ページの画像
PDF
ePub

fo

Nazarenes were different fects, but that they had different Gofpels. He blames Epiphanius for calling the things added in this Gospel, Adulterations. That they are preferved by Eufebius, Jerome, Auftin, Photius (which by the way is so very falfe, that neither Auftin nor Photius have once mentioned this Gospel, nor Eufebius preferved one fragment): That it were highly to be valued, if extant. He adds a conjecture concerning the difference between St. Matthew's and the Ebionites copies, more ingenious than well-grounded, viz. That St. Matthew published two editions of his Gospel. In the first he began at the baptism of John, which is now chap. 3. In the fecond he began, as our present copies, with the genealogy. The Ebionites made their copies from the first edition, and thence proceeded the difference.

11. Mr. Richardfona. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was (as we may learn from Epiphanius and Jerome) the Gofpel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, but with feveral interpolations and additions of their own, though without making any alterations in what they found in the authentick copies before.-The Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of Matthew in feveral more particulars than the Nazarenes, who only added fome historical paffages from tradition, several of which might be true, and if not pretending to be wrote by St. Matthew, ought not to be called Spurious, or a forgery.

12. Dr. Mill b has borrowed his fentiments of this Gospel from Dr. Grabe, viz. that it was not at all the fame with the true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, but made before it by Jome Jewish Chriftians at Jerufalem. Only there feems this difference, that as Dr. Grabe imagines it to have been abused by the Nazarenes afterwards, Dr. Mill fuppofes not only this, but feveral erroneous and heterodox things to have been in it at its first writing.

a Canon vindicated, pag. 69, &c.

Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. §. 42. 13. Dr.

13. Dr. Whitby, attempting to prove that St. Matthew's Gospel was originally wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew, concludes concerning this Gospel of the Hebrews, That it was not the true authentick Gospel of St. Matthew; that it was not a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel free from interpolations and additions, but St. Matthew's Gospel tranflated out of Greek into Hebrew, with the fame liberty as the Chaldee paraphrafes of the Old Teftament, viz. with the addition of several things from· tradition; which Verfion the primitive Chriftians, who were ignorant of that language, finding in their hands, they from the likeness of the thing, and the pretensions of the Jews, might think it an original, written for their use.

14. Mr. Fabritiusb cenfures Mr. Toland, for his having too highly extolled this Apocryphal Gospel, as well as for the whole defign of his Nazarenus; and a little after adds '; By all the fragments of this Gospel 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. Whitby, as above.

16. Dr. Mangey, speaking of the Nazarenes, obferves, that they used not the Gospel of St. Matthew, but a particular Gospel of their own: and in another place afterwards, They pretended, in order to gain better terms from the other believers, to use an Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew (which, by the way, probably caused the erroneous opinion of that Gospel being originally wrote in Hebrew): but this was a falfe pretence; for the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which they followed, was very different from ours of St. Matthew, as appears not only by the remaining fragments of it, but from the teftimony of Jerome, who affirms that he tranflated it both into Greek and

[blocks in formation]

d Differt. III. annexed to his Harm. of the Gospel.

• Remarks on Nazarenus, chap. vi. p. 35.

Ibid. chap. viii. p. 58, 59.

Latin.They fubmitted not to the received writings of the Apoftles, 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 published by later writers, concerning the Gofpel of the Hebrews.

CHA P. XXVII.

The Gospel of the Nazarenes highly esteemed by many Writers, because they imagined it was cited by the primitive Chriftians in their Writings. This proved to be a Miftake. No Chrif tian Writer of the first 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 supposed that Papias cited it. A Character of Papias. No Verfion made of the Nazarene Gospel before that of Jerome. Another Miftake of Jerome and other learned Men, in fuppofing that Ignatius ufed this Gospel.

HAVING given fo large an account in the preceding

Chapter of the fentiments of learned men concerning the Gospel of the Nazarenes, I proceed here to confider the real value and authority of it. I defign not to enter into any large criticism upon these various opinions, nor yet to interpofe my own; my bufinefs being not fo much to do this, as to set forth its true authority. I proceed therefore in the method which I propofed; viz. to fhew,

III. That the Gospel of the Nazarenes was never received by any primitive Writer as Canonical, neither cited nor appealed to, as of any authority, by any one writer of the first four

centuries.

I am very fenfible, that I here am about to oppofe the fentiments of many learned men, who have unwarily been betrayed into an extravagant opinion of this Gospel, by a VOL. I. groundless

U

groundless prefumption, that the Fathers have cited it, without a due enquiry into the matter. Thus the learned Sixtus Senenfis fays, it was received by the most antient Fathers among other facred Scriptures, for the edification of the Church. See above, Chap. XXVI. Numb. II. Baronius and Simon judge it for the fame reafon preferable to our present Greek copies of St. Matthew. The most antient Ecclefiaftical writers (says Simon a) have cited it as the true Gospel of St. Matthew. Dr. Grabe was for the same reason induced to his high opinion of it, viz. because he thought it was cited by Papias, Hegefippus, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and others, even for the confirmation of the great articles of Religion b. But no one has been fo extravagantly pofitive, and unpardonably mistaken in this matter as Mr. Toland, who tells us, It was read in the Chriftian Churches for three hundred years, not rejected by Origen and Eufebius, but alledged as a true Gospel 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 fhewing, that not one of thefe Fathers received it with any authority, but almost every one expressly rejected it as Apocryphal.

The first is Papias, who is generally esteemed by all those who have wrote on thefe fubjects to have made ufe of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus thought the learned Archbishop Usher'; thus Dr. Grabe, Fabritius', Bishop Pearfon, and others. Father Simon and Toland are more egregiously mistaken ; the former afferts, That Papias, who lived with the difciples of the Apostles, faith, that the history of the woman accused of many fins before our Saviour is to be read in the Gospel that was called according to the Hebrews; the latter, that Papias alledges it as a true Gofpel. But in this these writers are

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

all plainly mistaken; 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 such a history as expounded by Papias, but then adds in his own words, It is contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews; and does not so much as intimate that Papias took it thence. Nothing therefore feems more probable, than that this history was related by Papias, not out of any book, but as what he had received by tradition. To confirm which I obferve,

1. That he is called by Irenæus b, a difciple of St. John, a friend of Polycarp, and an antient author, and consequently might be very likely to receive many true accounts and histories of our Saviour, which are not in our prefent Gospels, fuch as his master St. John fpeaks of, chap. xxi. 25.

2. Papias himself declares, that he received his accounts of Chriftianity from thofe τῶν ἐκείνοις γνωρίμων, who were intimately acquainted with the Apostles, and that these accounts, which he thus received from the older Chriftians, and had committed to memory, he would infert in his books.

3. Add to this what he farther fays, that he was very folicitous to be informed of every thing he could by tradition, and Spared no pains to know what the Apostles had faid 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 accused before Christ, only as a fact that he had heard, or received by tradition. I might add here, that Papias cannot be supposed to have made use of this Hebrew Gospel, because he did not understand the language in which it was written, as it seems not unreasonable to conclude from his being Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, where every one knows the Hebrew could not be understood.

It may indeed be objected, that Papias made use of a Greek Verfion, and fo could make his citation thence; and accordingly

a Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39. in fine. Adv. Hæref. 1. 5. c. 23. Præfat. in Opp. apud Eufeb.

U 2

Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39. In init. d Ibid.

I obferve,

« 前へ次へ »