ページの画像
PDF
ePub

157

CHAP. XXI. Mifcellaneous Reflections on both of them. cond Chapter of Matthew, forgets what he had before said, and agrees with St. Matthew, that our Saviour was born at. Bethlehem. See ch. xxi.

ARG. VIII. It is Apocryphal, because it is not contained in the Syriack Version, by Prop. XV.

CHAP. XXI.

Several mifcellaneous Reflections on the Gospel of Mary, and the Protevangelion of James. Poftellus's Account of the Protevangelion. His Arguments for its Authority particularly refuted.

HITH

ITHERTO I have been endeavouring to entertain the reader with my own obfervations and remarks on these` two famous Apocryphal Gofpels. It remains only now, that I give fome account of the remarks of others concerning them, with fome fuitable reflections. Mr. Fabritius has indeed with much labour done this in a great measure already, and at length fet down what the learned have wrote concerning them; to whom therefore I would refer the curious reader, judging it sufficient (after what I have above said) to give here the following accounts.

I. There are feveral manuscript copies of this Gospel now extant in Europe. Father Simon tells us, that he saw two Greek manuscript copies of it in the French King's library the one entitled, Το μακαρία Ιακώβε τὸ ἀδελφοθέου λόγος ἱσορικὸς εἰς τὸ γενέσιον τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκε, η Hiftorical Account of the Nativity of the most Holy Mother of our Lord, by James the blessed Brother of our Lord; the other very little different, Te paxafis μακαρίδ Ιακώβε το ̓Αποςόλω, καὶ ἀδελφὲ τὸ Κυρία, περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως τῆς ἁγίας SEOTón, A Difcourfe of James the Blessed, an Apostle and Bro-›

Nouvelles Obferv. fur la Texte & les Verfions du Nouv. Teft. c. 1.

apud Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. t. i. P. 58. ther

ther of our Lord, concerning the Nativity of the holy Mother of our Lord. Daniel de Neffel, in his Abridgment and Supplement to Lambecius's Commentary on the library of the Emperor at Vienna, among other of the Greek MSS. which are in his catalogue, tells us, there are five MSS. of the Protevangelion of Fames in that library a.

[ocr errors]

II. The first perfon who made this Gospel (viz. the Protevangelion) known in Europe, was Poftellus, who entertained a very high opinion of it. He brought it from the Levant, translated it into Latin, fent it to Oporinus, a printer at Bafil; where Bibliander meeting with it, caufed it to be printed, A. D. 1552. The substance of what Bibliander, after Postellus, faith, concerning it, I shall here give the reader, as I find it collected by Father Simon, and afterwards by Fabritius ; viz. "That it was publickly read in the Eastern Churches, " among whom it was reckoned authentick, they never mak"ing any doubt but that James was the author of it: that it "is to be looked upon as a jewel among the books of divi"nity, as the bafis and foundation of all the Gospel history, " and the beginning of the prefent Gospel of Mark:-that "the Gospels now received can never be fufficiently regarded "by the Jews without this: for which he offers among others "this reason, that the rulers of the Jews made use of the water "of trial mentioned (Numbers v.) to prove the innocency of the Virgin. (See ch. xvi.) He obferves from the Jewish writ“ings, that it was made a law among the Jews, that what"ever woman of the tribe of Judah, and especially of the fa"mily of David, was found with child, the matter was to be

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

referred to the confideration of the Priests, and thence con"cludes, they could not be unacquainted with the delivery of "Mary, fhe being given to Jofeph by them, but must have "an incontestable proof of the miraculous birth of Chrift. "The Evangelift Luke, in the Preface to his Gofpel, wit"neffes, that many have taken in hand to fet forth a declara"tion of those things which are most surely believed among Chriftians, even as they delivered them, who from the begin

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

Cod. Apoc. t. i. p. 48, 49

"ning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the Word. This ❝ does not seem so well to agree to Matthew and John, as to "James the brother of our Lord, the author of the history "which I now publifh, concerning the Nativity of Chrift; " of which Luke gives a more compendious account, but does "not at all differ from this Protevangelion. St. Austin refers "to it in the first chapter of the first book, De Confenf.

Evang. Befides, that this tradition (viz. concerning the "birth of Chrift) is very old, and has been received in the "Church, and owes its original to no other than James the "brother of our Lord, I am perfuaded from Epiphanius. "against the Collyridians and Antidicomarians, who men❝tions the cave, and other miracles. But if any one think "this book ought not to be placed among the Ecclefiaftical "writings, because Jerome, Eufebius, and others, who have

wrote concerning the life and writings of James, have "made no mention of it, nor reckoned it among the facred "books, he may be answered by good reafons: for Epipha"nius, who was before Jerome and Eufebius, proves the an"tiquity of the hiftory. Befides, fome things have escaped "the knowledge of the moft diligent writers, and others have "been long concealed in the Church, as the Book of the Law "in the time of foftah, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Epiftle

[ocr errors]

of Paul to the Hebrews, The Epistle of Jude, and the Re"velation, were unknown to many Chriftians for a long time, "and not till very late received into the Canon. But this "much recommends this writing of James, that it is never "reckoned among the Apocryphal and spurious writings, as "the Gofpel of Nicodemus, Thomas, Bartholomew, and "others. Nor are we for that reason to reject this book as "Apocryphal, because it contains fome of those things which are in the Book of Joachim, or the Nativity of Mary (which "Jerome tranflated out of Hebrew into Latin), or the book' "of the Infancy of our Saviour, of the Birth of our Saviour, of "Mary, or the Midwife of our Saviour, which Gelafius "ranks among Apocryphal books. For we do not esteem

Hæref. 78. §. 15.

<< the

"the four received Gofpels of the lefs credit, because they

[ocr errors]

agree in many things with the Gofpel of Nicodemus, Tho"mas, Bartholomew, the Nazarenes, or the Alcoran of Ma"homet. But if any one be offended at the multitude of "miracles therein, let him confider the incarnation of Chrift "was a great work, which was to be fupported by divine "works and evidences against the infidelity of Jews, Maho"metans, Heathens, deceivers, and Hereticks. Befides, "these miracles have no tendency to draw men's minds from

the knowledge and worship of God, but the contrary; "which is the nature of a true miracle. Nor is there any "thing in this writing of James, which is repugnant to the "facred hiftory; nor does there appear any motive which "would induce the oriental Chriftians to forge it, viz. nei"ther their temporal intereft, reputation, power, &c. so that "if ever any thing was received by just tradition, this book was formerly, and is ftill preserved in the Eaftern Churches, "and ought not to be defpifed by us in the Western. After “all, as I do not contend for its being advanced to the fame "height as the Canonical books of the Old and New Testa

66

ment, fo I think it should not be rejected among the Apo"crypha. For if the little book of Ruth, which contains the "pedigree of David from Booz to Ruth, is placed in the Ca

non, though we know not the writer's name, it seems to me very unjuft, that this first Gospel of St. James concern"ing the Nativity of Chrift and the Virgin, which is reckoned "among the authentick (i. e. Canonical) books by the Eaft"ern Churches, fhould not at least be placed among the Ha"giographa, or Ecclefiaftical books, fuch as the Epistle of "Clemens, and the Shepherd of Hermas formerly were « esteemed, and the book of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of So"lomon, Ecclefiafticus, the Hiftory of the Maccabees, the third

and fourth Books of Ezra, are now efteemed by all the "Churches; which books, as to excellency of argument, "and that fimplicity of ftile which is ufual in infpired writ"ings, are far exceeded by this book of James." Such was the very high opinion which Poftellus, and after him Bibliander, have entertained of this Protevangelion.

III. Nothing that Poftellus or Bibliander have faid for the

credit of this Gofpel of James is of any real force to support its authority. It would be fuperfluous to enter into a diftinct critical examination of all his pretended arguments; I fhall think it enough briefly to discuss that which feems most confiderable of what he offers in the preceding abstract of his opinion.

1. He urges in the beginning, that it was publickly read in the Eastern Churches, and acknowledged as authentick and genuine; and towards the end fays, it was reckoned by them among the Canonical books. But to this it is easy to anfwer,

(1.) That the practice or opinion of the Oriental Churches, in the time of Poftellus, viz. in the fixteenth century, can be no good rule for us to determine by in this matter; nor can we be more obliged to receive this or any other book which the Oriental Chriftians of feveral preceding centuries received, because they did or do receive it, than we are to acknowledge the idle fables of the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament, because they are received by the Western Chriftians of the Church of Rome.

(2.) It is not unreasonable to question the truth of the fact, seeing it is only related by Poftellus, and feems in itfelf improbable. This, fays Mr. Fabritius, is afferted without any reafon, and cannot be proved. I have not feen any perfons, or obferved any whole Churches, who reckon it among the Canonical Scriptures.-Nor fhall I eafily believe Poftellus herein, &c.

2. What he urges, that it is of ufe to convince the Jews, and agreeable to fome Jewish stories, is of no account, because this is very confiftent with its being a forgery.

3. That St. Luke (chap. i. 1.) respected it, and that what he fays will better agree to it than Matthew and John, is indeed in one fenfe true, because I have above proved, that St. Luke in those words refpected only the falfe Gofpels, which were then published, and therefore his argument will only prove

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »