« 前へ次へ »
taining many relations which are not in the other, but it is nevertheless very probable they both are the product of some one antient Gospel, which went through very many altera . tions, interpolations, &c. To support this, I observe,
That there are several relations in both, which cannot with any reason be doubted to have been the same. . For instance, the story of Christ's forming the twelve sparrows on the Sabbathday out of mud, a certain few's being offended, Christ's clapping bis hands, and the sparrows flying away, in Cotelerius's Gofpel, Ch. II. is related with very little alteration in Mr. Sike's, Ch. XLVI. compared with XXXVI. So is that story, Cotel. Ch. IV. with Sike's XLVII. The story of Christ's learning his alphabet of a schoolmaster named Zacchæus, in Cotelerius's Gospel, Ch. VI. is related with little difference in Mr. Sike's, XLVIII, XLIX. So also the account of Christ's going into the dyer's shop, of which we have a part in Cotelerius's Gospel, Ch. VII. is related at large in Mr. Sike’s, Ch. XXXVII. From hence it is evident, near half that Gospel which Cotelerius published, is contained in Mr. Sike's; which, if it be impartially considered, as also that the former of these is only a fragment or imperfect part of a more large Gospel, and therefore might contain, as very probably it did, many other things which are in Mr. Sike's, it seems to have as much probability as the nature of the thing will allow, that they both were either originally one and the same, or proceeded from one and the same original.
II. The Gospel under the name of Thomas the Apostle, so frequently mentioned by the antients, was a book different from that, intitled, Concerning the Infancy of our Saviour. This observation is necessary to be inade here, not only because in that Gospel which is published by Cotelerius, the author pretends to have been Thomas the Apostle, but because without it there is much danger of confusion in treating on this subject. Mr. Fabritius, in his large colle&tions relating to this Gospel, has with much labour amassed together the testinonies of the antients and moderns concerning the Gospel of Thomas; and prefixed them to these two Gospels of the Infancy
of our Saviour; but in such a manner, as must needs involve the reader in the utmost perplexity: to avoid this, I have made the present observation, viz. that the antient Gospel of Thomas was very different from the Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. This appears, because
1. The antient Christian writers have mentioned these as two different and distinct books. In Pope Gelasius's Decree we read, Evangelium nomine Thomæ Apocryphum, The Gospel under the name of Thomas is Apocryphal; and a little after, Liber de Infantia Salvatoris Apocryphus, The book of the Infancy of our Saviour is Apocryphal. In a small tract of Timothy, a Prefbyter of Constantinople , we find, among the other books forged by the Manichees, recited as a distinct one, Tò rata Θωμάν Ευαγfέλιον, The Gefpel according to Thomas ; and a little after, Τα παιδικα λεγόμενα τη Κυρία και συνέταξαν οι αυτοί, θέλοντες δόκησιν απoφήναι την σάρκωσιν αύτε, και εκ εν αληθεία και The accounts of our Lord's infancy, which the Manichees forged, with design to represent Christ not as having been really incarnate, but only in appearance f. This Timothy is supposed by Dr. Caveb to have lived about the year of Christ DCX.
2. The Gospel of Thomas, mentioned by Cyril of Jerusalem, and several of the antients after him, was composed by Thomas, one of the three disciples of Manes, the father of the Mani. cheese (i. e. in the latter end of the third century, about the time of Aureliu. Probus, or Dioclefian); but the books of our Saviour's Infancy were extant in the time of Irenæus, and the forgery of the Gnosticks in the beginning of the second century. This is clear from the noted chapter in Irenæus, adv. Hæref. (viz. C. xvii. l. 1.) which, as far as it relates to my purpose, I shall presently produce at length.
I must indeed confess, that there was a Gospel under the name of Thomas, extant before this composed by the disciple of Manes, as appears by that place of Origen, which I have had occasion fo often to cite in the second part of the former
* Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. t. I. P. 139.
otit. Liter. Vol. I. p. 447.
II. Ch. XL. No. LXV. and par. ticularly the testimouy of Cyril there.
volume (viz. Homil. in Luc. i.). But there is not the least ground to conclude, either from Origen or any one of the Christian writers, that the Gospel under the name of that Apostle had any reference, or treated at all about the affairs and actions of our Saviour's infancy.
From all this I infer, that I have not here any occafion to concern myself with the Gospel of Thomas ; but concluding it to be a loft book, must judge it sufficient to refer the reader
proper place among fuch books (viz. Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XL. Num. LXV.). My business now is with the treatises of our Saviour's Infancy; and relating to those, I observe, farther,
III. Some of those called Christians in the beginning of the second century, published and received some book, or books, in which were contained the memorable actions of our Saviour in bis infancy, or the history of Christ before be entered upon his publick ministry. The Christians I mean were the Marcofians, a branch of the noted fect called Gnosticks; and as to the fact, we are assured by Irenæus , who faith,
Tipos dè TÁTOIS Ópuéntar wiño Besides, they produce an infiθG- αποκρύφων και νόθων
nite multitude of Apocryphal γραφών, άς αυτοί έπλασαν,
and spurious Scriptures which
they have forged, with which σαρεισφέρεσιν εις κατάπληξιν
they make the unthinking, and των ανοήτων, και τα της αλη
those who know not the true bebas un én 150pévwv ypaéppea- Scriptures, astonished. They ta. Tiporu apahap Edvxoi dè els have also added this false story, τέτο κακείνο το ραδιέργημα, That our Lord (when he was ως τα Κυρία (παιδος όντG
a child, and learning his alzai ypaém peata Mar Jávov- phabet) of his schoolmaster,
when be said to him as is usual, τG- ) και τα διδασκάλα φήσαντ, καθως 29% έσιν,
· Adv. Häres. lib. 1. c. 17. which is preserved in Epiphanius, • The Greek in that parenthesis Hæref. 34. §. 18. but supplied by
took out of the margin, it nut the editor out of the Old Latin being in the Greek of Irenæus, Translation,
Eité "Anox, úrougívær Izo tò fay A, answered A; again,
then I will tell you what B is. χιον: Συ μου πρότερον είτε
And this they fo expound, as
if he alone understood the
I know not that any of the antient Christians besides the Gnofticks did receive these books as genuine, or indeed that any one besides Irenæus has made mention of them within the firit four centuries after Chrift.
IV. The Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour was known to Mahomet, or those who assisted him in compiling the Alcoran. I add those who allifted him; because it is certain that Mahomet himself could neither write nor read, as he confeffes twice in the fanne chapter of the Alcoran (viz. Ch. VII. intitled, Of Prisons, p. 165.); and I have in the former Volume (Append. p. 462, &c.) shewn who his asistants were.
These, I say, knew the Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. I have already proved in the Appendix now cited, that many, or most of those things which are in the Alcoran, relating to Christ and Christianity (which I have also there produced) were taken out of some Apocryphal or spurious writings, and particularly instanced in some taken out of the Gospel of the Infancy. Since the writing of that volume, I find the learned Hinkelmannus has afferted in his Preface to his Arabick edition of the Alcoran, that Mahomet and his afiiftants made use of this Gospel in many places of the Alcoran. In hunc infelici fuo et aliorum fato cum adjutoribus suis incidit Imposi'or Mahomedes, et paljim, præcipue capite tertio, multa ex eodem in Corenum suum transcripsit magno suo opprobrio, et novæ religionis detrimenta ; į. e. The impoftor Mahomet, by his unlucky fate, and his disci
ples, met with this book (of the Infancy of Christ), and has in many places, especially in the third chapter, transcribed many things out of it into his Alcoran, to his own shame and the injury of his new religion. If my searches into the Alcoran do not deceive me, this learned editor is mistaken, and, instead of many places, there are but two only to be found there, in which the compilers have transcribed out of this Gospel. I question not but he confounded the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, or, which is the same thing, the Protevangelion of James, with the Gospel of the Infancy: for whereas he cites the third chapter of the Alcoran, and faith much of it was transcribed out of the Gospel of the Infancy, he is mistaken, the contents of that chapter being manifestly taken more out of the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, Ch. II. or the Protevangelion of James, Ch. IV. Notwithstanding this, as I have above observed, there are two things in the Alcoran' manifestly taken out of the Gospel of the Infancy, as that Ch. III. and Ch. V. intitled, Of the Table (in my collection out of the Alcoran, Num. II. and Num. VII. Vol. I. p. 451, and 455.) Concerning Christ's speaking in his cradle, which is in so many words in the Gospel of the Infancy, published by Mr. Sike, Ch. I. and the story of Christ's making a bird out of mud or Nime, in the last-cited places of the Alcoran, which is in both the Gospels above produced, viz. that of Cotelerius, Ch. II. and that of Mr. Sike, Ch. XXXVI. and XLVI.
It will not be improper to add here, that though the gene . rality of the Mahometans know little or nothing concerning Christ besides what is contained in the Alcoran, yet there have been among some of them fome traditions relating to Christ's infancy which are not there; some of which, as they are collected by Mr. Fabritius in several places, I shall here lay together, particularly,
1. That which Mr. Sikec relates out of La Broffe's Perfic Lexicon ; It is affirmed, says he, in an Apocryphal book of the Persians, that our Saviour practised the dyer's trade, and