of the fubject influencing many to that undertaking: but as these others collected the common rumours, it is not strange they should mix true and falfe things together, among whom I reckon the most antient writer of the Gospel according to the Egyptians for as to the other Gospels which were spread abroad, they are the impious forgeries of much later days.

Mr. Du Pin a.

The antients make mention of two Gospels, which were not of the fame authority with the four Canonical Gospels, but which cannot be rejected, as records invented by the hereticks to authorise their errors, viz. the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel 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 Gospel that is called, according to the Egyptians; which yet is not on this score alone to be reckoned authentick, viz. because it is thought to be most 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.

What this learned writer faith concerning this Gofpel is too long to be here tranfcribed; it may be fufficient to exprefs the fubftance of his opinion in the following particulars. He supposes,

1. It had its title from its first authors, whom the myftical ftyle of the book, fo much in request among the Egyptians, evidences to have been fome Chriftians in Egypt.

2. That this, as well as the Gospel of the Hebrews, was published before Luke's Gospel, and was referred to by him in his Preface, as being wrote before either of the four Canonical Gofpels.

a Hift. of the Canon of the New Teft. Vol. 2. c. 6. §. 3.

Critic. Hift. of the New Test.

part 1. c. 3. p. 28.

C

Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 31 to p. 34. 3. That

3. That Clemens Alexandrinus did not reject it, but endeavoured rather to explain it, and make the paffages cited of it to - appear capable of a good meaning, which he would never have done, if he esteemed it the composure 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. These were compofed before either of our present Canonical Gofpels, not with any ill defign, but the very fame as our Gofpels now received. Among these the most celebrated were, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel according to the Egyptians; see his Prolegom. in N. T. §. 35 to 38. It is probable the authors of it were Effenes, who received the Christian faith from the preaching of Mark at Alexandria. Nor does it seem to have been made' ufe of by them publickly, after the publishing of our four Canonical Gofpels. See §. 50.

Mr. Le Clerc a.

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 Gospels, it feems much better to believe, that thofe holy and inspired men were fufficiently apprifed of the danger of leaving fuch important matters only to the memories of men, before any such fpurious Gospels were published.

Mr. Whifton b.

The Therapeutæ mentioned by Philo feem to have been thofe firft Chriftians Afceticks, which were converted from the Jews, chiefly in Egypt, foon after our Saviour's paffion, before the coming of Mark thither, and to have both imperfectly understood and practifed the Chriftian religion. Eufe

a Hift. Eccl. Secul. I. Ann. LXV. §. 11. p. 435.

Effay on the Conftitut. c. 1.

P. 37.

bius, Epiphanius and Jerome, plainly take them for Chrif tians, and their facred antient mystical books are by Eufebius supposed to be the Gospels and Epiftles of the New Teftament2. The modern criticks are entirely puzzled about these Therapeutæ, and yet are not willing commonly to believe them Christians. And indeed Eufebius's opinion, that their antient allegorical books were our Gospels and Epiftles, is liable to great exceptions, fince they are not allegorical in their nature, nor were they published any confiderable time before Philo's own writings; so that upon the whole, I believe, it is more reasonable to fay, thefe Therapeuta were those first Chriftians Afceticks, who had gotten very imperfect accounts of Christianity, and were guided by the Gospel according to the Egyptians, which, we know by the fragments remaining, was a Gospel fufficiently myftical and allegorical, according to the genius of that nation.

These are the fentiments of the criticks in later ages concerning this Gospel. I have now only left to make some reflections upon the whole. Accordingly I observe:

OBSERV. I. That the Gospel of the Egyptians was certainly an Apocryphal book. This appears, 1. by Prop. IV. it 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 Christianity, but rejected as Apocryphal by Clemens Alexandrinus, 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 easily collected from the paffages of Clemens above cited, as I fhall undeniably fhew prefently; 3. by Prop. VI. it not appearing even to have been read in the Chriftian affemblies; 4. by Prop. VIII. as it contained things contrary to known truths. Of this fort I believe every one will readily allow the doctrine of the unlawfulness of all marriages, which, it is certain from the paffages of Clemens, this Gospel afferted. Of this fort must needs be our Saviour's declaring, he came into the world to put an end to all

• Hift. Exclf. lib. 2. c. 17. p. 53, &c.

marriage,

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 paffage itself, was declared as spoken by Chrift in this Gospel. Laftly, of this fort Epiphanius reckoned the Sabellian heresy, which was evidently contained therein; but from hence I conclude nothing, it being at this day defended by fome: but a most undoubted inftance of falsehood is, that Salome in this Gospel is introduced, as applauding herself 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 Apoftles; for fhe, who is by Matthew called the mother of Zebedee's children, chap. xxvii. 56. is by Mark, chap. xv. 40. exprefsly called Salome: that these children were John and James, appears from Matt. iv. 21. x. 2. and many other places. 5. It was evidently Apocryphal by Prop. XI. seeing it relates thofe things as spoken by Christ, which are directly oppofite to his known ftyle and manner of speaking; for whereas that was perfectly clear, eafy and familiar, the fayings here attributed to him are each of them myftical, involved and perplexed, and more like the foolish ambiguous answers of the Delphick oracles, than the rational and plain difcourfes of Jefus Chrift. To inftance only in one, when Salome asked him, When the things, which fhe enquired about, should come to pass? He is made to answer, When you shall tread under foot (or despise) the covering of your nakedness, and when two fhall become one, and the male with the female neither male nor female.

It seems therefore very unaccountable, that the authors above mentioned, viz. Grotius, Du Pin, Father Simon, and Dr. Grabe, fhould have thought so highly of this Gospel, 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 also evidence it to have been the composure of some monftrous and filly hereticks, as Origen and Jerome exprefsly fay, and consequently to be rejected as an impious and ridiculous forgery.

OBSERV.

OBSERV. 11. Clemens Alexandrinus never faw the Gospel of the Egyptians, never made one citation out of it, but, on the contrary, rejected it as an impious, heretical, and Apocryphal book.

This obfervation is of very confiderable importance in this matter, because the want of it induced the learned criticks just named into their erroneous and too high opinion of this Gospel. They imagined, it was appealed to, and made use of, by Clemens Romanus and Clemens Alexandrinus in their writings, and therefore concluded, it ought not to be meanly thought of. It is cited by St. Clemens of Alexandria (faith Du Pin a), Clemens Romanus (faith Dr. Grabe "), or whoever was the author of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, undoubtedly most antient, made use of it. And again, Clemens Alexandrinus doth not reject it, but so far approve of it, as to endeavour to explain its myftical and obfcure paffages. But as I fhall hereafter prove abundantly, that Clemens of Rome never made any appeal to this Apocryphal Gospel, (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 rejected it. I shall endeavour to prove the truth of each separately.

1. Clemens Alexandrinus never faw the Gospel according to the Egyptians. This I gather from what himself says in the second testimony, viz. p. 452. above produced; égerai di, oipar, ἐν τῷ κατ ̓ Αἰγυπτίας Εὐαγ[ελίῳ, φασὶ γὰρ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν Σωτὴρ, &c. Thefe things (viz. the discourses between Chrift and Salome) are, AS I SUPPOSE, to be found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians; for, they say, that our Saviour faid, &c. From whence it is plain, that he was uncertain in what Gospel these discourses were, else he would not have faid, I fuppofe they are therein. Had he read the Gofpel, or ever seen it, he could not have been in this doubting uncertainty. Besides, from the next words it is evident, he only cites by tradition from others, they fay, that our Saviour faid these things; which implies his own dubiousness and ignorance in the matter.

Hiftor. of the Canon of the N.

Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 34.

Telt. vol. 2. c. 6. §. 3.

2. Clemens