wards went under his name (fee Part I. Chap. VII. Numb. IV.); into which, being fo noted a saying, it was inferted out of this place of St. Paul's Epiftle. It cannot be improper here to obferve, that Mr. Whiston a urges this passage, because it is cited by Dionyfius Alexandrinus as an arron own, i. e. an Apoftolical faying (and, as he thinks, out of the Conftitutions); as a strong aud almost undeniable atteftation to the Conftitutions of the Apostles, and imagines this fuch a citation as cannot fairly be fet afide by any. But I fuppofe, even Mr. Whiston himself will allow, that the foregoing remarks do fufficiently overthrow his argument; and I must observe, that άoshin Qwvn may as well be translated the words of the Apostle in the fingular number, as the words of the Apostles in the plural. XX. A Saying afcribed to Chrift in Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. lib. 5. p. 578. εν TIVI Οὐ γὰρ φθονῶν, φησὶ, παρήγγειλεν ὁ Κύριος ἔν Εὐαγγελίῳ· Μυσήριον ἐμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τα οἴκε με. For the (Lord), says he, hath declared without envy in fome Gofpel, My Secret is to me, and the children of my house. I do not know any one who has obferved this paffage befides Mr. Fabritius, who places it among the fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and in his note conjectures, that it was perhaps in the Gospel of the Egyptians; but for want of a more close examination, this learned writer is apparently mistaken in both his conjectures, as will evidently appear by the following remark; viz. That Clemens did not cite these words as the words of Chrift, but as the words of the prophet Ifaiah; for 1. They are now to be found in feveral copies of the Septuagint Verfion of Ifai. xxiv. 16. with but little variation. In the 3 Effay on the Conftit. p. 165. Cod. Apoc. Nov. Test. p. 361. Scholia of the Greek Verfion I find it afferted, "That in Some copies are the following words, τὸ μυςήριόν μου ἐμοὶ, τὸ μυςή. * fión μe ipoi, xai Tois pois. They are alfo in Procopius, though "noted with an afterisk. Jerome says, they were not origi"nally in the Septuagint, but interpolated out of Theodotion's "Greek tranflation. Chryfoftom and Theodoret alfo read it.” (See the Cambridge Scholia on the Septuagint). Agreeable to this the old Latin Vulgate renders it fecretum meum mihi, fecretum meum mihi; and though our English tranflators render it my leanness, my leannefs, 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, which properly denotes a fecret, and is thus understood by the Chaldee interpreter here, as it is commonly alfo ufed in that language; fee Dan. ii. 18, 27, 28, &c. and hence the Angel Raziel is fo called, quia Deo a fecretis eft.. 2. It being plain that these words were in the Greek copies of Ifaiah, I add, that Clemens cited them thence: this is undeniable, unless we suppose him by mistake to have taken these to be the words of Chrift, which were the words of the prophet, and to have cited accordingly; but that he really was not miftaken, is evident; for he had in the words next before cited the prophet Ifaiah, and then adds, & yàp ¢Govŵv, Qnoi, for without envy he faid, i. e. the prophet faid; for that verb cannot poffibly relate to any one elfe, no other noun having been before; and though the noun Kig immediately follow, yet it has its proper verb mapylene, the Lord hath declared; but faying and declaring being the fame thing, both the verbs cannot refer to that noun; and confequently one or other of them must be fuperfluous, and not wrote by the author at firft: but this is the latter, because 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 παρήγειλεν ὁ ΚύριΘ. ἔν τινι Εὐαγγελίω, the Lord hath declared in a certain Gospel, but they were inferted by fome ignorant tranfcriber, who imagined them to be the words of Chrift, and by adding the word waphyler, when the word pain fo immedi ately ately preceded, he plainly betrayed his ignorance and interpolation. This is yet farther confirmed by Clement's citing, as he does in the next paragraph, the fame prophet thus, πάλιν ὁ προφήτης, 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 support some conjectures which I have made above, concerning the interpolations of the scribes in antient manuscripts. ΧΧΙ. 4 Hiftory of Chrift, and his Parents, in Orig. contr. Celf. 1. 1. p. 22. Ονειδίζει δ' αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκ κώμης αὐτὸν γεγονέναι Igδαϊκῆς, καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἐγχωρίς καὶ πενιχρᾶς, καὶ χερνήτιος. Φησὶ δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶ γήμαντῷ, τέκτον@ τὴν τέχνην ὄντῷ, ἐξεῖσθαι, ἐλεγχθεῖσαν ὡς μεμοιχευμένην. Εἶτα λέγει, ὡς ἐκβληθεῖσα ὑπὸ τὰ ἀνδρὸς, καὶ πλανωμένη ατίμως σκότιον ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰησῶν· καὶ ὅτι Στῷ διὰ πενίαν εἰς Αἴγυπτον μισθαρνήσας, κακεῖ δυνάμεων τινων πειρασθείς, ἐφ' αἷς Αἰγύπτιοι σεμνύνονται, ἐπανῆλθεν ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσι μέγα φρονῶν, καὶ δι ̓ αὐτὸς Θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀνηγόρευσε. He ridicules (viz. Celfus) our Saviour, that he was born in of a mean poor woman, whe a mean village of Judæa, and gother bread by fpinning,and got her bread by fpinning, and was turned away by her hus band, who was a carpenter, becaufe he was charged with adultery. Again, he adds, that when the was turned out by her husband, and fcandaloufly wandered about the countries, the privately brought forth Jefus, and that he being through poverty obliged to work as a fervant in Egypt, and there having learnt fome fort of powerful arts, which are much reputed in Egypt, he returned much lifted up with his arts, and thought because of them he deserved to be efteemed as a God. Whether Whether Celfus met with this in any Apocryphal Gospel, or no, I cannot tell; fomething of this fort we meet with in fome Apocryphal books extant in St. Auftin's time, under the name of Chrift. Concerning the magical power by which hẹ 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 such an enemy fhould be fond of fuch ridiculous writings. But I rather think it was a forgery among the Jews, than any part of an Apocryphal Gospel. XXII. A Hiftory of our Saviour's Relations, according to the Flefh, in Epiphanius, Hæref. 78. §. 7 et 8. Πῶς γὰρ ἠδύνατο ὁ τοσέτο γέρων παρθένον ἕξειν γυναῖκα, ὢν ἀπὸ πρώτης γυναικὸς χῆτΘ τοσαῦτα ἔτη ; ἑτὸς μὲν γὰρ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἀδελφὸς γίνεται τῇ Κλωπᾶ, ἦν δὲ υἱὸς τῇ Ἰακωβ, ἐπίκλην δὲ Πάνθηρ και λεμένη ἀμφότεροι ἔτοι από τῇ Πάνθηρῷ ἐπίκλην γεννῶνται· ἔσχε δὲ ἑτὸς ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὴν μὲν πρώτην αὐτῷ γυναίκα ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰέδα, καὶ κυίσκαι αὐτῷ αὕτη παῖδας τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἕξ, τέσσαρας μὲν ἄῤῥενας, θηλείας δὲ δύο, καθ ἅπερ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον καὶ κατὰ Ἰωάννην ἐσαφήνισαν. Ἔσχε μὲν ἦν How could a man fo old have a young virgin for his wife, having been a widower fo many years after his frft wife's decease? For Jofeph was the brother of Cleophas, the fon of James, firnamed Panther. Both these were the fons of him who was firnamed Panther. This Jofeph married his firft wife out of the tribe fix children, four of which of Judah, by whom he had were males, and two females, as appears by the Gospel of Mark and John. His firf born was James, who was firnamed Oblias (which fignifies a wall), and was called the 7u/t, and he was a Nazarite, πρωτότοκον τὸν Ιάκωβον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Ὠβλίαν, ἑρμηνευ όμενον τείχος, καὶ δίκαιον ἐπικληθέντα, Ναζωραῖον δὲ which · which denotes a holy perfon ὄντα, ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται ἅγια. Τίκτει μὲν τᾶτον τον Ἰάκωβον ἐγούς πα περὶ ἔτη γεγονὼς τεσσαράκοντα πλείω ἐλάσσω. Μετ ̓ αὐτὸν δὲ γίνεται παῖς Ἰωσῆ καλέμεν@, εἶτα μετ ̓ αὐτὸν Συμεών, ἔπειτα Ιέδας· καὶ δύο θυγατέρες, ἡ Μαρία, καὶ ἡ Σαλώμη και λεμένη καὶ τέθνηκεν αὐτῇ ἡ γυνὴ, καὶ μετὰ ἔτη πολλὰ λαμβάνει τὴν Μαρίαν χ*G, κατάγων ηλικίαν περί πε ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν καὶ πρόσω ὁ ἀνήρ. Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λαμβάνει τὴν Μαρίαν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ λέγει. I know not whence Epiphanius collected this fo particular account of our Saviour's family ; there was indeed an Apocryphal and fpurious piece under the name of James, and another intitled, The Gospel of Peter; in one of which Origen says it was affirmed, That Jofeph had children by a former wife, before he married Mary; and Jerome also says, this was in feveral of the Apocryphal Gospels. He adds, that the former wife's name was Efcha ". But it does not at all appear, that Epiphanius made any ufe of fuch books, who is ever most forward to declare against them; and as to this hiftory it seems to be formed upon a very common tradition among the Fathers, that Jofeph had children by a former wife, which they very zealously contend for, in order to fupport their prevailing opinion, which they were fo fond of, viz. the perpetual virginity of Mary. And it is on this very score Epiphanius mentions it here, againft the Antidicomarianitæ, who denied it c. a See above, Part II. Chap. XX. Numb. xxiv. * Comment. in Matth. xii. 49. C See Bifhop Pearfon on the Creed, P. 175. XXIII. An |