ページの画像
PDF
ePub

There was no midwife present at her delivery, no hurry of women; the Virgin herself put the child in fwaddling-clothes, and was both mother and midwife. To prove this he cites those words of Luke (c. ii. 7.), And she brought forth her firft-born fon, and wrapped him in fwaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn; then adds, "Quæ fententia Apocryphorum deliramenta convincit, "dum Maria ipfa pannis involvit infantem ;" i. e. which text confutes the idle fancies of the Apocryphal books, feeing Mary herself wrapped the infant in clothes. This to me seems a plain reference to, and reflection upon, the Protevangelion, in which we read, ch. 19. of the midwife Jofeph brought to Mary.

ARG. III. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, are Apocryphal, because neither of them appear to have been read in the Chriftian Churches, or Affemblies. Prop. VI.

ARG. IV. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, are Apocryphal, because they contain several things contrary to certain and known truths. Prop. VIII. Of this I have obferved the following inftances.

Falsehoods in the Gospel of the Birth of Mary.

Ch. ii. Ifachar is faid to be the name of the High-priest who difcourfed with Joachim; whereas it is certain from the catalogue of High-priests, which is easily to be made out of Fofephus, there was no High-prieft about this time of this name, nor indeed at any other time. On the contrary, if this history should be fuppofed true, and the Virgin Mary taken from the Temple when she was full fourteen (see Chap. 7.), and our Saviour born nine months after that, then we can easily discover who the High-prieft was at the time supposed; and that it was not Ifachar, but Simon, the Son of Boethus Alexandrinus, whose daughter Herod himself married, and began

his

Vid. Jofeph. Antiquit. Judaic. Sigon. de Repub. Judæor. 1. 5. c. 2. 1. 15. c. 12. Helvic. Chronol. et The fame as this is hinted

p. 220.

L 2

by

his priesthood in the year of the world 3926, and continued therein nineteen years, i. e. till within four or five years of the time in which our Saviour was born..

Ch. VI. We read that Mary was brought at three years old to the Temple, placed in the apartments, and according to custom continued there till marriageable age, viz. till fhe was fourteen years old. But this is evidently a fiction, or falfehood; for,

1. It is certain there were no fuch cells or apartments in the Temple at Jerufalem, for the reception and entertainment of virgins. Baronius indeed dreamt of ninety cells erected by. Solomon for this purpose; but how foolish and absurd his opinion is, the learned Cafaubon has well fhewn '.

2. The Scriptures, Jofephus, and the Rabbins, are per-. fectly filent concerning any fuch custom, as that of nuns in the Temple at Jerufalem.

Falfehoods in the Protevangelion of James.

Inftance I. Ruben is faid to be High-prieft when Joachim offered his facrifices (c. 1. and 6.); whereas it is certain there never was any High-prieft of that name, and I have above proved another perfon was then High-prieft.

Inft. II. The fame is to be faid of the ftory of Mary's being brought to the Temple, related in this book (c. 7, 8.), which is faid immediately above concerning the cells in the Temple.

C

Inft. III. The High-prieft, who confulted God about the difpofal of Mary, is named Zacharias (c. 8.); but it is certain there was no one of that name High-prieft at this time, nor indeed at any other time. See Jofephus's account of the Highpriests.

Inft. IV. The Virgin is faid, ch. xvii. and xviii. to have brought forth our Saviour in a cave and defert place; whereas it is certain, not only from the prophecy of Micah (ch. v. 2.),

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

that Chrift was to be born in the town of Bethlehem, but from the express testimony of Matthew (c. ii. 1, &c.), Luke (c. ii. 4, 6, &c.), and all the antient writers, except Justin Martyr. Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. This is abundantly proved by the great Cafaubon against Baronius, Exercit. ii. ad Ann. 1. n. 2. and though he be oppofed in this matter by the Jefuit Lanffellius, in his tract against Cafaubon's Exercitations, inferted among the last edition of Juftin Martyr's works (c. 12.), yet it is with the weakest arguments, and such as fhew more malice than learning; which is indeed vifible in the whole of that performance of the Jefuit.

Inst. V. It is evident by comparing c. 10. with the 23d, that the fame Zacharias is spoken of in both places. In the latter place he is faid to be the father of John the Baptist, and in the former to have loft the use of his speech; which is a relation concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptift, in the genuine Gospel of Luke (ch. i. 20.) Now hence it is easy to collect a fresh argument of the falsehood of this Gospel; for (ch. 10.) Zacharias is faid to be High-priest, but it is certain the father of the Baptist was not High-priest, but one of the common Priests, and of the course of Abia, which was the eighth in order of those twenty-four courfes of ordinary Priests, which were to minifter by turn, each his week, according to the inftitution of David. See I Chron. xxiv. 10. and Luke i. 5.

Nor will it be of any force to object, that I fuppofe in this argument the Canonical authority of Luke, which I have not proved; for it can be no unfair way of reasoning to suppose it truer in this particular than the Protevangelion, because in that wherein they differ, the Protevangelion is contrary to Jofephus, but St. Luke is not, viz. as to Zacharias being High-priest. After all, I am fenfible many of the antients, which Baronius has produced, imagined that Zacharias the Baptift's father was an High-priest; and Austin particularly attempts to prove it, because there were feveral High-priefts at the fame time,

a Tract. xlix. in Joan. in fine. See Cafaub. adverf. Apparat. An. nal. Baron. Exercit. I. Num. 69.

and

The learned Daillé has obferved, that the author of the books under the name of Dionyfius the Areopagite (De

L 3

and it was lawful for none but a High-priest to offer incenfe. But herein every one knows he is mistaken, as indeed it is common for the Fathers to be mistaken in Jewish antiquities.

Inft. VI. The ftory of the death of Zacharias, ch. xxiii. with its circumftances, is false and apparent forgery. This may eafily be gathered from several of the preceding observations; but I fhall endeavour now to evidence it by this argument, that it is a story jumbled together, and patched up partly out of the history of Zacharias (2 Chron. xxiv. 20.), and partly out of what we read concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptift, Luke i. and this will appear by the following compa

rifon.

The ftory of the murder of Zacharias in Chronicles is, that he was flain in the court of the House of the Lord, and prayed the Lord to revenge his blood; the Jewish expofition of which is, that the blood remained indelible upon the ftones, till it was actually revenged by Nebuzaradan, fee above, Obf. X.

The ftory of the murder of Zacharias, the father of the Baptift, in the Protevangelion, is, that he was murdered in the entrance or court of the Temple; that immediately upon his death, a voice was heard, faying, Zacharias is slain, and his blood shall not be wiped away till a revenger come; that accordingly his blood petrified, and became hard as fone, Ch. 24.

This is evidently the fame ftory; to which there are some circumftances added out of the first chapter of Luke, relating to the true Zacharias, father of the Baptift; for whereas we

(De Coeleft. Hierarc. c. 4. §. 4.) does alfo make Zacharias, the father of the Baptift, to have been High-priest; but as he fhews this to be falfe, fo be hence forms an argument to prove the spurioufnefs of thofe pretended works of Dionyfius, viz. because the true Dionyfius could not be mistaken in a fact of this fort,

and conjectures alfo, that these books under his name were forgeries of the fourth or fifth century; because, fays he, then arofe and was spread the opinion of Zacharias, the Baptift's father, being High-priest. Dall. de Lib. fuppofit. Dionyf. Areop. lib. 1. c. 28. p. 164, 165.

there

there read, ver. 20, 21, 22, that Zacharias was dumb, that the people waited for him, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the Temple in the Protevangelion (e. 10.) we read, Zacharias loft the use of his speech, and (ch. 24.) that the Prieft continued for a long time waiting for him to come out of the Temple, &c. Nothing then upon the whole can be more evident, than that the author of this book has jumbled together in this history what is said of two perfons called Zacharias, and applied it to one; and consequently that composure is a forgery, and fo Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.

Inft. VII. The laft inftance of falfehood, which I fhall mention in this Protevangelion, is that (c. 24.) where Simeon (mentioned Luke ii. 25.) is faid to be chofen fucceffor to Zacharias in the High-priesthood. That the author meant the fame Simeon is evident, because he exprefsly fays, as Luke, that it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not fee death, before he had feen Chrift in the flesh. But it is certain this Simeon was not then High-priest; for though there were many of that name advanced to this poft, yet he who at this time poffeffed it was Joazarus; befides, had he been really High-prieft, as Mr. Fabritius a well observes, it is not likely that St. Luke, when he was giving him fo honourable a character, would omit that which must needs have a confiderable addition to it, viz. his being High-prieft. It is indeed difficult for us to know who this Simeon was; whether it were Rabban Simeon, the fon of Hillel, President of the Sanhedrim, and father of Gamaliel, as feveral learned men have thought, or fome other person of that name, I fhall not enquire, but only observe, that although the Fathers generally believed he was a High-prieft, there can be nothing more ridiculous than the mistake of Jerome, and others, who confound him with Simon the Juft, who lived in the time of Alexander the Great, and, according to the Jews, met him when he came to Jerufalem. See Druf. Præter. lib. 3. in Luc. ii. 25.

124.

Cod. Apocr. N. T. t. 1. p. ii. 25. Scultet. Exercit. in loc.
Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. in Luc.

Adverf. Helvid. c. 4.

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »