These are all the accounts we have of thefe Traditions of Matthias, concerning which I will endeavour to prove two things, viz.

I. That they were not really any book, or written collection, but only fome oral Traditions.

II. That if there was any fuch book, entitled the Traditions of Matthias, it was certainly Apocryphal.

I. That thefe Traditions of Matthias were not really any book, or written collection, but mere oral Traditions. To evince this, I observe,

I. That, befides Clemens Alexandrinus in the places cited, no writer of the four first centuries, nor indeed any other antient writer, has fo much as mentioned the name of thefe Traditions of Matthias. This one can scarcely imagine, if ever such a book were really extant; for then it could not but have been frequently appealed to by the Valentinians, Marcionites, and Bafilides; and confequently muft have been mentioned by Irenæus, Tertullian, or Epiphanius, in their difputes against thofe hereticks.

2. This feems clearly deducible from the passages themselves in Clemens Alexandrinus; in no one of which he uses either the word Bichos, yéypanlaı, or any word of that fort, which will imply any thing to have been written; but, on the other hand, in each of these places introduces his account with a plain intimation, that he looked upon them only as oral traditions. So page 748, Aéyeos dè iv raîs wapadéσeos, i. e. They fay among the Traditions, i. e. It is a common Tradition, or commonly faid, that Matthias taught, &c. And for this conftruction I have the countenance of the Latin tranflator, who renders Clemens thus, Dicunt autem in Traditionibus, inferting a comma after the word Traditionibus, to evidence that Clemens did not there speak of any written book. So likewise in that place, page 436, Λέγεσι γ ̓ οὖν καὶ τὸν Ματθίαν ἔτως διδάξαι, &c. They, i.e. the Nicolaitans, fay, that Matthias taught fo, c. Where, as there is no mention of any written book of MatVOL. I.

S

thias,

thias, so there is a plain intimation, that this faying attributed to him by the Nicolaitans was a current Tradition among them, as from him, in order to support their abominable doctrine of the communion of women. Once more page 765, where he fays, feveral hereticks, την Ματθία αὐχῶσι δόξαν, boafted of the opinions of Matthias, as being agreeable to theirs, he manifeftly fhews, they were only fome traditionary and spurious opinions of that Apostle; for else I know not how to understand that opposition he makes between Aidaoxadia and παράδοσις; the words are μία ή πάλων γέγονε τῶν ̓Αποσόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις, i. e. The dottrine of the Apoftles in their writings cannot be different from, or contrary to, any traditionary doctrines pretending to be theirs; in which there is implied a good argument against those hereticks; viz. That their principles must be erroneous, because they were only supported by fome traditionary doctrines, which, being contrary to those which were written, must of neceffity be falfe, unless the Apoftles can be fuppofed to have preached one thing, and wrote another quite contrary.

3. It is a thing very notorious in Christian antiquity, that the hereticks, not being able to maintain their perverse tenets by the written Scriptures, nor to answer the arguments brought against them from them, continually applied not only to Apocryphal forgeries, but unwritten Traditions. By this means the unhappy Jews were deluded into the most fatal errors thus the Chriftians were deceived into a belief of the neceffity of Judaism, as we read in the Synodical Epiftle from Jerufalem thus the doctrine of the Millennium first gained its reputation from the credulous Papias, who was fo fond of Tradition: thus, in a word, a thoufand ridiculous fables have received credit in the Church, and even still are made use of in the Church of Rome to maintain the absurdeft doctrines of it, as may be feen in almost every writer against Popery. From all which, with what is faid above, it appears more probable, that these were fome unwritten Traditions, than any written book of Matthias.

Mar. vii. 7.

A&t. xy. 24.

Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39.

Το

To this opinion I know nothing that can, with any reason, be objected; though I am fenfible, thefe Traditions have hitherto been always efteemed as a written book by those who have taken any notice of it, as Sixtus Senenfis, Dr. Grabe", Mr. Toland, Mr. Fabritius, Dr. Mill ́, and Mr. Whiston', &c. But I hope what I have urged is fufficient to prove the mistake. Dr. Gråbe, Dr. Mill, and Mr. Whiston, have propofed their conjectures concerning it, which I fhall here briefly examine.

Dr. Grabe fuppofes it to have been the fame book with that I last treated of, intitled, The Gospel of Matthias. His words are,

Inter Evangelia mala hæreticorum fide nominibus Apoftolorum fuppofita, Matthiæ quoque adfcriptum aliquod memorat Eufebius Lib. III. Hift. Eccl. c. 25. Quod idem puto effe cum magadioso. Traditionibus a Clemente Alexandrino memoratis; quia Evangelia fcribebantur, Kadas wagídocar oi àπ' á‹xñç autólag ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τω λόγω.

Among the falfe Gospels impiously forged under the Apofiles names by the hereticks, Eufebius mentions one afcribed to Matthias; which I fuppofe to be the fame with the maçades, i. e. Traditions mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus; because the Gospels were written as they delivered, who were from the beginning eye-witnesses, and minifters of the word.

argument,

There is nothing can be more weak than this being only founded upon a word, which may be used in a very large fenfe. It needs no other confutation than putting it in its proper light it stands thus; the accounts of our Saviour's life were composed out of the Traditions of those who faw his actions; therefore the Traditions of Matthias were an account of our Saviour's life, or a Gospel; i. e. Chrift's life was

wrote by Tradition, therefore there were no other Traditions. This is ludere cum vocibus. But befides, as Mr. Fabritius well obferves, the contents of these Traditions were not like the contents of a Gofpel, which are always fome fayings or histories of Jesus Christ, but the fragments of these Traditions are of another fort, as is evident by the most cursory view of them.

Dr. Mill follows Dr. Grabe, and fuppofes farther, that it was one of those books, which St. Luke had respect to in the preface of his Gofpel, compofed and published in the following manner.

Mihi fane videntur maçados παραδόσεις iftæ ex ore Matthiæ in Judæa prædicantis initio exceptæ fuiffe a Chriftiano quopiam, & in libellum redacta; cui ad majorem traditionibus iftis conciliandam auctoritatem Apoftoli nomen præfixit auctor, quifquis ille fuerit. Cæterum cum, libro ifti, perinde ac cæ teris dyno inferta effent, ex errore dayîè, quædam haud dopa, quædam item doctrinæ Chriftianæ minus confona, quibus, incaute animoque non malo fcriptis, abufi effent Bafilidiani, Valentiniani, aliique hæretici, ad fuos errores ftabiliendos; hinc poft editionem Canonicorum Evangeliorum in defuetudinem abiit, atque etiam inter libros hæreticos numeratus eft.

Lib. cit. p. 784.

It feems to me, that thefe Traditions of Matthias were taken from his mouth, when he first preached in Judea, by fome Chriftians, and formed into a little book; to procure the greater respect to which Traditions, the author, whaever he was, prefixed the name of the Apoftle. But as in that, as well as other accounts, viz. of Chrift, through the mistake of the author, feveral things were inferted, neither found, nor agreeable to the Chriftian doctrine, which though unguardedly wrote, and without any ill intent, the Bafilidians, Valentinians, and other hereticks, made a wrong use of, to eftablish their errors. It became difufed after the publishing of the Canonical Gofpels, and was reckoned among the heretical books.

Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 53.

The

The fame learned Dr. in another place a imagines this book of Traditions to have been interpolated by Leucius, and to have received the addition of many trifling and falfe ftories from his hand. But as his opinion about the original of the book is not only proposed without any attempt to make it so much as probable, but appears, by what has been above faid, to be falfe and groundless, fo alfo is his account of the interpolations of it, as I fhall fhew Numb. XXXVIII.

Mr. Whifton, difcourfing about Philo's Therapeute, whom he takes for Chriftians in Egypt before the coming of St. Mark, fuppofes not only the Gospel of the Egyptians, but alfo the Traditions of Matthias, to have been in use among them: but of this conjecture he has affigned no reason; and therefore I think it fufficient to my defign only to inform the reader of it.

What farther remains now is;

II. To fhew, that if these Traditions were really a book, they were Apocryphal, which is manifeft by Prop. IV, V, and VI. but especially by Prop. VIII. as it contained the principles of the most impious hereticks, viz. the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Bafilidians. &c.

Numb. XXXVIII. BOOKS under the NAME of MATTHIAS.

IN

N the before-cited Decree of Pope Innocent I. according to one edition, we read ;Cætera quæ fub nomine Matfub nomine Matthiæ, five Jacobi Minoris quæ a quodam Leucio fcripta funt-non folum repudianda, verum noveris effe damnanda.

Other books, such as that under the name of Matthias, or James the Lefs which were written by one Leucius-→→→→ know, that they are not only to be rejected, but condemned,