ページの画像
PDF
ePub

against himself; but that St. Luke had any respect in his Preface to this Gofpel, is a mere groundless and precarious affertion.

4. What he urges in favour of it, that it does not differ from St. Luke's account of the nativity of Chrift, is in reality an argument of no weight, if it were true, because a forgery might eafily be fo; but befides the fact is abfolutely falfe, it contradicting the Evangelift's account in feveral particulars, fome of which I have above obferved, Ch. XIX. Arg. IV. Inft. 4, 5.

5. That St. Auftin refers to it (Lib. i. de Confenf. Evang. c. I.), is alfo utterly falfe.

[ocr errors]

6. That feveral of the flories or traditions in it have been credited by Epiphanius, is indeed true (see above, Ch. XVII. Obf. VIII.); but it is equally true, that Epiphanius rejected this book as fpurious and Apocryphal, as I have fhewn, Chap. XIX. Arg. II.

7. His answer to the obvious objection against it, that it is not mentioned by Eufebius, or Jerome, or any of the antients, among the works of fames, is very trifling, viz. that several things have efcaped the knowledge of the most diligent writers, that the book of the law was not known till found in Jofiah's time, and that the Epittle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, Jude, and the Revelation, were not of a long time received into the Canon. This, I fay, is a very weak and trifling anfwer; because,

(1.) The teftimony of the first centuries is the principal, and almost only rule we have, whereby to judge of the Canonical authority of any book (fee Par. I. Ch. VI. Prop. III.); confequently, if the book was not known to them, we cannot esteem it Canonical.

(2.) Although the Epistle to the Hebrews, the fecond of Peter, that of Jude and the Revelation, were not for fome time. So univerfally received as the other writings of the New Testament, yet it is certain they were at the fame time in being, and received by moft (as I fhall hereafter fhew); neither of which can be so faid of this Protevangelion.

8. That

8. That it is not reckoned among the Apocryphal Gofpels by the antients, is utterly falfe. See above, Ch. XIX. Arg. III.

9. What he fays in vindication of the miraculous ftories contained in it, viz. that they are related as attending a very great event, and have no bad tendency, may be equally faid of moft fabulous legends.

10. That there is nothing in it repugnant to the facred hiftory, I have above proved falfe by feveral inftances. See Ch. XX.

11. That nothing could tempt the Oriental Chriftians to forge it, is what we call petitio principii, and may be with equal reafon afferted of many known forgeries.

12. His confeffing it ought not to be esteemed in the fame high degree of Canonical authority with the other parts of Scripture, and yet not allowing it to be Apocryphal, is utterly inconsistent with what he contends for, viz. that it was the genuine writing of St. James, and ought to be received as fuch.

13. His argument for the Canonical authority of this book, because of the likeness of its fubject to the book of Ruth, is exceeding weak; because it would thence follow, that all genealogical books among the Jews must be equally Canonical.

14. That it agrees more in ftile with the undoubted inspired books of Scripture, than the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament, is not only falfe, as appears from the idle and fabulous accounts in it which I have above collected, Ch. XX. Arg. V. but would prove nothing if true, but the greater artifice of the impoftor.

Thus weak are all the arguments which are offered by Poftellus and Bibliander in defence of this Protevangelion under the name of James.

a

IV. Befides the above-mentioned Poftellus and Bibliander, all other writers have agreed to reject the Protevangelion as fpurious and Apocryphal. I confefs indeed, Jacob Grynæus Seems to have entertained fome more favourable sentiments of it; which indeed it is not ftrange he fhould, when we confider that he inferted it among the other pieces, to which he gives

[blocks in formation]

the splendid title of Orthodoxographa : His words are, " Multa

habet quæ narrationibus quatuor Evangeliftarum pulchre "confentiunt, plura autem quæ ab illis velut wάpspya funt "prætermiffa.-Plura autem Evangelia illa ætate fcripta effe "auctor eft Eufebius, Hift. Eccl. 1. iii. c. 25." i. e. It contains many things which perfectly agree to the accounts of the four Evangelifts, but more which they thought proper to omit as needlefs: however Eufebius affures us, that there were many Gofpels written about that time, i. e. about the time of James, and the other Apoftles. Such an overfight in Grynæus, who was a Proteftant, could not escape the censure of the Papists. Sixtus Senenfis observes with an air of contempt, that it was published by the Hereticks of his time, and Father Simon seems to wonder the Proteftants should cause it to be printed, and think it worthy to be published under the title of Orthodoxographa ↳ ; and I must indeed own, it is not a little ftrange Grynæus fhould be thus imposed upon: only I would obferve, that Poftellus, the first publisher of it, was a Papift; and that it is not just in Father Simon to impute the mistake of one Proteftant to the whole body of those who go under that denomination. It is certain, that all other Protestants have rejected it, who have mentioned it. Mr. Fabritius has made a large collection of the sentiments both of Proteftants and Papists, who have all judged it spurious and Apocryphal. I shall think it fufficient to refer the reader only to fuch whom I have seen; and those are,

Among the Proteftants.

Chemnitius Examen. Concil. Trid. par. iii. p. 63, and

p. 90.

Cafaubon. Exercit. i. contr. Baron. Num. 39.
Rivet. Crit. Sacr. lib. i. c. 4. p. 131.

Scultetus Medulla Patrum. par. i. 1. xi. c. 6.

Bishop Pearson's Expofit. on the Creed, Artic. iii. p. 170.

Bibliothec. Sanct. in Jacob.

1. 2. p. 67.

Critic. Hift. of the New Teft. Par. 1. c. 3. P. 27.

This I conclude from his faying, the Apocrypha of the Old Tef

tament were esteemed in all the Churches; which is only true of the Popish Churches, they being rejected by the Proteftants.

Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teft. Par. I. p. 53, &c.

Dr.

Dr. Cave Hift. Liter. Vol. I. p. 9. in Jacobo.
Spanheim. Hift. Chrift. Secul. i. p. 580.
Dr. Mill Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. §. 274.

Among the Papifts.

Gafpari Quirog. Index Expurgat. Hispan. p. 420.,
Sixtus Senenfis Biblioth. Sanct. 1. ii. p. 67. ad voc. Ja-

cob.

Bellarmin. de Scriptor. Ecclefiaft. in Jacob. p. 42.

Du Pin. Hift. of the Canon of the New Teftam. Vol. II. c. 6. §. 4.

Father Simon Critic. Hift. of the New Teft, par. i. c. 3. P. 27.

Thus I have endeavoured largely to offer to the reader, what I have obferved or judged moft confiderable, relating to this Gofpel. I fhall only add, that as the history contained therein undoubtedly was a very early forgery, so it seems impoffible to give any certain particular account either of its age or author; unless we will fuppofe, as the author of the Epifle to Chromatius and Heliodorus, under the name of Jerome above produced, does, both in his Epistle and Preface, that it was the composure of Seleucus, who is the fame (as I have proved, Par. II. Ch. XXI.) with Leucius Charinus; not that he was the first author, (for he, as I have proved above, was undoubtedly a Jew), but the person who made fuch large additions and interpolations, that he was efteemed the author.

[blocks in formation]

TH

CHA P. XXII.

The Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy.

HE following Gospel was published and tranflated by Mr. Henry Sike at Utrecht, 1697, Profeffor of the Oriental languages in Cambridge, and requires a place here for the following reasons :

1. Because it is of the fame original with the other Gofpel of the Infancy published by Cotelerius, and that claims St. Thomas for its author. See the next Chapter.

2. Because the books of Chrift's Infancy went under the names of St. Matthew 2, and St. Peter b.

3. Because they were received by the Gnofticks in the fecond century. See below, Ch. XXIV.

4. Because feveral of its relations were credited by the Christians in the following ages, viz. Eusebius, Athanafius, Epiphanius, Chryfoftom, &c. To omit all others, I shall only inftance in Sozomen, who credits and fays he was told by many the following ftories, which are in this Gofpel, viz. that Ch. X. of the idol's falling down in Egypt upon Joseph's flight thither with Chrift, and that Ch. XXIV. of Chrift's making a well in a fycamore tree (to, wash his clothes), called Matarea, and a balfam proceeding from the tree. These are related by Sozomen thus: "They fay, that at Hermopolis, "which is a town of Thebais, there is a tree called Perfis, "of which either the fruit or leaves, or any small piece of the “bark, brought near to fick persons, has cured many. For "it is faid, that Jofeph, when he fled with Christ and Mary "for fear of Herod, came to Hermopolis, and that as foon as " he came near the gate, that tree, though a very great one, "was moved at Chrift's coming by, and bowed down to the "ground, and worshipped Chrift. He adds, that he supposes

a See the Epiftle of Chromatius and Heliodorus, and Jerome's Anfwers above, Chap. XIV.

1

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »