ページの画像
PDF
ePub

fore Eufebius's words do not imply that Hegefippus cited it. But fuppofe they did, and he really did cite it, it does not appear after what manner he cited it; and I may as well suppose he cited it to confute it, as they do that he cited it for authority, just as Eufebius tells us in the next words, that he mentioned fome of the traditions of the Jews. But if it should not be thus, I would fay Hegefippus was a Nazarene (as Mr. Toland would have him to be), because he was originally a Jewa; and I cannot fee any authority or credit will be procured to this Nazarene Gospel, because a Nazarene made use of it.

Clemens Alexandrinus is another, from whofe citation of this Gospel the abovementioned 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 scheme, than the former inftances; for,

[ocr errors]

1. He has mentioned it only once in all his works; viz. lib. 2. p. 380. Mr. Toland refers indeed to a place in the first book; but I dare aver it is not there mentioned: but I easily see how Mr. Toland made this mistake; he followed the false print of Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium, p. 26. But this is no uncommon thing with him to follow the mistakes of the prefs. I more wonder Mr. Fabritius should be guilty of the fame in this very inftance. But to return; if Clemens cited this Gospel but once, it is plain he had no high opinion of it, or not fo high as of our present Gospels, which he appeals to in almost every page. But to put an end to the difpute,

2. Clemens in fo many words denies the authority, and abfolutely rejects all Gafpels befides thofe 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, preferved by Eufebius, if these last be his.

3. I might here add, that Clemens did not understand the Hebrew language, in which the Nazarene Gospel was written;

2 See Eufeb. loc. cit.

с

b See above, chap. xxv. No. 3. Amyntor. p. 35. He has committed the very fame blunder,

as to this paffage, in his Nazaren. P. 78.

Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 14.

and

and fo could not cite it; nor could he ufe a Verfion, there being none at that time made, as has been proved.

After Clemens they reckon Origen his scholar, as having cited this Gospel with regard to its authority. So Dr. Grabe would perfuade usa, that he took testimonies out of it to prove the articles of our faith; and Mr. Toland b, that he alledged it as a true Gospel. But in this they are more notoriously mistaken than in the former inftances: For,

1. The Gospel of the Nazarenes was certainly the fame with that according to the Twelve Apostles. This Dr. Grabe and Mr. Toland both affert; but the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles is expressly rejected by Origen, as Apocryphal, 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 Gospel.

2. There are several places in the works of Origen, wherein he afferts, there ought only four Gofpels to be received in the Church, viz. those which we now receive. See the places cited in the notes at the bottom of the

page

3. In both the places where he produces paffages out of this Gospel, 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 written in a certain Gospel, intitled, according to the Hebrews, if any one be pleafed to receive it, not as of any authority, but only for illuflration of the prefent question, &c. See the place at large above, Chap. XXV. Numb. IV, V. From all this it is evident, Origen did not esteem this Nazarene Gospel 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

a Lib. cit. p. 24.

b Nazaren. c. 20. p. 80.

с Comment. in Matth. lib. 1.

apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 25.

& in Philocal. c. 5. p. 29.

Gospel :

Gofpel: He very often makes use of it, says Mr. Toland a, as on the contrary I affirm, he never once has made use 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 ; but the Epiftles of James, Jude, and other Apoftles: On the contrary I affirm, he expressly distinguishes these from it, placing them among the Scriptures which he calls artinyqueras, i. e. doubted of by fome; but this among those which he call deç, i. e. fpurious, and to be utterly rejected. I confess, he a little after places them all under the general title οἱ ἀντιλεγόμεναι ; but the word muft there be taken in a more extensive fignification than in the former place, elfe Eufebius will not be confiftent with himself.

But if all the reft fail, Jerome must make it out. He frequently, fay they, appeals to this Gospel, and not only fo, but tranflated it into Greek and Latin: notwithstanding all which, a little observation will inform us, Jerome had no higher opinion of it than the forementioned writers. For,

1. He expressly faith, It was the fame with the Gospel, intitled, according to the Twelve Apostles, above, Chap. XXV. Numb. XV. but this be expressly rejects as Apocryphal, in another place, (viz. above, Chap. VII. Numb. V.) and as a book of the hereticks, wrote by men deftitute of the spirit and grace of God, without a due regard to truth. See the paffage at large above, Chap. VII. Numb. IV.

2. The fame appears from the manner of his citing it in feveral of the places above, Chap. XXV. For instance, in that there produced, Numb. XVIII. he introduces his citation thus, He who will believe the Gospel according to the Hebrews, &c. And after the citation of it in another place, as also a paffage of Ignatius, he subjoins, Quibus teftimoniis fi non uteris ad auctoritatem, utere faltem ad antiquitatem, &c. "Which tes"timonies though you are not to receive as of any authority, yet may be regarded for their antiquity, &c. d

[ocr errors]

a Loc. jam cit.

Lib. jam cit. p. 16.

c Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25.

d Lib. 3. adv. Pelag. in prin

cip.

From

From all this it is evident, how unjustly it has hitherto been afferted, that thefe Fathers cited or appealed to this Gospel; and with what unpardonable falfehood Mr. Toland afferted its being appealed to by them in their writings frequently, as a true Gofpel. Let him henceforth for ever cease his accufations against the clergy, or priests, as he calls them, for unfair dealing and falfe quotations, as alfo his attempts against Christianity, unless he can produce fome better arguments, and proceed in fome more honest method to fupport them.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Pofitive Proofs that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was Apocryphal. It is found in none of the antient Catalogues of facred Books. Never was cited, as of Authority. Never read in the Churches. It contained many things apparently false; as, that Chrift was a Sinner; was unwilling to be baptifed, &c. It contained feveral idle Stories; as the Holy Ghoft taking Chrift by one of his Hairs into a high Mountain, &c. The rich man fcratching his Head, &c. Things in it later than the Time of their being faid or done. The Design of it. Made out of Matthew. Its Age. Not equal in Authority with the prefent Greek. Made by Jews. Of the Nazarenes,

AF

FTER having fo largely fhewn, what were the fentiments of the old Chriftian writers concerning this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, there may seem but little neceffity of faying any thing farther to invalidate its authority. But inasmuch as there is no other Apocryphal piece which hath been fo highly extolled as this, and it has been so often preferred to our present Greek copies of St. Matthew, it cannot be improper, that, according to my first proposal, I proceed,

IV. To demonftrate in a more pofitive manner, that it really was a fpurious and Apocryphal piece.

This is clear by Prop. IV. as not being mentioned in any of the antient 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 affemblies of the primitive Chriftians. And I here cannot but take notice of a moft notorious and villainous imposture of Mr. Tolanda, who with all the affurance imaginable afferts, That this Gospel was publickly read in their Churches as authentick, for above three hundred years. For this he cites two paffages of St. Aufstin b; in neither of which there is the least diftant intimation or infinuation of what he afferts: all that he fays is, that in his time there were fome very few hereticks called Nazarenes, or Symmachians, who admitted both the circumcifion of the Jews, and the baptifm of the Chriftians.

I add now farther, that this Gospel of the Nazarenes is to be esteemed Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. as containing several things contrary to certainly known and undoubted truths; by Prop. IX. as containing things trifling and filly; by Prop. X. as containing things later than the time in which it pretends to have been written.

I fhall prove each of these feparately:

1. The Gofpel of the Nazarenes was Apocryphal, because it contained feveral things contrary to certainly known and undoubted truths, by Prop. VIII. I might here inftance in a great number of particulars contrary to one or other of our prefent Gospels: but having not yet proved their authority, I shall omit thefe; and to be as juft in my proof as I can, I fhall only select 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 history) against the affertions of any one particular book.

Loc. jam cit. p. 78.

b Contr. Fauft. Manich. lib. 19. c. 18. T. Opp. 6. In exigua

vel in ipfa paucitate perdurant. Contr. Crefc. Gram. 1. 1. c. 31. T. Opp. 7.

1.) The

« 前へ次へ »