ページの画像
PDF
ePub

the contrary, that the Virgin sprang from the race and family of David, and that her father's family was of Nazareth in Galilee, and her mother's of Bethlehem. (See Ch. I.)

OBS. IV. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary formerly went under the name of St. Matthew, or was looked upon as his compofure. This is manifeft from the two Latin Epiftles in Jerome's works, which I have above produced. I know indeed, that learned men have generally agreed to reject these Epiftles, as not being Jerome's. Thus Sixtus Senenfis ", Coke, Rivet, Cave a, and others of this fort of writers; to whom if I should in this point fubfcribe, yet as I dare venture to say the letters are very antient, so it is not likely the author of them would venture upon a forgery of such a fact, in which every one was able to confute him. He fays, this Gospel went under the name of St. Matthew, nor does he at all pretend to believe it was really fo, but on the contrary afcribes it to Seleucus the Manichee, as its author, and reckons it among the tricks and artifices of the Hereticks; and though he supposes it to contain some few true accounts, yet he also supposes it to be in a great measure the fiction of that Heretick. From all which it is evident it would no way serve his purpose to fay, this book went under St. Matthew's name, unless the fact was really fo.

OBS. V. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary is for the most part contained in, or the fame with, the Protevangelion of James. This will be at firft view evident to any one, who will be at the pains to compare them together. It is true indeed, the Protevangelion proceeds farther in the history than the Gospel of Mary, and adds feveral remarkable stories concerning Jofeph's drinking the water of trial, their journey to Bethlehem, the clouds and birds and all things elfe ftanding ftill at our Saviour's birth, the ftory of the midwife, the coming of the wife men, &c. but as far as the history reaches in the Gospel

[blocks in formation]

of Mary, viz. to the birth of Chrift, it is so much the fame with that in the Protevangelion of James, that I think there can be no room to doubt, but that one of them was made out of the other.

CHA P. XVII.

[ocr errors]

There are feveral Contradictions in the prefent Gospel of Mary to the Protevangelion of James. Inftances of this. The Protevangelion of James different from, and contrary to, the antient Gofpel of Mary. Several of the Relations of the Gospel of Mary, and the Protevangelion, have been credited by the Antients.

OBS. VI. THAT there are several passages and circumstances in the present Gospel of Mary, which are directly contrary to the relations or accounts of the prefent Protevangelion of James. This obfervation feems to be of fome confiderable importance, because it undeniably proves one of these two antient pieces to be Apocryphal, and withal fhews us how ridiculous and unhappy the Hereticks were in their moft celebrated forgeries. For the support of the obfervation I offer the following inftances.

Out of the Protevangelion of Out of the Gospel of the Birth

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

1

4. The dove proceeded out of Joseph's rod, and flew upon his head, Chap. IX.

5. The Angel appears to Mary, when she was gone forth to draw water, Chap. XI.

6. Mary received the Angel with great fear and trembling, Ibid.

4. The dove defcended from Heaven, and flew upon Jofeph's rod, Chap. VIII. 5. The Angel appears to Mary in her chamber, Chap. IX.

6. Mary (being accustomed to fuch visions) was not furprifed, nor terrified at the Angel's appearance, Ibid.

These are some of those many differences and contradictions which may be obferved in thefe two Apocryphal Gofpels.

OBS. VII. The Protevangelion of James is different from, and in fome things contrary to, the antient Gospel of Mary, which was used by the Gnofticks, and which Epiphanius faw. I have above proved, OBS. III. that the prefent Gospel of the Birth of Mary is different from the antient one, under that title, and hope my prefent remark will appear as just to those who will confider, that the accounts given in the Protevangelion and the old Gofpel of Mary, concerning the death or murder of Zacharias (John Baptift's father), are irreconcileably different, and contrary to each other. The account in the old Gospel of Mary, as it is preserved by Epiphanius, concerning his murder, you have above, O ́s. III. viz. that he was slain by the Jews, because he told them a vifion he had seen in the Temple of the object of their worship, which was a man in the form of an afs: but the relation of his murder in the Protevangelion is quite different, viz. that he was murdered by Herod, because he would not discover where his fon John was, who that tyrant, feared, would be king of Ifrael. See Chap. XXIII.

OBS. VIII. Several of the accounts or relations of the Gofpel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion, have been credited by fome antient Chriftian writers. To omit many

[ocr errors][merged small]

others, I fhall inftance only in the two following, which are the most remarkable, viz.

1. That in the Protevangelion (Chap. XXIII.) concerning Herod's murder of Zacharias, father of John the Baptift, at the entrance of the Temple by the altar. This fact, though no where related in facred history, is mentioned and credited by Tertullian, Petrus Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Theophylact, and others. I confefs they do not all relate it with the fame circumstances, which are in the Protevangelion ; yet they so far all agree, as that it is evident they respected the fame ftory. So Tertullian, Zacharias was killed between the altar and the Temple, and the drops of his blood made indelible impreffions on the ftones. The Protevangelion, Zacharias was killed at the entrance of the Temple, and his blood was made hard as ftone. The account of Petrus Alexandrinus perfectly agrees. Origen and Theophylact endeavour to prove, that the Zacharias mentioned by our Saviour, Matt. xxiii. 35. was the father of John the Baptift, who was flain in the Temple, though according to them it was by the Jews for this reason, because he would place the Virgin Mary after our Saviour's birth in a certain apartment in the Temple, which was proper to virgins, and only fuch. Epiphanius, or whoever was the author of that old Book De Vitâ Prophet. tells us, that Zacharias, the fon of Foiada, and father of John the Baptift, was flain by Herod between the altar and the Temple, and that his blood was spilt upon the threshold of the Temple. An impartial reflection upon all these places will undeniably evidence, that this ftory of Zacharias, which is in the Protevangelion, was very much known and credited by the antients: I fhall only add, that notwithstanding the common opinion of the Fathers, that Zacharias mentioned by our Sa

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

viour (Matt. xxiii. 35.) was the father of John the Baptist, yet most of our later criticks have thought otherwise, and that the person intended is that Zacharias whom the people stoned in the court of the Houfe of the Lord in the days of Joah, 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 22. But how they endeavour to prove this, and folve the difficulties that attend it, I fhall not enquire. He who has a mind to examine the matter critically, may fee it largely and clearly treated of in Grotius's annotations on the place of Matthew, and his two conftant followers, Dr. Hammond and Dr. Whitby; but especially in Dr. Lightfoot's Hora Hebraicæ, in loc.

2. The next inftance which I affign of an account or relation in the Protevangelion, and Gofpel of Mary, which was credited by many of the antient Christian writers, is that of Jofeph's being an old man when Mary was betrothed to him, his having had a former wife, and feveral children by her. In the Gospel of the Birth of Mary (Ch. VIII.), Jofeph is called a perfon very far advanced in years, and in the Protevangelion (Chap. IX.), he is introduced, faying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, &c. (and Ch. XVII.) he takes care about the taxing of his children at Bethlehem. Now this, I say, was a commonly received opinion among the antients. So Origen, There are some who say the brethren of Chrift here mentioned (viz. Matt. xiii. 55.) were the children of Jofeph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; and they are induced to this opinion by fome passages in that which is intitled, The Gofpel of Peter, or the Book of James. Eufebius tells us, James was called the brother of Christ, because be was the fon of Jofeph by a former wife.

b

Epiphanius has very frequently related this hiftory. In one place he says (as Eufebius), that James was the son of Joseph by a former wife, and therefore called the brother of Jefus . In another place, that Jofeph was about fourfcore years old when he married Mary, and had fix children before that time by a former wife; and yet more particularly difputing against the

a Comment. in Matt. xiii. 55. See the Greek paffage above, Part II. Ch. XXXI. p. 329.

b Hift. Ecclef. lib. 2. c. I.
Hæref. 29. Nazar. §. 3, 4.
Hæref. 51. Alogor. §. 10.
Antidi-

« 前へ次へ »