« 前へ次へ »
2. Clemens Alexandrinus never cited ar appealed to this Gospel. This indeed does necessarily follow from the former head, but will more clearly appear, if we consider, that all the several fragments of it, that are extant in Clemens, were produced by the hereticks, against whom he is difputing, nat by him, as will appear by a bare reading the places cited : so the first passage, page 445, he premises éteta rad diasperléov, aútès rà
' attāv Pegóueva doanúortas, wdé mws, tý Euróun o Kúpuos, &c. Now I must overthrow and confute the things urged or cited by them oịt of the Gospel of the Egyptians, &c. So likewise in the next pallage, p. 452, oi an erragoáuevo Tỷ slice T8 Đề xạ xsīvas néggou ta agès Earájanveienuéva, ūv zopótspor furíampiev, &c. They who oppose the designs of God's creation by their specious pretences to celibacy, cite those things, which our Saviour fpake ta San lome, wbich I have above mentioned, &C. Again in the third paffage, p. 453. He premises, ouxi xai ta txñs rão Topès Earáunn sie papéuwy étiqépson, &c. The things which follow, Spoken to Salome, they cite, who had rather use any books than the Canonical ones, &c. Once more p. 465. he particularly mentions the person who cited this Gospel, Aid tõtó rob & Kacgravès quoi, murdavouéxas añs Eanáung, &c. Wherefore Caffianus faith, when Salome asked Chrift, &c. So that nothing can be more manifest, than that Clemens himself does not cite or appeal to this Apocryphal piece, but only cites the writings of hereticks, in which ap. peals were made to it. · But, 3. Clemens was so far from citing it, or approving the Gospel of the Egyptians, that he utterly rejects it, as an impious, heretical, and Apocryphal book. This will be manifest, if we obferve, that the only design of Clemens, in producing these passages out of the hereticks' books, is to confute them, and their ridiculous notions of the unlawfulness of all sorts of marriages. Hence he begins with this introduction, p. 445. "As for those who by specious pretences of continency think « impiously both of the creation, and the Holy Creator, the “ only Almighty God, and say, that no marriages are lawful, « nor procreation of children; that we ought not to bring “ others into the world to be unhappy, nor satisfy the cruelty “ of death, I have the following things to say; first, that of
“ John, And now, there are many Antichrists, whence we know , « the later times are come. They went out from us, but were “ never of us, for if they had been of us, then they would have « continued with us. "Emeta xai diasperlío aútùs, ta aútā, « Pegóueva daquórras, de tws, Eanayen, &c. In the next place « I must confute those things, which they cite (out of the Gof« pel of the Egyptians) in this manner, When Salome asked “ Chrift, &c. p. 445.” Which when he had confuted, he introduces the next passage thus :: “ They who by their plausible “ celibacy oppose the creation of God, urge the things spoken by « Chrift to Salome, &c. p. 452.” And in the next page, though he does not call this Gospel in so many words Apocryphal, yet he plainly does in other words: Oixi-nai tál Ens των προς Σαλώμην ειρημένων, επιφέρεσιν, οι πάντα μάλλον και το κατά την cadesay củayleasxão sogescartes Kavóvs, papérns yap airûs, &c. The things which follow, spoken to Salome, they cite, who had rather follow any thing than the true Canon of the Gospel, &c. p. 453. Once more, when he is about to answer the fragment urged out of this Gospel, he reasons against it thus : [Ipãtor piv år, in τούς παραδεδομένοις ημϊν τέταρσυ Ευαγίελίοις ουκ έχομεν το ρητόν, αλλ' iv tớ xat Aiyunlíes. First, says he, this saying is not in either of the four Gospel which have been (received) delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians, p. 465. He who will lay these things together without prejudice, muft evidently perceive, that as Clemens never saw, so he utterly rejected the authority of this Gospel, and efteemed it no other than a vile forgery of some impious hereticks. I wish Dr. Grabe had well considered these things, before he gave this Gospel so high a character ; but prejudice strangely blinds the greatest men; and it is easy to see that Dr. Grabe's circumstances, when in England, inclined him to a too fond affection for Apocryphal books : so that I think Le Clerc did him no injustice, when he lately styled him Apocryphorum nimis ftudiosus a.
of this Gomcn he is about anon of the God
• Hiftor. Eccl. de Ascenf. Chrift. ad Ann. 29. not. ad. §. 13. p. 333.
: OBSERV. III. The Gospel of the Egyptians seems to have been composed by some very early hereticks to support their doctrines of celibacy and abstemiousness, and very probably by those of Egypt. . To confirm this conjecture, I observe, i į
· First, That there were in the very infancy of Christianity great numbers of persons called Christians, who alerted the unlarofulness of marriages, and profeffed a great abstemiaufness in their manner of life. Against these St. Paul writes in several of his Epiftles; for instance, those words, 1. Cor. vii. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman; which are not St. Paul's words, (as our Translation makes them to be, and most persons think) but their words to him, intimating a question that had been started by some hereticks among them, whether it was lawful to marry? In his first Epistle to Timothy, (c. iv. 3.) he more plainly mentions; them as departers from the faith, giving beed to seducing spirits, and do£trines of Devils-forbidding to marry, and commanding to' abftain from meats, &c. And again, in his Epifle to the Coloffians, (c. fi. 21.) he blames them for being influenced by the doctrines which commanded them to touch inot, taste not, and handle not, i. e. not touch women, but abstain from marriages, and certain fort of meats. In these places the Apostle is guarding his converts against the artful infinuations of those who declared it was unlawful for a man to marry, or have any concern with a voman; and thus those, who lived near the Apostle's time, and while these foolifh tenets were yet in esteem, understood him. So Clemens Alexandrinus in the forecited book a intérprets both those last passages of Paul, concerning those who abhorred: matrimony, Tepi TÔ Bleaupoduéwwr grá por o paxderos Llaŭdos Néma ; and
Tertullian expounds the passage in Tim.iy. 3. The Apostle, Says he, writes against them whe forbad marriage, &c. But besides the Apostle's mentioning this, we find it in the writ. ings of the firft Fathers continually fo; in the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, we read, if any one call lawful marriage and the begetting of children corruption and pollution, or think any sort of food abominable, such person
b. De Monogam. c. 15. .
· P. 447. See also p. 462. 5. Vol. I.
has the apostate dragon dwelling within him a. ' Though it is observable, that in another part of that same Epistleb, the author gives no small encomium to the virgins in the Church of Philadelphia, who were like Elijah, Joshua, Melchifedeck, Elisha, Jeremiah, John Baptist, Timothy, Titus, Euodius, and · Clement, who lived all their days in celibacy. · Irenæus, in his account of the heresy and followers of Sa
turninus, tells us, it was their opinion, that marrying and be. getting children was from the Devil, that they abstained from : living creatures, and by their pretended fanctity and abstemioufnefs induced many to follow them. The same he asserts was the doctrine of the Encratites d; who sprang from Marcion, and Saturninus of Tatian, and his followers . Tertullian affirms the fame of Marcion oftenf, Clemens Alexandrinus has wrote a whole book against this doctrine of the Marci-onites and Gnofticks, viz. that, in which the Gospel of the
Egyptians is mentioned. In short, we find this doctrine pro- fessed not only by the forementioned, but the Manichees , -Apoftolicks or Apotacticksh, Origenians, and most of the · hereticks of those primitive times of the Church. I will only add, that in the spurious book, called The Constitutions of the
Apostles, there is also frequent mention of this doctrine k; all - which laid together will fufficiently confirm the truth of my - observation, that there were in the infancy of Christianity many
persons called Christians, who denied the lawfulnefs of marriage. . Secondly, These heretical opinions prevailed in a very re<markable degree in Egypt. This I gather,. . to I. From the common opinion of the antients, that the Thera-t i peutæ or Effenes (for it cannot be reasonably doubted but
they were the same persons), of whom and their opinions · Philo has wrote a whole book, were no other than fome imper.
feet Christians. Eusebius has largely attempted the proof of
a P. 102.
& lib. 5. adv. eund. 6. 7. P.97, 98.
& Epiph. Hæref. 66. c Adv. Hæref. lib. 1. c. 22. i n* Id. Härer, 61. Ibid. c. 30.
in Ibid. 64 Ibid. c. 31.
* See lib. 6. c. 8, 10, 26. * Lib. I. adv. Marcion, c. 29.
this, and that by no contemptible arguments. He firft pofitively asserts, that after St. Mark had preached up and down in Egypt, and even planted Churches in the city of Alexandria, there were immediately a great number of converts, who entered upon a rigid abstemious life. This I take as a fact most cer. tain, because it is by him so positively asserted, and not a conjecture drawn from Philo, who never mentions any thing of St. Mark. After this he produces a great part of Philo's book concerning the Essenes in Egypt, and their various sentiments, endeavouring to shew, they were no other than Chris. tians, and that their antient sacred books were the Prophets of the Old Testament, the Gospels and Epistles of the New
Testament. Jerome had the same opinion of Philo's book : he says in the Life of Mark', that he went with his Gospel, which he had wrote, intą Egypt, and that he first preached Christ there, and constituted a Church; that he was fo remark. able in the abstemiousness of his life, that he obliged all his converts to follow his example; infomuch that Phile, the most elo. quent of all the Jewish writers, when he saw the first (Christian) Church at Alexandria still observing the Jewish customs, thought it would be to the honour of his nation, (viz. the Jews) to write a book concerning their way of life ; and as Luke fays, the Christians at Jerusalem had all things common, so he relates that it was at Alexandria under Mark's instructions. And to the fame purpose a little after, in his Life of Philo, Jerome faith, that he placed Philo among the Church writers, because, by writing a book concerning the first Church of Mark at Alexan. dria, he has said much in commendation of the Christians: he not only mentions such as being there, but in many other provinces, and calls their places of abode monasteries; from whence it appears, that the first Christians, who believed there on Chrift, were such as the monks now pretend and desire to be, viz. to have all things common, &c.c
Epiphanius also followed Eufebius in his opinion", and makes Philo's Effenes at Alexandria not only to be Mark's
Hift. Ecclef. lib. 2. c. 16, 17.
• Ibid. in Philone.