
Toland and others, with felt-con-
tradictions, 377, n. mentions the
Gofpel of Thomas as heretical,
"97> n.
E/.RA fettled the Canon of the
Jews, 3.
FABRICIVS, Mr. obferves that in
fome copies of Gelafius's decree
of Apocryphal books, there is
no mention of Andrew's Golpel,
i 54, n. he made a collection of
Apocryphal books under oir
Saviour's name, t86. a miit^ke
of
INDEX.
of his concerning the traditions
of Matthias rectified, 2.59, n.
his nice diiHnclion between the
contents of thofe traditions and a
Goipel, 260. he cenfures Mr.
Toland, and condemns the Goi-
pel of the Nazarenes, 288, n.
his miitake in fuppofing the Ana-
baticon and Paul's Revelation to
be different books, 319, n. pro-
duces a large fragment of Philip's
Acts, 381, n. his obfervation on
the Orthodoxographa, 390, n.
miftake concerning the Acts of
Thomas, 395, n. another con-
cerning the citations of the Fa-
thers of the firft century, 4.10, n.
FULLER, his obfervation on the
affinity of the Chaldee and Syriac
languages, 95, n.
GBLASIUS, Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 36. his ceniiire of
the Acls of Andrew, 150, n.
famous decree concerning Apo-
cryphal books, i 54, n. thought
to have been formed at Rome,
A. c. 494-. thoxigh ibme afcribe
it to Damafus, and others to
Hormifdas ; whence Ealuzius con-
jectures it to have been begun bv
Damafus, renewed by Gelafius,
and continued by Hormifdas, 1 56.
He cenfures the book of Leucius
for Apocryphal, 244., n. and the
Goipel of "Matthias for the fame,
254.. Mentions the Acts of
Thtcla and Paul, 313, n. con-
demns their Revelation as Apo-
cryphal, 3 1 8, n. rejects the books
under the name of Peter, called
the books of Clemens, as Apo-
cryphal, 326, n. as alfo theGof-
pel under the fame name, 33i,n.
mentions the Revelation of Ste-
phen as fuch, 386. does the like
by the Acts of Thomas, his Goi-
pel, and Revelation, 395, n, 398,
n. 399, n.
GNOSTICS, forge the Gofpel of
Perfection, 380, n. a forgery of
theirs mentioned by Irenxus,
.concerning Chrut, 43^2.
GOSPELS, had not the prefent
titles prefixed to them by their
authors, 173, n.
GRABE, Dr. produces a ruppofed
fragment of the Gofpel of Barna-
bas out of an old MS. in the Bod-
leian library, 161, n. but gives
no reafon in fupport of his con-
jecture concerning it, 162. his
error concerning the Revelation of
St. John and Cerinthus, 183, n.
Opinion of the Gofpel of the
Egyptians, 202, n. his too fond
opinion of Apocryphal books,
208. A miftake of his in fup-
pofing the Gofpel of Matthias to
be the fame with the traditions,
255, n. 259. His collection of
the fragments of Matthias's Gof-
pel, 215. of the Gofpel of the
Nazarenes or Hebrews, 271, n.
his fentiments of the latter, 285,
n. a mittake of his concerning
Hegefippus, 296, n. another con-
cerning Origen, 298. an abfur-
dity of his in fuppofing the Na-
zarene to be previous to St. Mat-
thew's Gofpel, 307. His Acts
of Paul and Thecla taken out of
a MS. in the Bodleian library,
313, n. His distinction between
the Acts of Paul and Thecla,
and the Ails cf Paul only, 314.
an error of his rectified, ibid, an-
other concerning the Anabaticon
and Revelation of Paul, 319.
His account of a MS. now ex-
tant in Merton College, intitled,
The Revelation of Paul, 324, n.
His conjecture concerning the
judgment of Peter, rectified,
338. too great opinion of the
Preaching of Peter, 356, n. he
would have Peter's Revelation
equally orthodox with that of
John, 372, n. wrongfully charges
Eufebius with felt-contradiction,
376, n. his falfe conclufion from,
a palTage out of Sozomen of the
Revelation of Peter, 378, n. He
fuppofes Peter's Revelation to be
a prophecy concerning the data
of the Jews and the Chriitian
Church, ibid. n.
INDEX.
GREEK CATENA of the Twenty-
three Fathers on John, has not
the hiftory of the adulterous wo-
man, in, n.
GREGORY, Mr. his account of a
third Epiftle of Paul to the Co-
rinthians, 29. excellent obferva-
tion of the genuinenefs of the
doxology at the end of th Lord's
Prayer, 115, n. and from the
Form of Prayer out of the tra-
dition of the Elders, ii6.
GREGORY NAZIANZEN, his cata-
logue of Canonical books, 6 1 .
GROTIUS, his opinion of the time
of the Syriack Verfion rectified,
114, n. aflerts that St. Paul
wrote feveral other Epiftles, be-
fides thofe we now have, 1 37, n.
his conjecture concerning the Re-
velation of St. John and Cerin-
thus, 185, n. Sentiments of the
Egyptian Gofpel, 201, n. of the
Nazarene Gofpel, 284, n.
H
HARMONY of the four Gofpels
compofed by Tatian, 388. That
of the Orthodoxographa not the
fame with Tatian's, 390, n.
HEBREW the firft language of the
world, 92. its various dialects,
IbU.
HEBREW, Apocryphal Gofpel of,
not extant, 120. was fometimes
Called the Gofpel of the Na/a-
renes, and fometimes of the Ebi-
onites, 127. VideNAZARENES.
HEGESIPPUS, cotemporary with
Juttin Martyr, 28. mentions the
Gofpel according to the He-
brews, 30, 268. cites not the
Gofpel of the Nazarenes, as Dr.
Grabe and Mr. Toland wrong-
fully think, 296.
HEINSIUS, his opinion of the fay-
ing of Chrift, mentioned by St.
Paul, Afts xx. 35. p. 4.09.
HELKESAITES, what part of the
N':\v Teitament they rejccled, 8,
225. their Apocryphal books not
extant, 120. feem to derive their
name from Elxai, or Elx-jeus, who
lived about the year 1 14, p. 115.
They are eftetmed by Epip!a-
nius as neither Jews, Chriftiaffsy
nor Heathens, ibid, they were
generally of the Jewifh nation,
227.
HERACLEON, an heretick of the
ftcond century ; an account of
him by Origen, 431. a more par-
ticular one of him and Theodo-
tus, 344.
HERMAS, excluded by Eufebius
from the Canonical books, 70,
n.
HERMIANU Vide SELEUCIANI.
HESYCHIUS, his falfe Go.;-
extant, 120. though mentioned
by Jerome and GeTaiius as Apo-
cryphal, and only interpolations
of ours, 227.
HOOKER, Mr. a citation out of
him, concerning affent to a pro-
pofition, 1 1 6.
HUETIUS, his confutation of the
Jews, in their charge againll
Chrift for uiing magical arts,
191, n.
I
JAMES, Apocryphal piece of his
not extant, 1 20 . A book of his
not the fame (though thought ib
by Dr. Mill) with the Protevan-
gelion, 230. Other books attri-
buted to him, 23 1. thought by
Dr. Mill to be wrote by Leu-
cius, 232, n.
ICONOMACHI, the author's con-
jecture concerning them, 248, n.
JEROME, Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 34. his catalogue
of Canonical books, 62. Quo-
tation of the Gofpel according to
the Egyptians, 157, n. He
places the Gofpel of Matthias
among fpurious books, 254. his
account of the Nazarene Gofpel,
275. He miltakes concerning
Ignatius's ufmg the Nazartne
Goipel, 293. airirnis tbt >.i?.a-
rene to be the fame with the Gof-
peJ of the Twelve Apoltles, 299*
n. reckons the Acts of Paul and
Thecla Apocryphal, 3i2,n. the
Afts of Peter, <ic. the like,
3^5, n. the Gofpel of Peter the
like, 330, n. the Judgment of
Peter the iikj, 335, n. A frag-
in_nt
INDEX.
ment of his, concerning the
Pa-aching of Peter, 354. He
reckons "Peter's Acts, Gofpcls,
and Revelation, Apocrypha!, 372,
n. cenfures the Golpels or the
Egyptians, and of Thomas, 398,
B.
JEWS, their haughty etteem of
themfelv, s, and contempt of all
the world befide, 106. they
charge our Saviour with ufing
magical arts, 191.
IGNATIUS, his Epiftle thought by
iomc to befpurious, 195.
INNOCENT I. Apocryphal bodes
mentioned by him, 36. his tef-
timony of the forgeries of Leu-
cijs Charimu, 231, 24.0, 261.
he rejects and condemns the
books under the name of Mat-
thias, or James the Lefs, 261, n.
detects Leucius's forgeries under
the name or Peter, 379, n.
JOHN, the Afts of, and other Apo-
cryphal books under his name,
not extant, 121, evidently appear
to be the forgery of Leucius,
233.
IRE N^ us, Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 30. his account
of the Gofpel of Judas Ifcaiiot,
233. of the principles of Tatian,
390, n. mentions a forgery of the
Gnolticks concerning our Savi-
our, 4.32. A grand miftake of
his concerning the age of Chriit,
4?6.
JUDAS ISCARIOT, an Apocryphal
Gofpel under his name not ex-
tanr, 121. mentioned by Irensus
and Epiphanius, 233, n.
JUDE, an Apocryphal Gofpel under
his name not extant, 121.
JUSTIN MARTYR, his account of
the weekly Chriftian meetings,
67, n. 97, n. he was a native of
Paleitine, in Syria, ibid. An ob-
jection concerning his reiidencj
at Rome, anlvvered, 98. An-
other of Dr. Cave's, that he \v.is
unacquainted with the Syriack
language, ani'\v<-red, 99. In what
lenfc he uied the word Eucharift,
1 14. docs not cite the Goipel of
the Nazarenes, 296.
VOL. I.
KIRSTENIUS queftioned the au-
thority of the Revelation, 9.
LACTANTIUS, Apocryphal books
mentioned by him, 32. his frag-
ment of The Preaching of Peter,
353. his account ot an objection
the Pagans uild, that the verfes
of the" Sibyls were a forgery of
the Chrinaans, 364, n.
LAODICEA, Billiops of, their cata-
logue of Canonical books, 61, n.
they decree that no private
Plulms, or book without the Ca-
non, mould be read in churches,
67.
LEONIDES, a corrupt writing in-
ftead of Leucius, 250.
LEONTIUS, -. All thefe denote
LEUTHON, I only one fpurious
LENTITIUS, j book, the forgery
LUCIAN, ^ of Leucius Cha-
rinus, iz6.
LEUCIUS CHARINXJS, his forge-
ries leverely ccnfurecl, 232, n.
Leucius and Seleucus the fame
p^rion, 239, n. Acts under his
name the fame as the A6ts of
Andrew and John, ibid. n. He
was a Manichee, and lived in the
latter end of the third, or begin,
ning of the fourth century, 24.5.
was a different perlbn from Lu-
cianus, ibid, the fame with Se-
k-ucus, father ,of the Seleuciani,
246, n. His A6ls fpurious and
Apocryphal, ibid. The judg-
ment of Photius concerning them,
247. Leucius and Leonidi?s one
and the fame perfon, 250. He
forged. bo<jks under Peter's and
other Apoftk-s 1 names, 379.
LIGHTFOCT, Dr. his proof of the .
Doxology, &c. 1 1 6, n. his con-
jecture concerning the text, i Cor.
v. 9. rectified, 141. Another
-;\ire of his different from
the former, 142.
LUCIAN us, a famous critick and
martyr under Dioclefian and
I i Maximian,
I X D E X.
Maximlan, 151. an interpolator
of the Gofpels, ibid, a different
perfon from Lucianxis, ibid.
St. LUKE, his Goipel formerly
went under the name ofc St. Paul,
127, n.
LVTHER, his error in rejecting the
Epiftleof St. James, 8.
M
MAHOMET, in compiling his Al-
coran, made great me of the Old
and New Teftaments, 4.60. docs
not cite .either of our prefent
Gofpels, or any book of the New
Teftament by name, and the rea-
fon of it, 46 1 . was f urniflied
with fpurious and Apocryphal
books of the New Teftametit',4.6 z .
could neither write nor read,//;/.:'.
His affiftants in compiling thj
Alcoran, 463. He cites a hif-
tory of the Virgin Mary and of
Chrift, 464. iiveral paflages in
his Alcoran cited ut of Apo-
cryphal books, ibid. Reafons
why he did not mention thole
books, 465.
MAHOMETANS charge the Chrift-
ians with having corrupted the
Gofpel of Chrift, 466. efpouled
in it by the late Mr. Toland,
468, n. Four Sayings or Dif-
courfes afcribed to Chrift by their
doctors, 469.
MANGEY, Dr. his charge of difin-
jrenuity and want of fkiil in Mr.
Toland, 168. his conjecture con-
cerning the original of the Gofpel
of Barnabas, 170, n. his opinion
of the Gofpel of the Nazarencs,
a88, n. confutes Mr. Toland's
endeavour toprov? the Nazarerts
the only true Chriftians, 361 .
MANICH/EUS FAUSTUS rejected
the NewTeftamtnt, 8.
MANICHEES difpute the authority
of St. Matthew's Gofpel, 8. pre-
tend to produce an Epiftle of
Chrift's, 120. Aasofthe Apo-
ftles uicd by them not extant,
121. a fpu:ious book, and the
forgery of Leucius Charinus,
126. They efteemed the Apo-
cryphal Aft s. of Andrew above
other Scriptures, and why 151-
Their Acts the fame with thofe
of Leucius Charinus, 262. their
agreement with the Mahometans
and Montaniils, 393.
MARC i ON, what part of the New
Teftament he rejefteu, 8. his
Gofpel not extant, 121. no other
than a copy of St. Luke's altered
and interpolated, 264.. hi too.'.
away the two firft chapters, il'ui.
is ceiiiured by Scrapion, 328.
St. MARK, his Goipel no epitome
of St. Matthew's, as Mr. Whh-
ton would have it, 85, n. was
formerly afcribed to Peter, 126,
n.
MARRIAGE condemned by antient
htivt:ck.s, 209, n.
MATTHEW, books under his name
no: extant, 121. are cenfured for
Apocryphal, 231, 253.
MATTHIAS, a fpurious book
forged under his name by the
Niculaitans, 12. His Gofpel
and traditions Apocryphal, 121,
254. Another book under his
name not extant, 121. His Gof-
pel cenfured by Origen, Eufebius,
Ambroic, Jerome, and Gelafius,
as fpurious and Apocryphal,
254. His traditions and fragments,
255, n. not written, but oral,
25-. other books under his name
njecled and condemned, 261, n.
MERINTHUS, his Gofpel not ex-
tant, 121. the fame with the
Gofpel of Cerinthus, 2 64.
MILL, Dr. affirms that St. Paul
wrote feveral other Epiftlcs than
thofe extant, 137, n. His ac-
count of the Goipel of the Egyp-
tians, 203. A miftake of his
ccncerninc; a book of James, and
the Protevangetton, 230, n. An-
other concerning the age and
pc-ribn of Leucius rectified, 245.
the caufe of it ; and an in itar.ce
of his negligence in citations,
i!>itl. A remark of the author
on his Greek Teftament, ibU.
His miftake in luppcfing Lucia-
nus and Lucanus to be the fame
perlbn, 252. another iafuppofing
tr.e Gofpel of Matthias to be the
fame
INDEX;
fame with the traditions, 255.
His opinion aboxit the original
and interpolations of the tradi-
tions of Matthias, and miitake
concerning Lcucius, &c. 262.
His fcnthnent of the Goipel of
the Nazarenes, 287, n. An error
of his concerning the Acls of
Paul rectified, 315, n. His con-
jecture concerning the different
titles of the Anabaticon and Re-
velation of Paul, 321, n. Opi-
nion that the Judgment of Peter
was the very fame with the Re .
velation, refuted, 339. His len-
timents of The Preaching of Pe-
ter > 357> n - Account of the
Apocryphal Gofpel of the Simo-
nians, 386, n. Obfcrvation on
the Orthodoxographa, 390, n.
His miftake concerning the Afts
of Thomas, 395, n. he is cen-
fured for his various Ie6lions of
the Goipels, 4.06, n. faliely af-
ferts the Fathers of the fiiil cen-
tury to have promtlcuoufly cited
the Apocryphal Goipels and in-
fpired books, 4.10, n. Miftakcs
a citation of Clemens to the fame
purpofe, 414, 4.19.
MILLENNIUM, the doctrine of, its
rife, 424.
MONTANUS and MONTANISTS,
their rile, 391. He is calicd by
hii followers the Paraclete, 393',
n.
MONKS derive their original from
Egypt, 214.
NAZARENES, Goipel of, kraal
errors in it noted, 10. not extant,
iz2. The author's conjecture
concerning St. Paul's reference to
it, 25. The difference between
them and the Jews, 26. leems to
have been a different name of the
Hebrew Gcipel of Sr. Matthew,
126. the moil famous of ail the
antient Goipels, 266. referred to
by St. Paul, 267. Fragments
taereof, moftly collected by Dr.
Grabt, 271. The various fen-
. timenfs ot later writers concern-
ing this Goipel, 283. why Ib
highly efteemed by many writ,
ers, 289. not cited by Papias,
291. no Verlion ot it till Jerome,
292. not cited by Ignatius, 293.
nor referred to, as of authority,
by Juftin Martyr, Hegefippus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen,
Euic'-.ius, or Jerome, 296, n.
This the fame Goipel as that of
the Twelve Apoftlcs, 298. proved
Apocryphal in many inftances,
and for feveral reaibns, 300.
compiled out of St. Matthew's
Greek, 305. why called that of
the Twelve Apoftles, 306. al-
lowed to be an early compofure,
307. but full of fabulous (lories,
ibid, and made by convert Jews,
308. A brief account of the
Nazarenes out of Irenjeus, Eufe-
bius, and Epiphanius, 309, n.
This Gofpel and, the Ebionites
the lame, 310. they were always
Itiled Hereticks by the Catholick
Church, 360. notwithftanding
which, Mr. Toland endeavours
to prove them the only true
Chriftians, 361, n.
NEXOCHARIS, or XENOCHARIS,
a corrupt w:iy of writing Chari-
ntis, the furname of Lcucius,
250.
NICOLAITAXS, their wicked de-
iign in forging a book under the
name of Matthias, 12.
NOKN-US makes no mention of the
adulterous woman in St. John,
in, n.
NYE, Mr. his fentiments of the
Gofpel of the Nnzarenes, 2,86, n.
OP.ICEN', Apocryphal books men-
tioned by him, 31. his catalogue
. of Canonical books, 60. makes
no mention of th.' adulterous wo-
man in his Paraphraie on St.
John, in. His reaion for read-
ing Apocryphal bcoks, 129, n.
he mentions the Goipel or the
Egyptians, 200, n. His opinion
of the Helkefaites, 225. was not
the author ot the Commentaries
on Job, 253. ranks the Gofpel
of Matthias among other fpuri-
I i 2 QUS
INDEX.
ous pieces, 254, n. Hisaccount
of the Nazarene or Hebrew Goi-
pel, 268. rejects it as Ap_cry-
phal, 298. mentions the Acts of
Paul, 314., n. cites the Gofpelof
Peter, 319, n. His account of
Her>cleon, 344. His fragments
of The Preachirig of Peter, 351.
He mentions the Goipd ot Tho-
mas as heretical, 397, n.
ORIGENJANS ehVemed the fpurious
Acts of Andrew above the Scrip-
tures, and why, 151.
ORTHODOXOGRAPHA.Vide HAR-
MONY.
PA ME 1.1 us, feveral antient writers
cited by him concerning the
Chriftian meetings, 67. His re-
mark on the Anabaticon and Re-
velation of Paul, 323, n.
PAPIAS, a citation from him, prov-
ing there were feveral fpurious
writings in his time under the
name of the Apoftles, 27. An in-
ftanceof his too great fondnefs of
traditions, 2.58. A character of
him, 290, 420. His hiftoryof a
woman acculed before our Saviour
of many crimes, 410. Two dif-
courics afcribed by him to Chrifl,
422. He gave rife to the doctrine
of the Millennium, ibid, which he
ieems to have borrowed from the
Jews, 424.
PA RE us was of opinion, that St.
Paul wrote an Epiftle to the Co-
rinthians, before either of thofe
now extant, 137, n.
PARKER, Dr. confutes the Jews,
in the charge they urge againlt
our Saviour, for ufmg magical
arts, 194.
PAUL, leveral errors obferved in
the Goipel of his Preaching, 1 1 .
Paul and Thecla, their Acts> his
Acts, his and Peter's Preaching,
a book under his name, and his
Revelation, net extant, 122. The
laft and the Anabaticon, one
book, 126. A third Epiitle of
his, extant in an Armeni
to the Corinthians, 145. One
from them to him, 144. plain-
ly fpurious, 146. The Acts
of Paul and Thecla . mentioned
by Tertullian. Jerome, and Gt-
lafius, as Apocryphal, 311, n.
Thecla' s AcYs pu'blimed by Dr.
Grabe, from a MS. in the 'Bod-
leian Library, 317, n. The au-
thor, with Dr. Grabe,
that this book is extant, ibid.
The A6ts of Paul mentioned by
Origen, Euiebius, and Philai-
trius, 314, n. not the fame book
with the A as of Paul ami
Thecla, ibid, is Apcciyphal,
316. The Preaching of him and
of Peter one book, ibid. An-
other book forged by one Lu-
cian, under the name of Paul the
Martyr, ibid. n. Paul's Reve-
lation cited by Epiphanius, Aui-
tin, and Gelahus, 317. The au-
thor fuppofes this and the Ana-
baticon to be one book, 318.
proves that it is Ib, ar.d Apo-
cryphal, 322. This book feems
to be referred to as fuch, in a
paflage of Tertullhn, ibid. n.
The Revelation of his now ex-
tant in Merton College, Oxon, a
forgery, 324.
PEARSON, Biftiop, attempts to
prove that the Decree of Gehfius,
concerning Apocryphal books, is
fpurious, 156, n. corrects an er-
ror in Moniieur Daille concern-
ing the time of the fuppoied Dio-
nyiius the Areopagitc, 171, n.
PERFECTION, the Goipel of, not
extant, 122. proved to be a fpu-
rious and Apocryphal book, the
forgery of the Gnofticks, 380, n.
A conjecture concerning the de-
llgn of it, ibid.
PETER, his Aas, DocVine, Gof-
pd, Judgment, Preaching, Re-
velation, and books under his
name, not extant, 122. HisGof-
\,.-\ proved to be fpurious by
Euiebius, Athanafius, &c. 241,
n. His and Paul's Preaching
one book, 126, 316, 339. His
A6ts, or Travels, written by
Clemens, one book, and cenfuied
for Apocryphal by the antients,
His doctrine, 3*7. Gofpei
cited by Serapion, Tertuilian,
Qligen,
INDEX.
Origen, &c. Hid. Why Mark's
Golpel was formerly called his,
331. it was not compoicd by
Leucius, but forged by the Do-
cetae, 332. and likely the fame
as the Golpel of Bafiiides, ibid.
His book of Judgment account-
ed by Jerome Apocryphal, 335,
n. by Ruffin not Canonical, but
Ecclefiaftical, ibid. n. His Preach-
ing very antitnt, and cited by
the Fathers, &c. 34.0. The E-
piftle of Peter to James feems to
be the forgeiy of ibrr.e Ebionite,
Hid. produced at length in Greek
and Engliih, 34-1. Several frag-
ments of his Preaching, 344.
The concurrent opinions of late
writers, to elevate the authority
of it, 355. refuted, and the piece
proved Apocryphal, 357. His
Revelation cited by Clemens A-
lexand rinu s, Theodoiiu s , &c . 3 7 o .
rejected by Eufehius as Ipurious,
3~5. and by the antients, as So-
zomen telis us, 378. fuppoied by
Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill to be a
prophecy concerning the Jews
and the ftate of the church till
Antichrift, Hid. Other forgeries
by Leucius under the name of
Peter, 379.
PHILASTRIUS, Apocryphal books
mentioned by him, 34.0. his Ca-
talogue of Canonical books, 61.
Cenlure of the Apocryphal Acls
of Andrew, 148. His charge
againft the Manichees, &c. for
receiving the Apocryphal, and
rejecting the Canonical books of
the Apoftles, 242. He pro-
nounces the A6ts of Paul Apo-
cryphal, 314, n.
PHILIP, his A6ls and Gofpel not
extant in the writers of the firft
century, 381. pretended to be in
the Vatican, ibid. n. His Goi-
pel a forgery of the Gnofticks,
and a fragment of it produced
by Epiphanius, 382, n. its a-
bominable doftrines, 383, n.
proved to be Apocryphal, ibid.
PHOTIUS, patriarch of Conftanti-
nople, his juft oWervation on the
forgeries of Leucius, 2.32, n.
240. a further account of them
by him, 247. His account of
the Kv,-,otvpofes under Ckmens's
PLACJEUS, an abfurdity of his
concerning books Canonical and
Apocryphal, 56.
PRIDE AUX, Dean, obfcrves it was
the cultom of Mahomet, to flat-
ter the Chriftians on all ccca-
fions,466.
PTOLKMAIS, its antient names
anicng the Ifraelites, 103.
REVELATION, book of, \vhv o-
mitted in the publick calendar
for reading the Scriptures, 59.
RICHARDSON, Mr. his fer.timents
concerning the Nazarene Gofpel,
287, n.
RUFFIN, Apocryphal book men-
tioned by him, 36. his Cata-
logue of Canonical books, 62.
his account of the Judgment of
Peter, 335, n.
SATAXAS, its derivation, 101.
SCYTHIANUS, the Gofpel of, not
extant, 123. mentioned by Cyril
and Epiphanius, 384. He was
founder of the Manichean fet,
Hid.
SELEUCUS, his Ails of the A-
pt-ftles not extant, 123. He is
the fame with Leucius, 239, n.
246. 386.
SELEUCIANI (called alfo Hermi-
ani) their tenets, &c. 246.
SERAPION, Apocryphal books
mentioned by liim, 30. His ac-
count of the Gofpel 'of Peter,
327, n.
SZRGIUS, a Neftorian, the princi-
pal affitont of Mahomet, in his
Alcoran, 46 3 .
SEVER us, what part of the New
Teftament he rejefted, 8.
SIBYLS, an account of them, and
their forged prophecies, 36?..
SIMON, Father, his defence of the
antiquity of the Syriack Verfion,
117, n. his fentiments of the
Gofpel of the Egyptians, 202,
n.
1 N D E
n. He condemns the Gofpel of
Eve for Apocryphal, 224., n.
His high opinion of the Naza-
rene, or Hebrew Gofpel, 284, n.
wrongfully charges Euiebius with
felf-contradiftion, 377.
SIM o MANS, fo called from Simon
Magus, their Gofpel, 386.
SIXTUS SENENSIS, his fendments
concerning the Gofpel ot the
Egyptians', 2oi,n. his miftake
concerning the traditions of
Matthias, 259, n. Opinion con-
cerning the Nazarene or Hebrew
Gofpel, 284., n. his favourable
opinion of The Preaching of Pe-
ter, 355-
SO/OMEN, his fabulous account
of the Revelation of Paul, 321.
lays, Peter's Revelation was read
yearly In fome Churches of Pa-
leftine, 378, n. but was reje&ed
by the antients, as fpurious,
ibiJ.
SPANHEIM, Mr. an obfervation of
his concerning Clemens Alexan-
drinus and Origen, 5. an error
of his concerning the Anaba-
ticou and Revelation of Paul,
319, n.
STEPHEN, the Revelation of, not
extant, 123. declared Apocry-
phal byGeblius, 386.
STYLES of authors various, with
a dilTVrtation upon them, 77.
STRIACK. Verfion, 85. an historical
account of if, 86. when fail
known among the Europeans,
87. The judgments of learned
nu-n about.it, SS. An attempt
to prove this Vcriion was made
in the Apoitles* times, 89. This
language is fcmetimes called
Chaldee, fometimes Syriack,
fometimes Syio-Chaldaick ; but
moft commonly by the writers ot
the New Teitament, and fir it
Chi illians, Hebrew, 91 . It was
the language ot Syria and NL--
Ibpotamia, and of Jerusalem and
Galiiee in our Saviour's time,
91. Syriack and Chaldee are by ^
the prophet Daniel lynonymous
languag-s, 95. This Vurfton has
not the hiltory of the adulterous
woman mentioned in St. John,
iu,n. nor the famous contro-
verted text, i John v. 7. ibid.
nor has the old Verfion the four
catholick Epiftles, nor the Reve-
lation, ii2. This Verlkm was
thought by Tremellius and Bp.
Walton to* be made in the A-
pottles 1 time, ibid. n. The anti-
quity of it confirms tru- purity
of the printed copies of .':.
Tefbment, 117. is of great ule
in explaining many pafiages,
ii 8. The controverted text, i
Cor. v. 9. paraphrafed by the
old Syriack translator, 14.1.
SYRIANS were the rirft idolaters
mentioned in Scripture, 108, n.
among the Jews, that appella-
tion denoted prophane perfons,
ibid.
T ATI AN, the Gofpel of, not ex-
tant, 123. mentioned by Euie-
bius and Epiphanius, 387, n.
was a Harmony of the four Gol-
pels, 388. fcems to be taken
trom die Hebrew Gofpel, 389.
An account of him and his prin-
ciples, i!:J.
TEREBINTHUS, afterwards called
Manes (the father of the Mani-
chees) Itiled himiclf the Para-
clete, 393.
TERTULLIAN, Apocryphal books
mentioned by him, 31. his ac-
count of the Chriitian meetings,
67, n. Interpretation of i Tim.
ir. 3. p. 200. Account ot Mar-
cion's Gofpel, 263, n. He- cites
the Aas of Paul and Theclrs
3 1 2, n. fays the Goipcl of Mai k
is affirmed by ibme, to be that oi'
Peter, 329, n.
Til AD DA: us, the Gofpel '
extant, 123. declared Apocry-
phal by Gelafms, 390, n.
THECLA, martyrdom of, how,
and by whom firlt publilhed, 3 1 .
Vide PAUL.
THEMISON, his Catholick Epiftk
not extant, 123. mentioiK-d l>y
ApoHonius, 391. he was a Mon-
tanitt, i'-iiJ.
THEODOTUS BVZANTIUS, A-
pocry^hal
INDEX.
pocryphal books mentioned by
him, 31. his fragment of The
Preaching of Peter, 351. a par-
ticuhr account of him and his
Herefies, 358. He cites the Re-
velation of Peter, 371, n.
THEOPHYLACT, makes no men-
tion of the adulterous woman in
John viii. p. 1 1 1 , n.
THEKAPEUT/E, an account of
them from Mr. Whifton, 203.
THOMAS, the A&s, Sec. under his
nrrme not extant, 123. mentioned
bv F ilphankis, Athanaiius, and
is, 395, n. not the fame
with fhofe of Leucius Charinus,
396. A MS. of it laid by Fa-
ther Simon to be in the French
King's library, and another by
Dr. Grabe, in our Bcdleian,
ibid. His Gofpel mentioned by
Origen, Eufebius, Cyril, Am-
brofe. Athanafius, Jerome and
V,s, 397, n. there were two
Goipels under his name, 399.
His Revelation only mentioned,
and declared Apocryphal by Ge-
IpJius, ibid. Other books under
his name condemned by Innocent
I. ibid.
To BIT, Book of, guilty of a direil
fallity, 10.
TOLAND, Mr. his pretended Ca-
talogue of Canonical books not
complete, 4. his faife opinion,
concerning the depofitory of the
books of the prefent Canon till
Adrian's time, 43, n. He en-
deavours to confirm a conjecture
of Dr. Grabe, concerning a frag-
ment of Barnabas's Gofpel, 162.
His account of an Italian MS.
he had feen of it, ibid. A noto-
rious falfe inference of his de-
tefted by Dr. Mangey, 167, n.
A malicious miitake of his, con-
cerning the books reported to be
written by our Saviour, 186.
An inltance of his inaccuracy in
quotations, 194, n. His difin-
genuity in citing, as genuine, a
forgery of the Ebionites, 219, n.
Folly in placing among Ca-
nonical books the Gofpel of Eve,
224, n. as allb that of Judas
Jicariot, 234, n. A miftakc of
his in efteeming the Traditions
of Matthias as a written book,
259, n. his fentimtnts of the
Hebrew or Nazarene Gofpsl,
286. his extravagant pofitive-
nefs, and unpardonable miftakes,
Z34, n. Another concerning He-
gefippus, 296, n. Another rery
notorious in relation to Origen,
298, n. his unpardonable falfe -
hood in aflerting, that the Fa-
thers appealed to the Nazarene, as
a true Gofpel, 300. The Au-
thor's juft rebuke, and admo-
nition to him, ibid. An inltance
of a notorious impoftnre of his,
301, n. his falfe citations of St.
Auflin and Epiphanius detected,
313, n. An ignorant blunder of
his concerning the Anabuticon.
and Revelation of Paul, 319, n.
His endeavour to prove that the
Nazarenes were the only true
Chriftians, 361. anfwered by
Dr. Mangey, ibid, his fond o-
pinion of The Preaching of Pe-
ter, 357, n. He efteems Peter's
Revelation as valuable as ilveral
books of the present Canon, ibid.
n. He injurioufly charges Euie-
bius with a iniilake, 377. refers
to a citation out of Sozomen, to
prove Peter's Revelation not fpu-
rious, 378, n. fuppofes that Re-
velation to be a prophecy con-
cerning the Jews, and the ftate
of the Chriftian Church, ibid.
n. His ignorance and malice in
his diftinction, between Paraclete
and Periclyte, detected, 393. He
fupports the charge of the Ma-
hometans againft the Chriftians,
of having corrupted the Gofpel
ofChrift, 468.
TRADITION, certainly the beft
method to prove the truth of the
facred books, 54. An objection
to it anfwered, 57.
T RE. MEL LI us thought the Sy-
riack Verfion to be made in the
Apoftles' times, 112, n.
TRUTH, the Gofpel of, not ex-
tant, 123. condemned by Ire-
naeus, 400, n. a forgery of the
Vulentinians, 401.
VALES.
INDEX.
U
VALEKTINUS, Gofpel of, not ex-
tant, 123. different from the
Gofpel of Truth, 404.
VALESIUS, wrongfully charges
Eufebius with lelf-contradiction,
377, n. his opinion of the Har-
mony of the Orthodoxographa,
390.
Vossius, a miftake of his concern-
ing the language fpoken in Je-
rufalem, in our Saviour's time,
rectified, 94.
USHER, Bp. proves Ignatius's
Epiftle to be corrupted and in-
terpolated, 295, n. His fenti-
raents of a Saying of Chrift in
the Epiftle of Barnabas, 410.
W
WALTON, Bp. thought the Sy-
riack tranflation of the New Tef-
tament to be made in the Apo-
ftles' time, 112.
WISDOM of SOLOMON, book of,
a grofs error in it, i o .
WHISTON, Mr. a citation from
him, concerning the Conftitu-
tions of the Apoftles, 6. his er-
ror concerning St. Mark's Gof-
pel, 85, n. his fentlments of the
Gofpel of the Egyptians, and
account of the TherapL-utse men-
tioned by Phiio, 203, n. He
wrongfully (uppofes the Egyp-
tian Gofpel, and Traditions of
Matthias, to be ui'ed among
them, ibid. n. would have The
Preaching of Peter Canonical,
357, n. recommends Peter's Re-
velation as a facred book, 373.
His miftake concerning a Saying
of Chrift, cited by muft of the
Fathers, 441 .
WHITBY, Dr. his examen of Dr.
Mill's various Lections, &c.
1 1 6, n. 406. his interpretation
of i Cor. v. 9. rectified, 141.
his remark on i Tim. iv. 3.
p. 213, n. Opinion of the He-
brew or Nazarene Gofpel, 288,
n. His miftake concerning the
woman of Samaria, 42 1 .
WILKINS, Mr. an overlight of his,
in the dedication of his tranf-
lation of the third Epiftle of
Paul to the Corinthians, and
Paul's Epiftle to them, 146.
XEXOCHARIS, a corrupt way of
writing Charinus, 250.
END OF VOL. I.
ERRATA IN VOL. I.
P. 19. I. lo. for afrenoardt read after-wards
31. I. 8. for Hypotopof. read Hypetypof.
89. 1. I . for Cbrifians read Cbrtftlans
92. 1. i. for Cbrijirian read Cbrtftlan
94. I. 7. for Nonnlus read Nonnus
142. 1. 7. dele having
1 6 1. 1. 7. for anoyv&v read avtyyvtZv
199. 1. i. for E?y* JE read Ipyo. JE,
203. 1. a. for fW o/read c;W oar of
az6. 1. 14. for iati($mi'M read
148. 1. 18. for yivy<v read ytvEo
455. 1. 25. for ojofa.'xjff&a.i read
299. 1. 9. for M// read M//J
349. 1. 24.. for TM read T:V
418. I. 16. for bewas read be mat
44*. I. 7. for <W read and
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
NON-RENEWABLE
&r
JUL I
D0 2 WKS FKWDATE
FEB 04 2QQ9
UCLA IT
DUE 2 WKS FROM DATE RECEIVED
REC'DYRL FEB.JUW
M UK) 1
^ ,-
Foi
A 000 005 930 3
Ui