rable, If you have not been faithful, and made a due ufe of the leffer enjoyments of this life, who will entrust you, or how can you expect the greater things and enjoyments of the other a? There is no need therefore of fuppofing either any Apocryphal Gospel, or interpolated copy, out of which Clemens or Irenæus took these words. If there were, we may as well suppose the same in ten thousand inftances at least, where the Fathers have thus laxly made their citations out of the books of the Old and New Teftaments. And whereas it may be objected, and perhaps be thought ftrange, that Clemens and Irenæus should agree to paraphrafe, or exprefs, our Saviour's words fo near the fame: I antwer, that it was hardly probable they fhould have paraphrafed them any other way, because Chrift himself gives the fame explication of them, ver. 10. and fo our best Paraphrafts and Expofitors have done. As to the fourth passage, although Dr. Grabe, and Mr. Fabritius have imagined it to be a diftinct Saying of Chrift; and the latter fays, it was taken out of an Apocryphal Gospel, which he conjectures to be the Gospel of the Egyptians, it appears to me plainly to be only the words of Clemens, or the Author of the Epiftle, in explaining the preceding faying of Christ; as any one may perceive by the context; and accordingly was taken by the prefent Archbishop of Canterbury in his English translation, though either his Grace, or his printer, was very much mistaken, in putting the word foul, for the Greek oppayida; which word, by the way, is a good evidence that this could not be any Saying of Chrift, who never made ufe of this word to denote baptifm, which even according to Mr. Fabritius in this place it does; and perhaps an evidence, that this Epiftle under the name of Clemens was not written by him, or any other person of his time. The laft paffage was indeed in the Gospel of the Egyptians; for Julius Caffianus urges it thence, as we read in Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. lib. 3. p. 465. and accordingly I have produced it above in the second Part of this work, Chap. XVI. See Grotius, Hainmond, Whit by, Le Clerc, &c. Spicileg. Patr. t. 1. p. 13. VOL, I. E e Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Teft. Par. 1. p. 333. where where I have largely proved that Gospel to be Apocryphal, and a very filly forgery; and for this reafon we have fufficient ground to reject it, as not really one of our Saviour's, especially when we confider how unlike it is to the known ftyle and manner of his speaking; for as I have elsewhere said, that was perfectly clear, eafy, and familiar; this is mystical, involved, perplexed, if not abfurd and obfcene, more like the filly ambiguous anfwers of the Delphick Oracles, than the rational and plain difcourfes of Jefus Chrift. What remains here is only to enquire, whether this Gospel was cited in this Epiftle under the name of Clemens, or this paffage taken out of it? Which is not very evident, as I conclude, 1. From the manner in which the author introduces the paflage, Επερωτηθεὶς αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ὑπό τινος, i. e. The Lord himfelf being asked by a certain perfon, &c. which words imply that hew as utterly ignorant, who the perfon was that asked our Saviour the queftion: but had he really cited, or made ufe of this Gofpel, he could not have been ignorant, seeing it was there expressly faid, that Salome was the person who asked the question; as is evident from the place juft now cited in Clemens Alexandrinus. 2. The faying or passage itself is fuch, as can hardly be imagined to be cited or transcribed by a person of the worth and character of Clemens, St. Paul's companion; it is not likely that he should have any regard to a book so filly, impious, and ridiculous, as the Gospel of the Egyptians has been proved to be; befides, if it was an imposture, he cannot be supposed to be ignorant of it: once more, as the paffage itself is abfurd and foolish, I conclude, he would never have urged it as the words of Chrift. If therefore this Epiftle was really wrote by Clemens, I think it very evident, that this paffage was interpolated, or perhaps rather added to the end of it; for they are the last words of the Epiftle, and an imperfect fentence, making, as the present Archbishop of Canterbury says3, an a Preliminary Difcourfe to his Translation of the Apoftolick Fathers, p. 129. abrupt abrupt conclufion: and this is the more probable, because the Epiftle ends perfectly and juftly at the close of the eleventh Chapter. Nor are fuch corruptions uncommon in the writings of the Fathers, of which Mr. Daillé has obferved many inftances ; and among which thofe, who contend for the genuine antiquity of the firft Epiftle of Clemens to the Corinthians, are willing to reckon that part of it, where Danae and Dirce, two noted names among the antient Heathen poets, are introduced among the Chriftian fufferers. 3. Upon the whole, I look upon this Epistle not to be the writing of Clemens, but fome one after his time, and accordingly we find it rejected, as fpurious, by Eufebius, Jerome, Photius, and others, of which I fhall treat more largely hereafter. So that if really any Apocryphal Gospel was cited in it, it will be no way detrimental to the credit of our present Canon. I only add, that even the paffage itself now under confideration, if it really was taken out of the Gospel of the Egyptians, by the author of the Epiftle, feems no mean argument to prove the Epistle itself not to be written by Clemens; for, as it is unlikely that Clemens fhould cite fo filly a book as this Gospel was, fo much more fo, that he should cite this paffage, the apparent defign of which, and indeed, as far as we know, of the whole Gospel (as has been above fhewn, Chap. XVI. of this Part), is to celebrate perpetual virginity, and the unlawfulness of marriage; a doctrine which, however careffed by the pretended fucceffors of Clemens in the Chair of Rome, I believe, was never contended for by the true Clement, who was the companion of St. Paul, but a notion efpoused by the Hereticks, against which St. Paul himself more than once has wrote. See 1 Tim. iv. 3. and Coloff. ii. 21. Befides Barnabas and Clemens Romanus, Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Mill affert (as above) that Ignatius, Hermas, and Polycarp, have made use of the Apocryphal Gospels in common with those now received; but in these instances they are more egre a See his right ufe of the Fathers. b Chap. VI. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 38. 4 Catalog. Vir. illuftr. in Clem. Biblioth. Cod. 126. E e 2 giously giously mistaken than in the former; for as to Hermas and Polycarp, I do affirm, there is not in their writings one paffage different from our prefent Gofpels; nor have either of these writers, or any other (that I know) produced fo much as one example; and as to Ignatius, though there be indeed in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans, c. 3. a Saying ascribed to Chrift, which is fuppofed by Jerome and many later writers. to be taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes (which I have above produced, Chap. XXVII. of this Part), yet I have there proved the contrary, and that the paffage was not taken out of any Apocryphal Gospel; but out of that of St. Luke xxiv. 39. IX. A Hiftory of a Woman accused before our Saviour of many Crimes, which was expounded by Papias. See Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 39. THIS Papias was, as I have above fhewn, a disciple of St. John, and an acquaintance of Polycarp. See Ch. XXVII. of this Part. What this History was, we are not now certain. That which makes it confiderable here is, that Eufebius fays, it was in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, though (as I have largely proved in the place of this work laft cited) Papias did not take it thence; to which I here add, that it has been thought by feveral learned men, that it is no other than the history of the adulterous woman, which is in St. John's Gospel, ch. viii. I, &c. So Erafmus a, Sixtus Senenfis b, Beza, Grotius", Father Simon, Dr. Hammond, and many others; and indeed the opinion is so probable, that I have not met with any thing that is urged against it, except that the woman mentioned by Papias was accufed before our Saviour of many crimes (ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης) but the woman mentioned by St. John is only accused of adultery. This is urged Annot. in Joh. viii. 3. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 7. p.599. e Critic. Hiftor. of the New Teft. par. 1. c. 7. p. 67 & 71. Annot. in Joh. vii. 53. by by Baronius a, and Dr. Whitby b; the latter of whom, for this reason, supposes, that Papias fpeaks of the woman of Samaria; who, faith he, was accused of many fuch fins. But to this it is easy to answer: either, 1. That the Evangelists do not always relate all the circumftances of a story, as is well known; and fo perhaps the woman might be accused of fome other crimes, which St. John has not mentioned: or, 2. Adultery being a complicated crime, which included feveral others, might be very juftly thus expreffed by Papias in his Commentaries: or, 3. Perhaps it may not be an unjust translation, if we render Tonλaîs àμaptíais great fins, rather than many fins; and in this fenfe the words might be very juftly used for the crime of adultery; and that the word ons is thus often used to denote magnitude, as well as multitude, I dare affirm, and am able to prove by many inftances. However, 4. Nothing can be more extravagant than Dr. Whitby's conjecture, that the woman spoken of by Papias, and that of Samaria, were the fame, because, says he, they were both accufed of many crimes; for it does not appear, that the woman of Samaria was ever accused before Chrift of any crimes at all. See the Hiftory, Joh. iv. Upon the whole I conclude, that the fame history which was written by John was expounded by Papias; whence there is farther evidence of that which I have above proved (Chap. XXVII.), that Papias did not use the Gospel of the Naza renes. Whether this hiftory of the adulterous woman, in the eighth chapter of St. John, be a genuine part of his writing, or an interpolation out of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, I shall not take upon me here to enquire; that queftion belonging rather to the text, than the Canon of the New Teftament. It is certain that it is wanting in the Syriack Version, and most antient manuscripts; of which fee above, Chap. XVII. a Annal. ad Ann. Chr. 99. N. 9. apud Simon. Loc. cit. Ee 3 Annot. in Joh. viii. 9. and |
