ページの画像
PDF
ePub

he fays, he takes his proof ex Scripturis, i. e. from the Scrip

tures.

VII. By CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS.

The editor of the Paris edition of this Father's works, has prefixed a collection of above thirty places, which are cited, as he says, by Clemens out of St. John's Gospel; but, as I have above obferved on St. Matthew, his collection is in fo many refpects inaccurate, falfe, and defective, that as I could not depend upon it myself, fo neither could I refer the reader to it. I have therefore made the following collection, which is just, and may be fafely depended upon.

A Collection of the places of St. John's Gofpel, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

By all that is above said, it is undeniably evident, that this Gospel of St. John was appealed to as Scripture, in the writings of the first and most early Christians. The matter is fo clear, and the citations so numerous in the writings of TertulJian, Origen, Jerome, Austin, &c. that I thought it needlefs to collect them.

Arg. III. The Gospel of St. John is of Canonical authority by Prop. VI. because it was read as Scripture in the af femblies or the churches of the primitive Chriftians. Not to repeat what I have above said, for the proof of this I must refer the reader to Vol. I. Part I. Ch. X. of this work, and what is faid above, concerning the reading of St. Matthew's Gospel, in this Part, Chap. III.

Arg. IV. The Gospel of St. John is of Canonical authority, by Prop. XV. because it was esteemed as fuch by the

churches

churches of Syria in or near the Apostles' time, and accordingly placed by them among their collection of facred books.

All the objection, which has been made against the authority of this Gofpel, is, that it was not written by St. John, but a noted Heretick, Cerinthus, who was cotemporary with St. John. This was firft afferted by the Hereticks, whom Epiphanius calls "Aoyo, Alogians, because they did not believe the Aóyos, or word, spoken of in the first chapter of the Gospel; (fee Epiphan. Hæref. 51. §. 1, 2, 3.) Nor do I know, that any of the antient Hereticks befides these were of this opinion. Sixtus Senenfisa and Father Simon tell us, the Theodotians, or followers of Theodotus Byzantius, followed the Alogians herein; but I believe these two learned writers were led into this mistake by a too hafty reading of the words of Epiphanius, (Hæref. 51. §. 1.) where this is not afferted of the Theodotians. Mr. Toland indeed, has infinuated this objection against the credit of St. John's Gospel ; but it is easy to answer him and his brethren the Alogi.

1. That the Gospel is directly contrary to the doctrines of Cerinthus. He taught, that Chrift was in all respects a mere man, Linds ärdpwπros, born as other men. This Gospel evidently afferts the contrary. How can it be (fays Epiphanius, §. 4.) that those things should be wrote by Cerinthus, which are directly contrary to Cerinthus? See this argument farther pursued, and well managed, by that Father in the place cited.

2. The antient writers affure us, that this Gospel was written by St. John, with the particular intention of confuting the herefy of Cerinthus. So Irenæus, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. See this proved above, Ch. XIV. in the beginning.

3. Befides these filly and late Hereticks, the Alogians, all the Chriftians do unanimously afcribe it to St. John. I call them late, because, according to Epiphanius, (Hær. 51. §. 1.) they did not arife till after the Montanifts, i. e. not till

a Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 7. de Evang. Joan. Hæref.

b Critic. Hift. of the New Test. Part 1. ch. 13. p. 117. Amyntor, p. 65

d Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. 11. e Hæref. 51. §. 4. & 12.

f Præfat. in Comment. in Matt. & Catal. Vir. Illuftr. in Jan.

after

b

after the latter end of the fecond century. The fathers who have afcribed this Gofpel to St. John, as its author, are above cited in the preceding Chapter; to which I add, that in the Hypotypofes, under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus 2, the author files him πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα : i. e. infpired by the Holy Ghost in writing his Gofpel; and Origen ↳ fays, this Gofpel was received as his, among the αναντίρρητα ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν oupavòv ixxanoia T : i. e. the books which were admitted by all the churches in the world. He who has a mind, may fee more in answer to the opinion of Cerinthus being the author of St. John's Gofpel, in Epiphanius, Sixtus Senenfis, and Father Simon, in the places already cited; and besides these, in the two anfwers of Mr. Nye, and Mr. Richardfond, to Amyntor, and Dr. Whitby's preface to his Annotations upon this Gofpel.

As to the portions of this Gofpel, which are supposed not to be written by John, viz. the hiftory of the adulterous woman, ch. viii. and the whole laft chapter of the Gofpel; I have no more to say, than that concerning the former I have faid somewhat, Vol. I. Part I. Ch. XVIII. p. 111. and the latter is only a conjecture of Grotius, without any folid foundation; as is well judged by the French critics, Father Simon and Du Pin; and after them, by Dr. Mill, Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. §. 249.

a

C. 14-.

Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6.

Expofit. in Matt. lib. 1. apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 6. c. 25. Defence of the Canon, p. 81.

d Canon Vindicated, p. 73.
e Annot. in Joan. xx. 30.

f Crit. Hift. New Teft. loc. cit. Hift. of the Canon of the New Teft. Vol. ii. c. 2. §. 6.

CHAP.

« 前へ次へ »