ページの画像
PDF
ePub

blood fhall come. Now this, I fay, is Talmudick. For we find both in the Jerufalem and Babylonish Talmud, as they are cited by Dr. Lightfoot, that the blood of Zacharias continued, and was not wiped away till Nebuzaradan, the Babylonish general, came to Jerufalem, and became a remarkable avenger of his blood. The whole hiftory is this, Talmud. Hierofol. in Taanith (fol. 69.) and Talmud. Babyl. in Sanhedr. fol. 96. " R. Fochanan faid, Eighty thousand priests were flain for the blood of Zacharias. R. Judas asked R. Achan, "Where did they kill Zacharias? Was it in the women's "court, or in the court of Ifrael? He answered, Neither in "the court of Ifrael, nor in the court of women, but in the court " of the priests; and they did not treat his blood in the fame « manner as they were wont to treat the blood of a ram or

[ocr errors]

young goat. For of thefe it is written, He fhall pour out "his blood, and cover it with duft. But it is written here, "The blood is in the midft of her; fhe fet it upon the top "of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground (Ezek. xxiv. "7.) But why was this? That it might cause fury to come up "to take vengeance: I have fet his blood upon the top of a "rock, that it fhsuld not be covered. They committed feven “evils that day: they murdered a priest, a prophet, and a "king: they shed the blood of the innocent: they polluted the "court: that day was the Sabbath: and the day of expiation. "When therefore Nebuzaradan came there (viz. to Jerusalem),

he faw his blood bubbling, and faid to them, What meaneth "this? They answered, It is the blood of calves, lambs, and "rams, which we have offered upon the altar. He commanded "then, that they should bring calves, and lambs, and rams, and "faid, I will try whether this be their blood: accordingly they "brought and flew them, but the blood (of Zacharias) ftill "bubbled, but the blood of thefe did not bubble. Then he said, "Declare to me the truth of this matter, or else I will comb << your flesh with iron combs. Then faid they to him, He was

[ocr errors]

a priest, prophet, and judge, who prophefied to Ifrael all thefe

Hor. Hebr. et Talmud. in de Arcan. Cathol. Verit. 1. 4. c. 23. Matt. xxiii. 35. See alfo Galatin.

" calamities

« calamities which we have fuffered from you; but we arofe "against him, and flew him. Then faid he, I will appease "him: then he took the rabbins, and flew them upon his (viz. "Zacharias's) blood, and he was not yet appeased. Next he "took the young boys from the schools, and flew them upon his "blood, and yet it bubbled. Then he brought the young priests, "and flew them in the fame place, and yet it ftill bubbled. So " he flew at length ninety-four thousand persons upon his blood, " and it did not as yet cease bubbling. Then he drew near to " it, and faid, O Zacharias, Zacharias, thou haft occafioned "the death of the chief of thy countrymen, shall I flay them "all? Then the blood ceafed, and did bubble no more, &c." This is very evidently the fame ftory which we find in the Protevangelion, though applied to a different perfon there under the fame name; from which being a plain Jewish or Talmudick ftory, and alfo common among the Jewish writers, as in Midrasch. Coheleth, fol. 93. and Midrasch. Echah. fol. 69 2, it is moft evident the author of this fpurious Gospel was a Jew.

των

3. It feems to me not unreasonable to conclude, that the author of this Gospel was a Jew, becaufe Epiphanius relates the fame things which are in this Gospel, as taken in tñç Tüv 'ledaiwr Tagadóσews, out of the accounts or traditions of the Jews": The things I mean are the relations of Joseph's former wife, and children, and age, &c. (as above, Obf. VIII.) Now thefe being alfo in this Apocryphal Gofpel, what can be more evident from what I have above faid, than that he thought the author of this hiftory to be a Jew?

4. The Epiftle of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome, and his Answers (which I have above produced after the Gofpel of the Birth of Mary), do expressly affert that Gospel to have been originally written in Hebrew; and though indeed perhaps thofe Epiftles may be fuppofititious (for which I am not able yet to see that clear evidence which the writers abovementioned pretend, fee Obf. IV.), yet I think their antiquity

See Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. et Talmud. in Luc. xi. 51.

b Hæref. 78. contr. Antidico. mar. §. 7.

will

will be no small collateral evidence, with my foregoing arguments, to prove the author of this Gofpel was a Jew, or Hellenift.

CHA P. XIX.

The Protevangelion of James and the Gospel of Mary are Apocryphal, because they were not acknowledged by the Antients, but expressly rejected. They contain feveral Things contrary to known Truths. Inftances produced out of both.

OBS. XI. THE Protevangelion of James, and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, are fuppofititious and Apocryphal. I have above fhewn (Obf. V.), that most of the Gofpel of Mary is contained in the Protevangelion; though it seems hard to determine which was compiled out of the other, or which of the two was the original composure. If I were to conjecture, I should rather imagine that the Protevangelion was the older book, and that of the Birth of Mary made out of it, because its relations feem more compendious, and the author omits many circumftances which are in the Protevangelion. However this be, they are both fpurious and Apocryphal, as will appear by the following arguments.

ARG. I. By Prop. IV. because they are not to be found in any of the catalogues of facred books which are in the writings of the primitive Christians.

ARG. II. By Prop. V. because they are not cited in any of the first Chriftian writings, but on the contrary rejected. The only writers who have mentioned them within my time are Epiphanius, Austin, and Pope Gelafius; each of which looked upon the composure as trifling and ridiculous, as well as fpurious and Apocryphal. Epiphanius places it among the impudent forgeries of the Gnofticks, Hæref. 26. §. 12.

Befides

Αλλα δὲ μυρία παρ' αὐτοῖς πεπλασμένα γραφεῖα τετόλμηται· Γένναν μὲν γὰρ Μαρίας βιβλίον τί φασιν εἶναι, ἐν ᾧ δεινά τε καὶ ὀλέθρια υποβάλλοντές τινα ἐκεῖσε λέγε

GID.

Befides, they have among them ten thousand spurious and impudent writings; fuch is that book entitled, Of the Nativity of Mary, in which they have forged the moft dreadful and damnable ftories.

An inftance of which he produces, fee above Obf. III. viz. concerning the Jews worshipping an ass in the Temple.

Austin as exprefsly rejects it, contr. Fauft. Manich. 1. 23. c. 9. See Cafaub. adv. Apparat. Annal. Baron. Exercit. 1. No. 44.

Nos ergo credimus Mariam fuiffe in cognatione David, quia Scripturis eis credimus, quæ utrumque dicunt, et Chriftum ex femine David fecundum carnem, et ejus matrem virginem. Quifquis itaque dicit Mariam ad confanguinitatem David non pertinuiffe hoc oftendat, non ex quibufcunque literis, fed Ecclefiafticis, Canonicis, et Catholicis. Alia quippe apud nos non habent ad has res ullum pondus auctoritatis; ipfe funt enim quas recepit et tenet Ecclefia toto orbe diffufa.Ac per hoc illud quod de Generatione Mariæ Fauftus pofuit, quod patrem habuerit ex tribu Levi quendam facerdo

VOL. II.

[ocr errors]

L

But we believe, that Mary was of the family of David, because we believe thofe Scriptures, which affirm, both that Chrift was of the feed of David, and his mother-a virgin. He who afferts that Mary did not belong to the family of Da

vid

-let him prove it, not by any fort of writings, but by the Ecclefiaftical, Canonical, and Catholick Scriptures. For other Scriptures have no weight at all with us in things of this fort, but thofe only which are received by the univerfal Church.- So that as to what Fauftus urges from the book, entitled Of the Nativity (or Pedigree) of Mary, viz. that her father was a Priest of the tribe of Levi, named

tem, nomine Joachim, quia Canonicum non eft, non me conftringit.

named Joachim, is of no manner of authority with me, becaufe it is not Canonical.

Pope Gelafius, in his Decree of Apocryphal Books, rejects it

thus:

Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris, et de Maria, et obftetrice Salvatoris, Apocryphus.

The book of the Birth of our
Saviour, and of Mary, and
the Midwife of our Saviour, is
Apocrypha!.

Although we meet not here with the title of the Protevangelion, yet there can be no doubt it is the book which is here meant, because it has the title from the three most confiderable heads of that Gofpel.

Thus all the antient writers, who have mentioned it, have agreed to condemn this hiftory as fpurious and fictitious. It is true indeed, fome parts of it have been credited (see above, Obf. VIII.), yet it does not appear they were the more credited, because contained in either of these volumes; and though particularly the ftory of Joseph's former wife and children was so univerfally received, this seems to have been owing to the universally prevailing opinion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which the antients were exceedingly fond of, as founded upon what they thought a credible tradition. I will only add here, that I have obferved one place in Jerome's Commentary on Matthew, where he feems to have had reference to one of these books, and condemned it as Apocryphal. Some, fays he, fuppofe the brethren of our Lord (fpoken of in the Gospel) to be the fons of Jofeph by a former wife, following the idle fancies of fome Apocryphal books, and feign her name to bave been Efcha, &c. and another in his Epistle against Helvidius, in which he plainly feems to reflect upon the History of the Midwife, in the Protevangelion, as false, and reject the book as Apocryphal. His words are, Let us not entertain fuch thoughts of the mother of our Saviour and her pious husband.

a

Cap. xii. 49.

⚫ Cap. iv.

There

« 前へ次へ »