ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

converts to Chriftianity, but to have derived their very name 'Effenes from their being Chriftians. They who believed on Chrift, fays he, were called Jeffæi (or Effenes) before they were called Chriftians, either becaufe felle was the father of David, or from Jefus, the name of our Lord, because they were his Difciples, and derived their conftitution from him, or from the fignification of the name Jefus, which in Hebrew fignifies the fame as dipariuris (the name by which Philo calls them), i. e. a Saviour, or Phyfician. Whether thefe etymologies are right, I need not difpute: Fuller, Seraríus and Scaliger, have disputed it fufficiently a. The fact I contend for is fufficiently plain, that Epiphanius thought thefe Effenes at Alexandria to have been the firft Chriftians there. I might here farther add the judgment of other antient writers to the fame purpofe, as Cedrenus, Sozomen, Nicephorus, &c. but it is needlefs in fo evident a cafe. It has indeed been very much debated, whether their opinion in this matter be right, or no; viz. whether the Effenes in Egypt were Chriftians, or not. Scaliger, Fuller, Godwin, Valefius, Le Clerc, and generally all the Protestants, have rejected the authority of the Fathers in this point, and believe Philo's Effenes were not Chriftians; on the other hand, they of the Roman Church generally hold the affirmative, fuch as Bellarmine, Serarius, who has wrote very largely about it, and lately the learned Montfaucon I will not here enter into fo large a difpuite; for my own part I believe neither of the contending parties perfectly in the right, nor their arguments on either fide conclufive. I fhall only deliver my own conjecture concerning the matter, which I think myfelf able, when there is occafion, to support by good arguments. What I mean is a fort of compounding the matter thus, viz. 1. That when Philo wrote foon after our Saviour's

[blocks in formation]

refurrection, there were a great number of Jewish Effenes at Alexandria; and though at that time Chriftianity was not yet fpread in Egypt (and fo Philo could not mention the name of Chrift or his Apoftles), yet foon afterwards it was very much

received in Alexandria.

2. That the Jews were generally the first converts that were made to Chriftianity, in every place where the Apostles went. This has been already proved above".

[ocr errors]

3. The principles of the Effenes there were fuch as would be likely to influence them above all others to become Chriftians, This is plain out of Philo, especially if we fuppose there were any of the Gnofticks, or difciples of Saturninus, or their followers, in Egypt, as we know Simon Magus was, from whom they arofe.

J

4. It seems therefore probable, that fome of thefe received Christianity, and at the fame time continued in their old way of living abftemioufly. Who can prove, fays a late writer, that no Effenes embraced the faith of Christ, or that they could not do it, and yet retain their old fentiments concerning meats and marriage?

5. Hence Eufebius knowing certainly there were fome fuch fort of Chriftians in Egypt, might easily be induced to believe, they were generally of the fame fort, and confequently the fame

of whom Philo wrote. *

But if, after all, Eufebius fhould not be in the right, nor the Fathers that followed him, nor my conjecture be just, it must at least be certain, there was a very great agreement between these Egyptian Therapeutæ or Effenes, and the first Chriftians in Egypt, in their cuftoms, and fo it only remains neceffary to give fome inftances of this. I need only mention one for my prefent purpose, viz. that relating to their forbidding marriage; and as I have abundantly proved this of the moft antient hereticks, fo to fhew the fame of these Effenes or Therapeutæ. Jofephus relates this concerning them in fevetal places (though he indeed mentions a sort of

a Part I. c. 2. p. 26.

Dr. Whitby on 1 Tim. iv. 3.

с

Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 2. & de Bell. Jud. lib. 2. c. 12.

P 3

them

them that did marry), fo alfo did Pliny a and Philo several times. Concerning the celibacy of the Egyptian Therapeutæ, I fhall only recite one paffage out of his book, De Vita Contemplativa, page 899.

Συνεσιῶνται δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες, ὧν πλεῖσαι γεραιαὶ παρθένοι τὴν αγνείαν, ἐκ ανάγκη, καθά περ ἔνιαι τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησιν ἱερεῖων, διαφυλάξασαι μᾶλλον, ἢ καθ ̓ ἑκέσιον γνώμην, διὰ δὲ ζῆλον καὶ πόθον τῆς σοφίας, ᾗ συμβιᾶν σπεδάσασαι, τῶν περὶ σῶμα ἡδονῶν ἠλόδησαν, ἐ θνητῶν ἐκδόνων, αλλ' αθανάτων ὀρεχθεῖσαι, τς.

Women alfo are admitted to

their feasts, most of which are old virgins, who preserved their virginity not by compulfion, as lome facred ones among the Heathen, but of their own accord, through their zealous defire of wifdom, in the conftant purfuit of which, through their whole lives, they defpifed all carnal enjoyments, not defiring more tal and perishing children, but those which are immortal.

It appears therefore from the antient opinion of the Egyptian Therapeutæ, that there were the fame heretical doctrines of the unlawfulness of marriage among the Chriftians in Egypt, as in other countries.

2. This farther appears probable from this confideration, viz. that monafteries and the monkifb way of life derive their firft original from Egypt. It is not at all strange, that an abftemioufness, fo great as that of the first Christians in Egypt, above described, fhould influence many zealous persons to the like practices, and that these by degrees fhould add many other things of the fame nature. Serarius makes no doubt but they were the firft beginners of the monaftick life; it is enough to my purpose to obferve, that the first certain evidences of this were in Egypt, in the latter end of the second, or beginning of the third century. This Jerome tells us ';

Natural Hift. lib. 5. c. 17.
See Serarius's Collections of

their Dogmata.

c In Vit. Paul. Eremit, Par. 3. Tract. 8. de vit. contem. Epift. 37.

it has often been a question, fays he, from whom the defert way of life of the monks derives its original? Some derive it as far as from Elijah and John-Others (which is the prevailing opinion) from Antonius; which is in part true, for he was not fo much the first in this way of life, as the means of propagating it; for Amathas and Macarius, two difciples of Antonius, affirm, that one Paul of Thebais (in Egypt) was the chief author of this matter, which I alfo affent to. Sozomen follows the common opinion, and deduces it from Antonius, but he alfo lived in Egypt; but in a thing fo well known I need produce no more authorities. An account of their way of living, and the means that Paul and Antonius promoted it, may be read in the places already cited, and the writers of Ecclefiaftical History in the third century b. Now hence I argue it as probable, that the Egyptian Chriftians were remarkable above others for their abftemiousness, in the time before this Paul; else it is not likely he should have influenced fuch great numbers as he did, in fo fhort a time, to become his followers.

3. Perhaps it may not be abfurd to argue the same from the defign of the third book of Clemens Alexandrinus's Stromata, which is principally to confute thofe hereticks, who denied the lawfulness of entering into a conjugal ftate. For inasmuch as we do not find this argument infifted upon fo largely by any of the writers of his, or the preceding century, it seems rea→ fonable to conclude thefe hereticks prevailed moft in that country and place where he lived. This was Alexandria, the very place where Philo lived, and where his Therapeuta were in the greatest numbers. They abound, fays he, most in the provinces of Egypt, but especially about Alexandria.

Thirdly, The remaining fragments of the Gospel according to the Egyptians are all fuch as were urged out of it by thofe who held marriages and procreation of children finful, in order to countenance their errors in this respect. This is evident from the paflages themselves, and what has been above said

a Hift. Eccl. 1. 1. c. 12. et l. 6. c.. 29.

See efpecially Spanheim. Hift.

Eccl. Secul. III. p. 802.
• De Vit. Contemplat. p. 892.

P 4

concerning

concerning them. For inftance, the Gospel of the Egyptians makes Chrift to approve celibacy and a fingle life: the Egyptian Chriftians forbad all marriages as unlawful; in the Gofpel of the Egyptians, Salome is introduced, as concluding from what our Saviour faid, that she did well in bearing no children: among the Egyptian Chriftians we find women celebrated for their virginity, and refolution not to bear children. Once more, in the Egyptian Gofpel we find it the main reason affigned against bearing children, that they should not be brought to trouble and death; fo Philo fays his Therapeutæ, who were the fource and pattern of these Egyptian Chriftians, defired not to bear children, which should perish and die, &c.

I omit making the parallel between the old Chriftian hereticks and Philo's Therapeutæ, in other inftances of their abftemioufnefs, viz. their avoiding certain forts of meats, &c. because we have no account of it in the remaining fragments of the Egyptian Gospel, though I could easily fhew there was fuch agreement.

Laying therefore all these things together, and judging with a due impartiality, I think there is as much evidence as the nature of the fubject will allow, that the Gofpel of the Egyp tians was the forged compofure of forme imperfect Chriftians in Egypt, with defign the better to recommend their plausible doctrines of celibacy and abftemiousness under the names of Chrift and his Apostles; easily perceiving, that whatever was published under fo great names, would be more likely to imprefs and influence the minds of the people.

I have only farther to add, that the foregoing account feems to receive fome ftrength from the confideration of the Gospel of the Egyptians not being cited, nor even mentioned or known by any Chriftians before the very end of the fourth century, but only Clemens and Origen, who both dwelt at Alexandria in Egypt. Thus much of this famous Gofpel, which I have taken more pains about than ordinary, because it has been judged by many learned men not only a moft antient, but valuable Gospel, made ufe of by true primitive Chriftians, and not by hereticks, but with what juftice, let the reader now judge.

CHAP.

« 前へ次へ »