YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A New and Full METHOD Of Settling the CANONICAL AUTHORITY OFTHE NEW TESTAMENT. WHEREIN AU the antient Teftimonies concerning this Argu ment are produced ; the feveral Apocryphal Books, which have been thought canonical by any Wri ters, colle&ed, with an Englijh Translation of each of them j together with a particular Proof that none of them were ever admitted into the Canon, and a full Anfwer to thole, who have. endeavoured to recommend them as fuch. In Two Volumes. By the late Reverend Mv.J ERE MI AH JONES. >— : , iii- An Alphabetical Index is added to each Volume. LONDON: Printed for J. Clark and R. Hett at the Bible ¦and Crown in the Poultrcy near Cheapfide-. MDCCXXVL TO THE READER. I S nothing is more conducive* to thehappinefsof mankind* than a firm and fteady belief of revealed religion 3 fo no thing hath a greater tendency to eftablifli fuch a belief j than a fair prdof of the canonical authority of the {everal books contained in the New Teftament. The" canon of the Old Teftament has long fince been fettled, arid apprdved e'veii bydur bleiTed Lord himfelf, as well as by his apoftles 5 but the New Teftament, in which are contained ndt only the life and actions, but tjle precepts alio of our Saviour, and the whole do&fine of the chriftian religion, can boaft of no fuch A % advantages 5 To the K E A D E R, advantages •, but many doubts and con* troverfies have been raifed almoft againft: every part thereof, and a great number of apocryphal books have been recom* mended as of equal authority With fbme of them. This consideration moved the Jate reverend and learned Mr. Jones to engage in this laborious work, and Sup ported him under the great fatigue of read ing over not only the voluminous works of the antient writers, within the four firft centuries of Chriftianity, but alio all the modern writers upon this argument, whofe authority can be fuppofed to have any weight with a judicious reader. In the careful perufal of all which he has been enabled to give a more diftincT: and accurate account of this fubje£fc, than o- thers can be fuppofed to have done, who either have not taken fo great pains for information therein, or by reafbn of rime could not enjoy the advantages of Several learned mens ufeful labours, which our author did. Many indeed have occafio^ nally written upon the authority of fbme parts of t^ New Teftanient, but none, except To the R E A D E R. except Mr. Du Pin, has purpofely endea* voured to eftablifh the authority of the whole $ but that performance is attended with very many and confiderable defici encies, which are here abundantly fup- plied. For our author has not only par ticularly noted the feveral places of all the antient writers within his time, which may tend to the eftabljftiing of the ca^- nonical authority of each of thofe facred books, but hath alio pointed out the fe^- veral omiffions and discrepancies between them With great exa&nefs ; Co that the in- quifitive and learned reader may eafily turn to, and Satisfy himfelf from the au^ thors themfelves. He has alfb made a compleat colledion of thofe pieces which have by any been judged canonical, and given an Englifh tranflation of them, thac the more unskilful reader may be the bet ter enabled to judge of their authority ; and moreover has given fb large and ju dicious anfwers to the feveral arguments brought to recommend them, and parti cularly to thofe brought by fbme late ce lebrated writers in favour of fome of them, To the READER? them, that it is humbly prefumed the va rious Sorts of readers will meet with abun dant fatisfaition in the perufal of this work* Part of the third volume is already printed, in which are contained. differta-8 tions on each of the books now receiv ed into the canon of the New Tefta ment j their authority eftablifhed; the au thor, time, and defign of the writer con-* fidered •, with an hiftorical account of the early controverfies ofthe church, to which thofe books have any reference : but the author dying fbon after he had compleat- ed his defign to the end of the A(5ts> the remaining part is undertaken by an able perfbn, and that volume will be published by it felf with what convent ent Speed may be. Tonltriy April 18, tjt6. A METHOD Concerning1 the NEC E SSI TY - OF; Settling the CANON OFTHE New TESTAMENT. HE Defign of the following Vo lumes being to eftablifh the Ca nonical Authority of the Bookss - of the New Teftament, I imagU ned nothing could be a morefuit- able Introduction to the Work, than a DiiTertation concerning the Neceftityi of it, My Defign is not jto make any fervile Apology for this Work's Appearance in the World (every Man not only having a Right,' i The Necejftty of Settling the but being alfd obliged to do all he can for the In- terefts of Chriftianity) but only, if it may be, to evidence theabfolute Neceffity of a Chriftian's im- ploying his utmoft Diligence, in order to be upon good Grounds determined in aQueftion of fo grea$ Importance as that is, What Booh are to be re± ceived as the Word of God? What I defign in this Matter, fhall be compriz'd under the following Obfervationsj viz. I. That the right fettling the Canonical Autho rity ofthe Books ofthe New Teftament is at tended with very many and great Difficulties. II. That it is a matter of the greateft Confe- quence and Importance. . III. That a great Number of Chriftians are defti- tute of any good Arguments for their Belief of the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Teftament. IV. That very little has yet been done on this Subject. Observ. I. That the right fettling the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Teftament is attend ed with very many and great. Difficulties. I Am very fenfible fuch a Propofition as this may feem at firft furprifing to many 5 and that what is faid under it may perhaps be, on the one hand, mifimprov'd by the Enemies of Revelation, to fet them more againft it j and, on the other, by the ... 4- weaker Canon ofthe New Test AM£rti\ j Weaker Chriftians, to fhoqk their Faith in it: But as the enfuing Volumes are principally intended for the Service of thefe two forts of Perfons, viz. to confute the former, and eftablilTi the latter in their Principles i fo I cannot but defire, they would form no judgment from what is here laid relating to the main Queftion, till they have' honeftly perus'd: the Book it felf. This premis'd, I (ay, 'tis not fo eafy a matter as is commonly imagined, rightly to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament. For my own parr, I de clare with many learned Men^ that in the whole Qpmpafs of Learning I know no Queftion involy'd with more Intricacies and perplexing Difficulties than this. There are indeed confiderable Difficul ties relating to the Canon of the Old Teftament, as appears by the large Controverfies between the Proteftants and.Papifts on this Head in the laft, and latter End of the preceding ,Century j but thefe are folv'd with much more Eafe than thole of the New: For, 1 . 5fhe Canon of the Jews was fettled by Ezra an infpired Writer > but there is no fuch thing to be fold concerning the Canon of the New. WCis uncer tain, either by whom, or at what time, the prefent Collection was made. \. fthe Jewifh Canon was certainly approved by our Saviour and his Apofiles b3 but it is impoffible, in the Nature of the Thing, the Chriftian Canon fhould receive the fame Evidence and Authority. 3. In fettling the Old Teftament Collection, all that is requifite is to difprove the Claim of a few pbfcure Books, which have but the weakeft Pre- * If other wife, they bad cer- their Scriptures, were the Oracles tainly cenfur'd the Jems for their of §od, BsmAii. 2. and thar. Fault in this as well as other what they called Scripture was religious Matters. Beiides, St. every Part of it ijj/pired. tml evidently allows ttlat all B * tenees 4 The NeceJJity of Settling the tences to be look'daipon as Scripture ; but in the* New, we have not only a few'to difprove,' but a vaft number to exclude the. Canony which feem to have much more Right to Admiffiort.than any of; the Apocryphal Books of the Old Teftament; and' beiides to evidence the Geniiihefs of all thofe which- we do receive, fince, aceotding to theSentiments- of fome who would be thought learned, there are none of them whofe Authority has not been con troverted in the earlieft Ages of Chriftianity. In fhort, whatever almoft can- be objected againft the1 Authority of the prefent Canon of the Old Tefta-4 ment, either in behalf of any Books which are not in it, or .againft- any that are, may eafily be anfwer-" ed by this fingle Confideration, viz. That ive receive the fame and no other Books- than %hdt the Jewifh Church received in our Saviour' s time,1 as is evident from the Copies the Chriftians proeur'd of them^. and the Catalogues 'they made of them (especially that of Melito Sardenfis£) foon after the Deftructiofi of Jerusalem. But the Cafe is very different with Refpect to the Books of the New. The Queftion concerning them divides' it (elf into thefe two, viz'. I. Whethef any ether-Books are to be[.received with. the fame Authority which; they are ; and, II. Whether ¦they are all of them of the fame Authority ^ which the Church allows them by admitting them into -her Canon. If weeonfider either of thele Qyeftions, we fhall find it perhaps not fo eafily folv'd as we are apt to imagine. •'•" 1.-/ As to the firft, viz. Whether there are any other Books to be admitted as Canonical, be/ides thofh which' now are j it will appear difficult, if we con- fider, % ¦¦ i. The Number of Books that claim Admiffion is K>ery confiderable: 'Mr. Toland, in his celebrated Car c Vid. Eufeb. Hijlor. Ecclef. 1. 4. early, as Origen's ia Pfal. primo, e.i6. There are others very &c. L.,_*'" "+" talogued, Canon of the JjTew Testament^ $ talogued, has prfefented us %ith..the. Names of above eighty, which he would have iis receive with the fame Authority, as thofe we now- do ; I cannot do him. that 'Honour y/hich Mr. Nye does in his An-" fwer e, viz... ..to fay his Catalogue, is complete'; for it will fiifficiently appear . there are many more of the fame fort, which he has not mentioned. i. Their. Pretences are fpecio'us and plaufible,, for the mpftpart going under the Names of bur Saviour hirnfeif,. his Apoftles, their '.Companions, or imme diate SuccelTors. 3. They are generally' thought to. be. jtied. by the firfl Chrifiidn 'Writer's with , the fame Authority (at teaft many, of them) as. the [acred Bdofis we receive.. This Mr'.. Toidncl. labours hard to perfuade us; but, What is1 metre to be regarded, Men of greater Me rit and Probijty have unwarily drop'd .Expreffipns of the like nature.' Every body knows (fays, the learned {Cdfdubpn againft Cardinal Baronius f,) that fuftin 'Mariyf,. Clemens. "Alexandrinus, TertulliSsin, and the reft" of the Primitive Writers, were 'wont Qaudare.librbs] to approve and. cite Books, which now all 'Men know to be Apocryphal. Clemens Alexandri- nus (fays' Ms' learned Anhptatpr Sylburgiuss) was. too, much pleafed'wrth Apocryphal Writings. Mr. Dod- wett (in his learned DifTertations on Irenaush) .tells us, that till Trajan, or perhaps Adrian' j Time, no Canorf was fixed the fuppofititious Pieces of the Hereticks were received, by the Faithful, the Apoftles Writings bound -up with theirs, and indifferently ufed in the Churches '. To mention now no more, the a Amyntor, p. io, &c. fanie as to the promifcuous Ci- e Page 21. tation of ours and other Books, 1 Exercit. 1. ad A'pparat. Ba-- and is quite miftaken in faying, aron. Annal. N. 18. p. f 4. That Mr. Dodwell owns the A- E Annot. in Cltm. Oper. in pocryphal Books were bound id ipfb fine. diftindr. Volumes from tfibfe of h Sed. 38, 39. Diflert. 1. the Apoftles. Refledt. on A? \ Dr. Clarke aflerts the very myntor, p. 277. B 3 learned t? The W&ffky of Settling the learned Mr. Spanheim obferves, that Clemens Alex andrinus and Origen very often cite Apoohryphal ^ Book's under the fxprefs Name of Scripture k. What . thefe Books are, with the whole of their Preten ces and Claims, I defign 'hereafter particularly to examine ; and now only to infer hence, that it is not fo eafy a Matter to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament, as is generally imagined. 4. Hence the Canon has been judged imperfe'tt, and it has been thought necejfary by feveral learned Men, that fome other Books which are in Being, and the remain" ing Fragments of thofe which are loft, Jhould be re ceived. This will but too largely appear hereafter: In the mean time, I ftiall only obferve the Senti ments of two learned Men on this Matter, whofe Names are well known among us; viz. the pre- fent Archbiihop of Canterbury, and Mr. Whiftm. The former, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to his Englifh Tranflation .of the Apoftolical Fathers, tells lis, Ch. 10. §. 4. " That we cannot with any Rea- *' foh doubt of what they deliver to us as the " Gofpel of Ghrift, but ought to receive it, if not " with equal Veneration, yet but with a little lels " Refpect than we do the Sacred Writings of thofe li who were their Mafters and Inftru£lors. §. 1 1 . " That-we are to look upon the Writings of thefe " Holy Men, as containing the pure and uncor- *' rupted Doctrine of our BlefTed Saviour and his " Apoftles. That thefe Writers were not only *' qualified by ordinary means to deliver the Go- " fpel of Ch rift to us, but in all Probability were li endued with the extraordinary Affiftance of the ^ Holy Spirit too ; fo that what they teach us is f' not to be look'd upon as a mere traditionary Re- w lation of what had been delivered to them, but " rather as an authoritative Declaration ofthe Qofpel * Hiftbr. Chriftian. Secul. 3. p, 756. « of Canon <^ ^^Tew Testament. 7 u of Chrift to us. §.13. That they were Infpired " Men, and therefore not only have not miftaken " the Minds of the Apoftles, but were not capa- " ble of doing it. §. 19. That they fnuft be look'd w upon to have nothing in them but what was " thought (and confequently which we are to think) " worthy of all Acceptation. §. 30. That " they have received a more than human Ap- " probation and contain the true and pure " Faith of Chrift, without the leaft Error inter- " mixed with it." 'Tis not my Bufinefs here t?o enquire into the Truth of thefe AfTertions, nor will I venture to give my Opinion in the Matter, till I have produc'd the beft Arguments I can to fupport it, which will be done in the Third Part of this Work ; only this I cannot but obferve, that not- withftanding all this, many learned Men have thought feveral of thefe Apoftolical Pieces not on ly fpurious, but filly and ridiculous j and fince thefe Books (which are, and always have been excluded the Canon) are of fo great Authority with fo great and learned a Writer, that fcarce any thing more can be faid of the Canonical Books themfelves, 'tis aneceflary and natural Inference, That it is a Work much harder than generally imagined, to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament. How much Mr. Whifton has enlarged the Canon of the New Teftament, is fiifficiently known to the Learned among us. For the fake of thofe who have not perus'd his truly valuable Books, I would ob ferve, that he imagines the " Conftitutions of the " Apoftles to be infpired, and of greater Authority " than the occafional Writings of fingle Apoftles " and Evangelifts. That the two Epiftles of Cle- 11 mens, the Doctrine of the Apoftles, the Epiftle " of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the fe- " cond Book of Efdras, the Epiftles of Ignatius, w and the Epiftle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned M among the Sacred Authentick Books of the New B4 « Teftament > ft The Neceffity of $0ing the " Teftament; as alfo that the Acts of Paul) the kc Revelation, Preaching, Gofpel and Acts of Peter, ts were Sacred Books, and,if they were extant, lhould " be of the fame Authority with any of the reft1." However this learned Man maybe miftaken in other Matters, and tho' I hope to prove the Canon of the New Teftament complete without any .of thefe Additions ; yet, as I think it a very fhameful Neglect in learned Men not to enquire into thefe things, fo, I am fure, he who does, will find great Difficulties in fettling the Canon of the Books of the New Teftament. II. The other Part of the Queftion about the Canon is, Whether all the Books now admitted into the Canon of the New Teftament are of equal Autho rity, or the fame Authority which their being placed in the Canon fuppofes. The difcuffing this Queftion will appear to be no lefs a Difficulty than the foi- mer, if we confider, i. That it i's impoffible to affign any certain Time when a Collection. of thefe Books, either by the Apoftles, or any Council of infpired or learned Men near their Times, was made. 2. That they have been all, or moft of them, re jected by fome Hereticks, or others, in the firft Ages, 3. That feveral of them have not been received by thofe who did not go under the Names of He-1 reticles before Eufebius's Time. 4. That feveral of them have had their Autho rity difpiited by learned Men in later Times. Though I hope fully to confute thefe fpecious Objections, and all others that can be made againft our prefent Collection, in the Fourth Part of this Book 5 yet every one muft allow fuch Objections to make the Bufinefs of fettling the Canon not fo eafy as is Commonly imagined. I . As to the firft of thefe, viz. That we cannot iajjign any certain Time when a Collection of thefe Books Eflay on theConflit, Chap. J. t^j^g Canon of the New Testament. . 9 *was made, or a Canon fettled by the Apoftles, -or any infpired Per fons near , their Time, the Matter is' too. certain to heed much to, be faid of it. Mr. Dod- wellm, T>x.Graben, arid Dr. Milts0, our beft Wri ters on thefe Heads, have obferv'd it already j tho* I'Jibpeto prove their Arguings on this Head (I mean of the two former) to /be falfe and groundleis. .. , 1. That "many, or moft of the Books of the New Teftament have 'been reje&ed by Heretich }n the firft 'Ages, is dtfo certain. \ ¦Fauftus Manichteus and -his Followers are faid to have rejected all the New Teftament) as not writ? ten by the Apoftles p. ^Marcion rejected all except St.Luke's Gorpel^. ' TTheManichees difputed much againft the Audio* rity of St. Matthew's GofpeK The Albgians rejected the Gofpel of St. John, as not his, but made by Cerinthus*. . } ; " The Acts of the Apoftles were rejected by Sever ms9 and the Sect of his Name t. '-* The fame rejected all. Paul's Epiftles", as did alfq ihe 'Ebionites w, and the Helkefaites*. • Others who did not reject all, rejected feme par ticular Epiftles, of which Inftahces will be giveri hereafter. .¦},,¦-, .,, . . ..; m Atqui certe ante jlkm Epo- urged by tolani in Amyttt. p.fii, dram, quam dixi, Trajani, non- 8ce.. but disputed by Mr. Nye ia dum conftitutus eft librorum ia- his Anfwer, p. 87, &c. •crorum Canon, necreceptus a- *' Epiph. Hseref. 42. de Mar* liquis in Eccleiia Catholica libro- cionit. rum - certus numerus ,-. . ncc ' Vid. Auguft. cont. Fauft. 1. 2, rejecli JHsereticprum Pfeudepi- 3, & 7. ,.. graphi, &c, Diflert. in Iren. f Auguft. lib. deHeeref.N0. 30. "§.30'. ' ' 'p. 18. &Epiphan. Hseref. 5-1.de ¦' n Canon . facrprum librorum Alog. Jiari ftatim conftitutus eft ab ' Eufeb. Hiftor. Eccl. I.4. c. initio Ecclefise, Sec. Spicileg. 29. Patr. Tom. 1. p.320. "Ibid. 0 Vid. ejus Prolegdm. in No- w Id. lib. 3. c. 27. Vid. & Vo Teftam'. p. 2 3 . Epiphan. Haeref. 3 o 1 de Ebion. * Auguft. contra Fauft. Ma- * Eufcb. Hift. Ecd. J. 6. c. nick 1. 32. c.a. &-8. This is 38. 3. Several lo The Necefjity of Settling the 5. Several of the Books of the New Teftament, were not univerfally received, even atitong them who were not Heretic ks, in the firft Ages. Eufebius tells usy, the Authority of the fecond Epiftle of Peter, and the Epiftle to the Hebrews, was difputed j and in another place2, that the Epiftles of fames, Jude, the fecond Epiftle of Peter, the fecond and third Epiftles of John, were not univerfally received, but doubted of by fome : The fame, or rather more, he fays ofthe Revelation o£ St. John. 4. Several of them have had their Authority difpur ted by learned Men in later Times. Luther and feve ral of his Followers utterly reject the Epiftle of James, not only as a fpurious Piece, but as con taining Things directly contrary to the Gofpel ».. Mrafimus had a very mean Opinion, and doubt-| ed the Canonical Authority, of the Revelations b. Calvin, Cajetan, and the learned KirftenjusQ, had the fame Sentiments of it. But referring this and; many other Things which might be faid under this knd the foregoing Heads to their proper Place, I fhall only infer from the whole, That if fo manf Books befides what we now receive claim Admit Son into our Canon, in the Judgment of learnec) Men; if we can prove no certain Time when the Canon was fixed in the firft, or Beginning of the fecond Century; if there were fuch Controverfies not only among the Orthodox and Hereticks, but among the Orthodox themfelves, concerning the1 Authority of feveral Books j and laftly, if fever^ Books have been rejected by learned Men of late: It follows moft undeniably, that it requires our ut moft Diligence and Induftry, as being apparently a Work of the greateft Difficulty, to fettle the Ca non of the New Teftament. * Eufeb. Hift, Eccl. I. 3. c.3. b Vid. Annot. inR.ev.2*. 1 L. 3. c. 25-. c See the Preface to Dr. 6«- J See Mantm. Pref. to Jamef. gay's Works. O B S E HV. Canon ef the New Testament.' ii Observ; II. That fettling the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Teftament, is a Matteir of the greateft Confequence and Importance* FOR if, on the one hand, any Book be received as the Word of God, which is not fo ; or, on the other hand, any Book be not received as the Word of God} which really: is fo, the Confequen- ces are fatal and dangerous, and the Neglect of due inquiry in fuch a Matter muft needs be very cri minal. ¦ I. As to the firft, viz. Receiving Books: for. in- Jpired, which an not fo, the Confequences are evi dently very bad j as, . i. We thereby offer a notorious Affront to our Maker, not only making him the Author of -Lies and Forgeries, but imputing the falfe, perhaps blaf- phemous Conceptions of ill-defigning Men, fug- gefted by the Father of Lies* to the Inspiration of is Holy Spirit. Thus injurious to the Honour of God are many of the Apocryphal Books both of the Old and New Teftament, in which we find not only the moft filly and frivolous Stories, rtot like the Dictates of the Hory Ghoft, but dife$5 Contrarieties td the ffloft certain Truths. Thus the Author of the Book oiTobit makes his Angel guilty of a grofs Lie, faying firft, that he was Azarias the Son of Ananias, c.v. f. iz. and afterwards, c. xu\ f. if. that he was R,a\phael% one of the feven An* gels. The Author of the Wifdom of Solomon very plainly afferts the Doblrine of the Pre-exiftence of Souls, before they are brought into Bodies, c.viii, *'*** The \ a . The Neceffity of Settling the • The Author of Baruch fays, c. \.f. i, 2, 3. that A* r&zi to 5oo^ ta the Captives the fifth Tear of the Captivity in Babylon, when it is certain the true Baruch was with Jeremiah in Egypt, Jer. xliii*, f-r->6->7- To. omit a hundred fuch Inftancesj I fhall only produce a few fuch from the Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament, by which it will appear "how bad the Confequence would be of receiving "thofe Books for genuine which are not. Thus for. inftance it would be, fhould any receive thofe fpu rious Bosks attributed tp our Saviour A, which th& wicked Authors of them pretended, did contain thofe MagicalArts by which he wrought his Miracles. ' ¦*"* Thus- it would be, fhould the celebrated Gofpel of "theNazarenes (which Father Simon'.' and others reckon the true one of St- Matthew) be re ceived as infpired7;* which -makes bur Lord Jefus' Chrift unwilling to be baptised by John, nay, inti-< mates he was not baptiz'd at all ; that he question ed whether he was not a Sinner, rjjVe. that the Holy Ghoft took him by one of his Hairs into the great Mount Thabor, Sec f. •-' In the Book- intitled, The Preaching of P aul, we have almoft the fameStoiy, of Chrift's Unwilling- neft to be baptized, till forced to it by his Mother,; his Conferring hifrSins, &?fg. ''.Vid. Augttft. de Cotlfenf. .7**, licujtattnyx.1 ya «s r» cg&' Evangel. I. 1. c. 9, 10. -Tom. « /*sy« ©«£»f, &c. Origen. Opp. IV. ., To'm. 2. in Joan", p. /8. & Hie- e Ecce mater Domini 8c fra- rpnym. 1. 2 . Comment', in tres ejus djcebant ei, Joannes Mich, vii' 6* Baprifta baptizat in remiflionem B. In hoc libro contra omnes peccatorum 5 eamus & baptize- Scripturag, 8c Chriftum de pro-, mur ab eo. Dixit autem eis, prio peccato confitentera inve- Quid peccavi, utvadam 8c bap- nies 1 8c ad accipiendum Jo- tizer ab eo, nifi forte hoc ip- annis Baptifma jaene invitum a fum ¦ quod dixi Ignorantia eft ? matre fui Maria1 efle compul- Hieronym. adv. Pelag. 1. 3. c. 1. fum, See. Vid. Tra6t.de non ite- f A(ti sA«Se fiit n /wiTiif /*» to rando Baptifm. ad calcem Opp. *yw -md/pH » /tiiti tmi T&vaw Cyp. It : Canon ofthe New Test :ament. *3 It were eafy to produce many fuch Inftan- ces ; thefe may fhew'-us, of how dangerous Con fequence it is to receive any Books for the Word of God which are not fo, feeing we impute fuch wretched Fooleries, Nonfenfe, arid Contradictions to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghoft. z. By receiving Books as the Word of God which are not fo, we afifent to the trtoft grofs and no torious Errors as indubitableTru'ths, and fo very often fhall be like to oblige our felves. to many burdenfome imaginary Duties, not only not reaiiir'd in the Word efiGod, but perhaps ditebily contrary to the true Mind and. WiU of God revealed in it. < i ¦• St. Luke was fo fenfible of this dangerous Confe quence from the many fpurious Apocryphal Gofpels extant in his Time, that he wrote his Gofpel with thiskind Intention to prevent it, as he himfelf in forms us in his Preface1". St. Paul likewife, appre* henfive of fuch. pernicious Evils, that might be produc'd by any fpurious Epiftles pretending-under his Name to Infpiration, warns . the. Thejfalbnians. not to receive them, nor be influenced in their Judgment by them'. And indeed there is apparent ly the greateft Reafon for Care and Caution in this Matter; forlnftance, . What wretched, Principles in Chriftianity muft they have, who received the forementionedBooksi of Chrift' s working his Miracles by Magical Arts, or believed him to be a Sinner ? What an odd Religion muft ! they profefs and practife, who fhould receive that other Book attributed to our Saviour k, in Which he declares he was no way againft the Hea then Gods? Sec. , . m h Luke i. f. That this is the more fully (hew hereafter. Meaning of St. Luke's Preface, I ' 2 Theft ii. 2. have prov'd in my Vindica- k Vid. Auguft. de Confenf. tion of St. Matthew's Gofpel a- Evang. 1. i.e. 34. gainft Mr. Whiftm, and fhall They 14 The Necefltty of Settling the They who received the Book,called«, The Acts or Journeys of the Apoftles, Peter, John, Andrew^ Thomas, and Paul, muft believe, That Chrift wa% not really, but only appeared as aMan% and was feed by his DifcipUs in various Forms, fometimes as a Young Man, fometimes as anOld one, foAtfmes as a Child, fometimes great, fometimes fmall, fometimes fo tali, that hij; Head would reach the Clouds y that he was not reatty crucified himfelf, but another in his ftead, while he laugh' d at thofe who imagined they crucified him, &C1. . A little Acquaintance with Chriftian Antiquities will furnifh us with various Inftances of this fort. Pretences to Infpiration were very frequent in the firft Ages, and it was the conftant Artifice of evil-mind?* ed defigning Men to publifh their Errors under the great Name of feme Apoftle, or infpired Writer, in order the more effectually , to propagate them a- mong the unthinking Multitude. Irenaus tells. us m, the Gnofticfo for this purpofe made a prodigious Number of Apocryphal and Spurious Scriptures in his Time -t and 'tis well known, that Bafi iides, A' p elles, Cerinthus, Marcion, Tatian, and many other of the firft Hereticks, purfued the fame Method with too great Succels. Thus, to give now no other Inftance, the Nicolaitans mentioned RevSi. 6. forged a Book under the Name of the infpired Apoftle Matthias", to juftify themfelves in the execrable Vice 1 See this whole Matter rela- N. S. If thefe were the Adts fed by the learned gfotius, who of Piter, Mr. Wbiftm would have read the Bpok Biftlipih.Qed.cxiv. reckoned 'em among the ficred I am apt to think it was in the Books ; he muft ftrike out fe- Gofpel of Bo/Hides alio, fince verai of thefe to make room for fuch a Goipel there certainly it. m was ; and Iremus adv. Hxref. 1. i. - m Kftiv^im -trM®* wraxpvpw e. 23. and Epiphanius Haref. 24. x*u tttat yytQm orfaurtu. Adv. tell us, Bafliiles and his Follow- Hxrcf. 1. 1. C 17. ers faid, it was not Chrift that n Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 3. was crucified, but Simon of Cy- p. 43$, rem. of Canon of the New Testament." r % of the Communion of Women". Thus does the re ceiving fpurious Books, undei fpecious Pretences, lay us under aNeceflity of Errors in Doctrine and Practice j and 'tis not without Concern that I put the Reader in mind of a living Inftance of this in the learned Mr. Whifton, whom one cannot with out Companion behold honeftly paying the great- eft Regard to the pretended Conftitutioas of the Apoftles, and not daring (as he fays) any more todzf- believe the Doctrines, or difobey the Duties there in delivered and enjoined, than he dare do the like as to the known DoSrines and Duties plainly contained in the uncontefted Books of the New Teftament?. II. It muft needs alfo be of very bad Confequence, that any Book be excluded from the Canon, which really is the Word of God j for hereby, i . We caft Contempt upon God and his Spirit, in refilling to hear what the Lord our God hath fpoken to us. z. We are injurious to our felves, as we deny our felves the Ufe of the Means of Salvation. Thus the Ebionites, Manichees, and moft of the primitive Hereticks, by difowning feveral Parts of the New Teftament, fell into thofe Errors, which protv'd fo fatal to their moft important Interefts. ° 'Tis fuppofed by learned perly called Traditions being ne- Men, that the Traditions of ver written. Matthias cited by the Nicolaitans, f Effay on Conftitut. in the was a Book, tho' perhaps pro- Beginning. Ob serv. i.6 TBeWeceJJtty of SettTmg the Observ. III. '' ¦^'^¦- -• '' Notwithftand|Hg the Importance of this Sub* je#, a feiry confiderable .Number of thoft* who are: called Chriftians, are deftitute of any jtift'Afguments for their Belief of the: Canonical Authority of the prefent Books of the New Teftament. i T Hough I would by no means be the Occa- fion of fhocking anyPerfon's Faith in a Bufi- nefs of this Nature, yet I think the preTent Obfer: vatibn to be fo much to my prefent Purpofe, and withal fo very true, that I cannot pals- it over, tho?5 ;t be on a Subject fo difagreeable. He who has' but the leaft Occafion to acquaint himfelf with the religious State of Mankind, cannot but With fur- pvizing Concern have obferved, how flender and uncertain the Principles are upon which Men re ceive the Scriptures as the Word of God. The Truth is (tho' a very melancholy one) that many Perfons commence religious at firft they don't' know why, arid fo with a blind Zeal perfift in a Religion which is they.don't know what ; by the Chance of Education, and the Force of Cuftom, they receive thefe Scriptures as the Word of Godj, without making any ferious Enquiries, and confer quently without "being able to give any folid Rea* fons, why they believe them to tje fuch. This has been obferved and lamented by our beft Divines long fince, and by none more than the pious Mr. Baxter, in whofe Words I fhall rather chufe to exprefs my felf, on this tender Subject, than my own ; " Few Ghriftians among us, for ought I *« find, Cation of the New Test ament^ if lc find, (lays he a) have any better than the Popifh " implicit Faith in this Point, nor any better Ar* " guments than the Papifts have, to prove the " Scriptures the Word of God. They have re- '" ceived it byTradition, godly Minifters and Chri- " ftians tell them fo, it is impious to doubt of it* " therefore they believe it. Though we could " perfuade People never fo confidently , that " Scripture is the very Word of Godjj: and yet M teach them no more Reafonj why they ihbuld M believe this, than any other Book^ to be that ** Word; as it will prove in them no right Way ¦" of Believing, fo it is in us no right Way of " Teaching. It's ftrange ''. (fays he*") to confide^ " how we all abhor thait Piece of Popery^ as moft " injurious to God of all the reft$ which refolves " our Faith into the Authority of the Church j " and yet that we do, for the Generality of Pro- " feflbrs, content our felves with the fame Kind " of Faith; only with this Difference^ The Papifts tc believe" Scripture to be the Word of God, be- 41 caufe their Church faith fo ; and we, becaufe ic our Church, or our Leaders fay fo. Yea, and *' many Minifters nevet yet gave their People bet- " ter Grounds, but tell them, that it is damnable to deny it, but help them not to the fleceftary " Antecedents of Faith. It is to be underftood, " that many a thoufand do profefs Chriftianity, " and isealoufly hate the Enemies thereof, upon the " fame Grounds^ to the fame End, and from the " feme inward corrupt Principles, as the Jews did <: hate and kill thrift. It is the Religion of the " Country, where every Man is reproach'd that " believes otherwife; they were born and brought, " up in this .Belief, and it hath increafed in " them Upon the like Oceafions. Had they " been born and bred in the Religion of Ma- l Saint's Reft, Part. 2. §. i. p. 197. * Ibid. §. 2. p. 2ot. C hornet* «c 1 8 The Neceffity of Settling the " hornet, they Would have been as zealous for hint Xi The Difference betwixt him and a Mahometan is " more that he lives where better Laws and Re- " ligion dwell, than that he hath more Knowledge " or Soundness of Apprehenfion." Thus far he: Nor is theCafe^ I fear, much alter'd for the better fince his Time. What ferry Reafons, when afk'd, are the Generality of Perfons able to give for the divinf Authority of Scripture ? Nay, to ufe Mr. Baxte$g Words once more, " Are the more exercifed un* " derftanding Sort of Chriftians able, by found Af*- «* guments, to make good the Verity of Scripture^ ** Nay, are* the meaner Sort of Minifters in Eng- " land able to do this? Let them that have tried, " judge c." If the Queftion be, why Barnabas% Epiftle be rejected, and Jude's received; why the Gofpel oi Peter was excluded, and the Epiftle of Peter admitted into the Canon as the Word of God, &c . alas ! how little fhall we have given in Anfwer, unlets what Mr. Baxter fays, we believe as the Church does ! As for thofe happy Perfons, whd are able, by the internal Teftimony of the Holy Spirit, to diftinguifh between Canonical and Apo« cryphal Books, I fhall fay nothing now ; only ob- ferve, their Number is very final], defigning here after to do all poflible Juftice to this Argument fo much infifted on by our firft Reformers. What I have now to do is to obferve, from the melan choly Experience we have of Perfons Ignorance of the Grounds of Scripture-Belief, how neceflary; it is we fhould ufe our utmoft Endeavours to remove ir. Not that I think it neceflary, or indeed pofli ble, for every one to fearch the antient Records of Chriftianity ; but that thofe, who are able, fhouHJ do it, and endeavour to convey as much Know ledge, as may be, of thefe Matters into the Minds I Ibid. p. 197. of Canon of the. New Testament. 19 of thofe who cannot. And certainly this muft be of the utmoft Neceffity ; fdr, 1. Our Affent to any Propofttion can only be in Proportion to its Evidence. The Truth is, fays the learned Mr. Hooker d, . " That how bold; and con- " fident foever we may be in Words, when it " cometh to the Point of Trial, fuch as the Evi- " dence is which the Truth hath, either in it fel£ " or through Proof, fuch is the Heart's Affent " thereunto; neither can it be ftronger, being " grounded as k fhould be." This evidently ap pears from the Nature of Things ; and therefore as Perfons Evidences for the Truth of Scripture are, fuch .will be their; Affent. t z. In Proportion, to t/pf. Degree of our Affent to any Truth-will, be its Influence.uppn us. This, how ever it may Teem at firft, will upon clofe Enquiry, be found no lets true than the former. There feems to be no other -Way poflible of accounting for Mens Difregard of the important Duties of Religion, but by fuppofing their tacit Difbelief pf its Principles. " For my own Part (fays Mr. Bax ter e) " I take it to be the greateft Caufe of 'Cold- " nefs in Duty, Weaknefsin Graces, Boldnefs in " Sinning, and Unwillingnefs to die, &c. that " our Faith is either unfbund or infirm in this " Point. This Worm lying at the Root,, Caufeth " the Languifhing and Decay of the Whole." St.\Pa%l, by this very Means, accounts for the ftrange Difobedierice of the Jfraelites, . viz. they did not really believe thePromifes. (See Heb.iy.z.) And 'tis a fort of Proverbial, and very juft Obfer- vation, that .Unbelief is the Source of, or is in all pur Sins. It were eafy to fey a great deal to fup- port the Aflertion, of the Proportion that is in our Practice to . aur Faith, not only in Principles of " Ecclefiaft. Polit. Book 2. c Ubi fupri p. 197. See p. p. 1 17. 199, 200. C a, Religi ion, *o .1 The Neceffity of Settling the Religion, but all other Things; I fhall only now make this Reflection, That if it be fo, we are pro> portionably concern'd, as we would have our Prac tice agreeable to the Will pf God, to ufe our beft Endeavours to get the ftrongeft Evidence for the Authority of the facred Books. , Observ. IV. That tho' it be a Matter of fo great Difficulty and Importance, to determine the Canonical Authority of the .Books of the New Tefta ment ; and tho' the Generality of Chriftiads are fo very ignorant in this Matter ; yet very little has been done by learned Men on this Subject. IT is indeed ftrange, that in fo great a Variety! of Books of all Sorts, fo few or none fhouMi have been published on this Subject. It muft be remembred, that I am now fpeaking only of the New Teftament ; for aboUt the Canon of the Old, Chamier, Whitaker, Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Coftn, Spanheim, Bifhop Burnet, and many others, havt written much, and to good Purpofe. Mr. Du Pin is the only one I know, who has wrote purpofety on the Canon of the New ; befides what has been wrote occafionally in the Prefaces and Prolegomena I of Commentators on particular Books, and the Re- ' flections of Mr. Nye, Mr. Richardfon, and Dr. Clark on Toland's Atnyntor. The firft of thefe is reckon'd the moft confiderable ; tho', in my Judg ment, the other leffer Pieces have done much more to eftablifh the Canon, than this larger Work of Mx.Du Pin: For, ' i. The Canon of the New Testament. 2 1 1. The greateft Part of the Work is upon Sub jects very different from the Canon ; fuch, as the Purity ofthe Gra£Text, the antient Manufcripts, various Readings, Latin and Oriental Vcrfions, the Divifion of the New Teftament into Titles, Chapters, &c. z. There is in it but very little faid, to eftablifh the Canonical Authority ofthe Books j and anfwer what is obje&ed againft the controverted Pieces, viz. the Epiftle to the Hebrews, of James, Jude, the fecond Epiftle of Peter, the fecond and third of John, and the Revelations. In that Place where he propofes to eftablifh them, he does not fpend much above one Page in doing it: And tho', for the Proof of the Authority of thefe Books, he names fuch and fuch Fathers who cited them, yet he nei ther informs the unlearned Reader, at what Time thefe Fathers lived, nor the learned, in what Part of their Works they do cite them ; fo that the former- muft neceffarily be ignorant of the-Fdrce of his Argument, as the latter will be of the Truth of it, 3 . His fixth Chapter, which is all he has wrote of the Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament, is wretchedly defective, both in the enumerating and confuting them ; befides that he has given us fcarce any of their Fragments, and indeed has faid fcarce any thing of them. C 3 A METHOD METHOD FOR Settling the C A N o N OFTHE NEW TESTAMENT. Chap. I. What the Word Canon fignifies: How and when it came to be applied to the Books of Scripture. H E infinitely good God, having fa- vour'd Mankind with a Revelation of his WH1> has thereby obliged all thofe who are blefs'd with the Know- £M1 ledge thereof, to regard it as the un erring Rule of their Faith and Practice. Under this Charadter the Prophets, Apoftles, and other Writers qf the facred Books, publifhed and deU- C 4 ver'd 2> The Senfe of Ch.I, v^d- them to the World ; and on this Account they were dignify'd above all others with the Titles of the Canon, and Canonical. The Word Canon is originally Greek, and did in that Lan guage (as well as in the Latin afterwards) com monly denote that which was a Rule or Standard, by which other Things were to be examin'd-afod judg'd*. And inafmuch as the Books of divine Inspiration contain'd the moft remarkable Rules, anq , the rnoft important Directions of all others^ the CblleclSion of them in' time obtain?d the Name of the Cation^ 'and-»^ach Book was call'd Canonical. At what Time they were firft thus call'd, is not very eafy to determine. Some imagine St. Paul himfelf to have given this Title to the facred Books extant in hisTirne, Gal. vi. 16". and Phil. iii. 16^. But the Apoftle feems in thofe Places rather to fpeak of the Doctrine, of the Gofpel , than any Books which contain'd it ; altho' it is very proba ble, that'St.iP^K/*s ufing the Word Canm in thefe PlkCes,' was the Occafrort of -its afterwards being ajjfixed to the Books themfelves. This feems the moft genuine Account of the Original of this Appellation 5 »nor do I know of any other that has been, or can be afligned, befidesj that of Mr, Du Pin and Mr>Whiflw. - , The former c fuppbfes the Wbrd Canon to de note the fame as Catalogue, and the infpired Books to be called Canonical, only- becaufe the Catalogue. 1 The Word Ka>w feems ori- ra? x«»o»«{.] xt/gs to turum ginally to have fignified the rfc rpulawjj ci, xat -tu; uro%ln Tongue of a Balance, or, that tuvtv, «y0». in Ran. V.8oo.: - fma^Part of the Scales, which, ' A>^pwK **' <*o-p«A« fcy irs perpendicular Situation, wwi. Ariftot. 2. Politic. c.8. determines the even Poifce or " 2tw>;m» 1 K*tm tutu. Vid. Wfejght, or, by its Inclination Michael Walfher. Qffic. Bibl. either Way, the uneven Poi:se Rep. 2. §.5-64. of the Things which are weigh- c Hiftory of the Canon of ed. So. the antient Greek Schb- the Old Teft. B. 1. §. 2. Jiaft of Ariftophanes has obferved, Of Ch.L the Word Canon^ 25 pf them was filled the Canon. But, in'Anfwer to this, iy will be fufficient toobferve, that the Greek Word is never ufed in that Senfe, which he fup- pofes, in any prophane Writers, nor even among the Chriftians, till the fourth Century j before which Time the Word was certainly applied to the facred Volume. Mr. Whifton * imagines the Canon of Scripture^ or the Canonical Books of the Old and New Tes tament, are thofe, and only thofe, which are in ferred into the laft Apoftolical Canon, and were fo ¦ ftiled by the Antients only on that Account. But the Spurioufnefs of thefe pretended Apoftolical Ca nons being a Matter fo univerfally agreed on,, and in it felf fo very certain, as I fhall fhew hereafter 5 I need now fay no more to difprove'this Opinion, only will obferve thefe two or three Things: viz. 1. That if the Antients ftiled the fecred Books Canonical, becaufe they are recited in the eighty fifth Canon of the Apoftles, then it will moft undeniably follow, that all and every one of the Books recited therein muft equally, have been reputed vr .called Canonical. ^ But the contrary to this is fiif ficiently known ; 4ior can any, one fingle Inftance be produced out of any of the firft Writers of Chriftianity, in which either the Book ofjudiyh, the three Books of the Maccabees, the Wifdom of Syrach, ambihg the Books of the Old' Teftament, or the two Epiftles of Clemens, or the Apoftolical iQonftiiutions of Clemens, among thofe of the New, were reputed Canonical ; yet are each of thefe in- ferted m the fbremention'a Canon, which goes un der the Apoftles Names : An Argument fufficient of it felf to prove the Spurioufnefs of thefe Canons > t.he Books therein recommended being not only evidently fictitious, but in many Things contrary tq t,he known Doctrine of the Apoftles. * EfTay on the Apoftolical Conftit. Chap. i. §.6\ 'I z. On 26 The Senfe of, Ch. I: i. On the other hand, if the Books were called Canonical on Account of their Infertion in this Canon of the Apoftles, then it feems utterly incon ceivable, how any Book or Books could be ever rec koned Canonical, which are not found in it. How, for Inftance, could the Book ot Revelations be reckon'd Canonical, which is not inferted in this Canon? And yet we find it exprefly mention'd under this Title by the Antients very early : for Origen reckoning up the facred Books (rov exxXij- masmov tyikmlw xa.vova,recitingthe Canonical Books', as Eufebius phrafes it e) among thefe mentions the Revelation written by John. Now if only the Books mention'd in this Apoftolical Canon were called Canonical, how came this Book, not men tion'd there, to be called fo? How came this by the Name, as well as the reft mention'd there? To fay a Book is Canonical, becaufe recited in iuch a Canon, and yet the Book not there, is much the fame as to fay, the Book is and is not in the Ca non. Notwith {landing what has been faid, there is no Doubt but this Denomination of the facred Books is of the greateft Antiquity. Irenaus, fpeak- ing of the Scriptures, ftiles them, rev xavova ms > &c Epi ftol. ad Cbaros fuos. ters *. Ch.II. in the Apoftles Times. it ters *. I would only add, that this Expofition is moft clearly confirmed by the Conclufion of -fife Epiftle, which runs thusy, The Salutation of me Paul with my own Hand, which is the Token in every Epiftle, fo I write. In which Words, by reafon of the fuppofititious Epiftle under his Name,' he fives them a certain Mark, by which they fhould e always able to diftinguifh his genuine Writings from any that pretended to be his. 'Tis plain therefore, that even while St. Paul was alive, there were counterfeited Epiftles publifhed under his Name. j . I offer it as a Conjecture, that St. Paul hath refpect to the Apocryphal Gofpel of the Nazarenes, in thofe Words, Gal. i. 6. 1 marvel that ye are fo foon removed from him that called you into the Grace of Chrift, unto another Gofpel. For tho' it is always fuppofed the Word Gofpel here means the Doctrine ofthe Gofpel ; yet perhaps, as I faid, 'tis that fup pofititious Gofpel, which the Chriftianized Jews, were fo fond of, that is here meant. TheReafons of my Conjecture I fhall lay down in the follow ing Obfervations ; for the Support of which, I think it needlefs to offer any Arguments, the Things being, I fuppofe, well known to all, who are at all vers'd in Chriftian Antiquities. I . A great Number of the Converts to Chriftianity at firft, were fuch as profeffed the Jewifh Religion. "We are told Aits xxi. 20. of many (fxug/as/W) ten thoufands of Jews, that believed and received the Doctrines of Chrift. Nor are we to fuppofe this true only of the Inhabitants of Jerufalem, and the Land otPalaftine, but of thofe ajfp who lived in Gentile Countries, and very probably many of them * Grotius & Calvin, in loc. Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. Noy.Tefl. Cocus Cenf. vet. Script. Prx- p. 916. &t. Eftius in 2 Thtfl". iii. 17. » 2Theff. iii. 17. { '• fuch j 2 Of Apocryphal Writings' Ch. II. fuch who had been converted before from Pagar hifm to Judaifm z. z.. Theft were generally fuch; who were for mist ing Judaifm Defign , I fhall cqnfider them under the general Divifion of Books which are loft, and Books which are yet extant; and, according to myPropofal, treat firft concerning thofe which are loft, or not extant. And as it is neceffary to my Defign , fo I hope it will not be unferviceable, to prefent the Reader with as large and full a Collection of thefe, as I have been able to make, from the Writers of the f Vid. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. ' Homil. in Luc.i. i. 232. p.894. k Pracf. in Matth. s Apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. ' Adv. Hairef. fsepe. I.4. c. 22. m Comment, in Luc. 1. b. Adv. Ha:ref. 1. 1. c. 17. ;¦ Haa-ef. 87V four Ch. III. in fhe four firft Centuries. 3 5 four firft Centuries after the Birth of Chrift: My Collection proceeds no farther for thefe three Rea- fons, viz. 1 . Becaufe by the End of the fourth Century, or thereabouts, there will appear to be almoft- an. ttniverfal Agreement concerning the Canon, and what Books fhould be received into it. 2. Becaufe the Writers of the fucceeding Centu ries are, upon many Accounts, very improper Eviden ces in this Matter. 3. Becaufe the Books mentioned afterwards un der the Names of the Apoftles, &c. have either ve ry flender, or indeed no Pretences at all, to Canonical Authority. Such are many of thofe mentioned in Mr. Tolandh Catalogue under the pompous Titles of St. Matthew, Mark, &c. ' For thefe Reafo ns I have fparedmy felf the needlefs Labour of reading, or fearching into the Writers ofthe fifth and following Centuries, and fhall now proceed to the Catalogue it felf. A Catalogue of Books not extant now, for merly publifh'd under the Names of our Sa- isiour, his Apoftles, their Companions, &c. with. the Places where they are mentioned by any of the Writers of the firft four Cen turies after Chrift. • • N.B. The Reader is not to think it Arrange, when he finds the fame Book mentioned in this Cata logue more than once ; my Defign being to pro duce every Place where there is any Mention of them. In the FIRST CENTURT. AFter the moft diligent Search into the fup pofed Writers of the firft Century, I cannot find that any one of them has mentioned fo much as one Apocryphal Writing by Name. Barnabas^ D 1 Herm»S) 3 By Iren^ecs. The Gofpel written by Judas Ifcariot. Adverfi*. Hteref. Ub.i. c.$f. % The Gofpel of Truth, made ufe of by the Va* lentiniam. Id. lib. 3. c. 1 1 . * Prefece to his Works, p. 11. By Ch.III. Apocryphal Books wot extant now. 17 By Heracleon. The Preach Ing of Peter. Apud Origen. Tom. 14. Comment, 'in Joann, •• -.. - By S e r a p 1 o n, Bifhop of Antioch. The Gofpel of Peter, . Lib. de Evang. Petr. apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 6. c. ix. . Dr. Cave faith °, Serapion has cited the Acts of Peter; but I believe he is miftakerf in this Matter, there being nothing of it in Eufebius. By Apollonitjs. A Catholick Epiftle of Themifon the Montanift, forg'd in Imitation of the Apoftles. Lib. cont. Ca- taphryg. apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. l.f. c. 18. By Clemens -^.l exandrinus. . The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. Stromat. I. i.j>. 380. The Gofpel according to the Mgyptians. . Lib. 3. p.Atfz, 46Y . See alfo p. 445-. The Traditions of Matthias* Lib. i.p. 3 80-. Lib.. f.p. 748 . See alfo Lib , 3 . p. 4 3 6. The Preaching of Peter, or (according to fome) of Paul and Peter, ay one Book. Lib. 1. p. 35*7. 1-2.-J- ^po. 1.6. p.6$f, 6$6, £ 50 The firft Chriftians PartB Befides, Chriftianity for a long Time labour'd un der the Disadvantages o£ continual Perfecution> ap General Councils coukt be convened, and fo^no Publick Notification of tiniverfal' Agreement' in this Matter. But notwithstanding all thefe Things, 'tis yet difcoverable^ that as fboa as can be fuppo fed. after, the Writing of the Books, the Chrittianj in all Countries remarkably agreed in receiviag them as Canonical : For the Proof of which I ob ferve, I. That in the few genuine Writings of the firfl Ages now extant, the fame Books are cited as Scrip ture. 'Tis indeed, ^without, jwft Reafon, common ly prefum'd, that the firft Writers cited the now- received Books <$;thfC'Qi90% 'and others promifcu- oufty. But as. I f^a^hereg^br fhew this to, be a Miftake, 1b it will be e#c>ueh here to obferve, that they were generairy agrees1 in receiving the fame Books for Canonical, which we do now ; and this appears, I fay, from their Agreement to cite theA as -every one muft acknowledge, who has but. e» an Eye upon the Writings of the firft Centura|| To fay nothing of the Apoftolick Fathers, fuch i Clemens, Barnabas, &e. 'tis evident, that Juftm Martyr at NeapoUs, TBophilus at Antioch, Irenaus in France, Clemens at Alexandria^ TertuUian atCar- thage, &c. (who all lived within 120 or. 130 Years after bur Lord's Afeenfiqn, andfomeof thpm much fooner, and but a very fhort Time after the Wri ting of the Books) have all, tho' in very remote Countries,, quoted, many, or moft, rf not all tie feme Books as Scripture, The feme might be ob ferved concerning Origen, Cyprian, aqd1 other Wri ters of the next Cenrjury. But* to omit thefe*. 1 obferve, 2. That feveral of the firft Writers of Chriftianity have left us, in their Works, Catalogues of the facrei Books of the New Teftament, which, though-made in Countries at a vaft Diftance from each other, do ChwV. agreed In the Canon* * 51 do very little differ. A particular Account of all tbes Catalogues* I fhall give hereafter in this Vo lume j I fhall only inftance now in thofe of Ori gen ' and Eufebins h, Which he who will be at the Pains to compare, Will eafily, perceive to be verv nearly the fama. So great was the Pains and Car*" of thofe early Chriftians, to be well aflur'd what were the7 g^teine Writings of the Apoftles, and to diftiriJjuifhV them from all. the pretended Revela tions of defigmng Men, and the Forgeries they publifhed under facred Titles.' Thus when, the Prefbyter of Afta abdvementiori'd c had publifhed a fpatfious Piece under the Name of Paul, he was immediately convicted, and Notice of the Forgery was foon tonvey'd to Carthage, and the Churches of A- frica. . Cor oil. I. Hence it follows, that Mr. Dodwell's Opinion d, efpoufed with fo much Zeal by Mr. To- land in his Amyntore, is- utterly falfe, viz. That the Bo&ks of the prefent Canon lay concealed in the Coffers ef particular Churches, or private Men, till the later Times- of Trajan, or perhaps of Adrian, not known to the Clergy or Churches of thofe Times, nor yet dif- Hnguiftfed from- the fpurious Pieces of the Hereticks. For befides that it has been already prov'd, by Mr. Nye f and Mr. Le Clerc s* that the Writers of the Apoftolick Age were well acquainted with, becaufe they frequently cite feveral Books of our prefent Canon ; I add, from what has beeiv faid, that if thefe Books had not been well known in Adrian's Time,, but then lay concealedj it would have been impoflible for them to have fpread fo a Comment, in STatth. in p. 67, 8cc. Init. & Lib. f. Ejcpofit. in 8 Page ,tfl Books of his own Infpiration, and eonfequeafP not to any but the Books of our prefent Canep| This would be plain trifling, becaufe it fuppols the Thing, . which is to be prov'd, for graat§dj[} it firft fuppofes the Books are infpired, and t-hea proves that they are fo, becaufe they are fb. And yet no better Anfwer can be given to one, who claims Infpiration for an Apocryphal Boole, by thofe who allow no other Arguments but the Teftimony of the Spirit. Upon this Principle therefore Men are at their Liberty to bring in all the Rhapfodies of the antient Hereticks, if they pleafe, and there is no oppofing them. They pre tend the Teftimony ofthe Spirit for their Beo% and we can do no more for ours. How uncertaij this leaves the Canon, every one muft fee : Befides, to ufe the Words of the ingenious Writer juft mentioned, If a Perfon fay he is affured of tbe I»> fpiration of the Scriptures now received, by the Infp- ration of the fame Spirit who indicted them, 'tis no- * On Artie, 6. p* 79, tunl Ch. VI. deUnmimng the Canon*. 63 tural to enquire, what Evidence he has, that this: Infpiration he pretends to is real, -and not iniag^naryf that ''tis from the Spirit of God, and 'not from a Spirit of Delujion ? His 'only Anfwer, I fuppofe, muft he> this, That he is fatisfied in the fame Way the facred Penmen were at firfti as to their Infpiration. And htthis be admitted, and a wideGap is open'd to En" thufiafm, and there is no Remedy {. j. I argue Againft this as the only right Methods of proving' the Canon of Scripture/row Matter of Fdc?x or by Appeal to; the Confidences of all Men*. According to this Hypothefis, all Men wbo^ be- KeVe,the Scripture to be1 the Word of God, muft Kaye the Teftimony of the Spirit. Now I afk, whether it be not notorious in Factj that Multi tudes firmly believe the Truth of the Revelations, who are neither confcious of any Infpiration, nor evendefired it, nor even fo much as heard of the Neceffity of it ? Did the Spirit ever tell them, op do they fo much, as pretend it told them, they fhould receive one Book, and reject another ? For my part (faid Mr. Baxter*) I confefs, I could never bo aft of any fuch Teftimony or Light of the Spirit, (nor Reafon neither) which, without human Teftimo ny, would have made me believe, that the Book of Canticles is Canonical, and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wifdom Apocryphal, and written by Philo, & V. Nor could I have known all, or any Hiftorical Books, fuch as Jofhua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings4 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c. *to be written by divine ImJpirationy but by Tradition, &c. He fpeaks without doubt the common Sen timents of moft Chriftians ; and if the Matter of Fact be thus, there can be no poffible Method of anfwering the Argument, but by faying, the greateft Part of them who profefs to believe, do not believe f Loc. fup. cit. of Saint's Reft, §. 6. ' Preface, to the fecond Part "'¦.;- " , the F Books 66 The befl Method of Parti Books under their Names, &c. and thus we know^ the Difeiples of Jefus Chrift wrote the Books which go under their Names. And fince (as has been above proved, Prop. II. Cor oil. z.) the Wit- neffes to be produced^ viz. the firft Chriftians, are good and capable Witneffes, or Judges, of the Fact; 'tis evident, the principal Method of know ing which is a truly Canonical Book, is to fearch into the moft antient and authentick Records s of the Chriftian Church j which was the Thing to be proved. This was the Method the firft Chrifti ans conftantly made ufe of5 to prove* againft* the Hereticks the Truth ofthe facred Books, viz. By appealing to that certain and undoubted TraditiM 'which aftur'd them tlfey were the Writings of tm Perfons whofe Names they bear. , Irenaus a, Tertidr lianb, Eufebius0, Cyril &', Auftine, and others, ha?e frequently made ufe of this Argument to veiy good Purpofe. But there is no need of producing Au thorities ; the Matter is clear. A Fact muft-Jbe proved by the Teftimony either of thofe who knew it, or of thofe who received it by good and- cre dible Tradition from them. I would have the contrary minded (as a noted Writer well argues^) tell me " how they know, without human Teffi- " mony or Tradition, that thefe are the fame " Books, which the Prophets and Apoftles wrote? " and wholly the fame? that they are _not deprav- " ed, and wilfully corrupted ? that thefe are all? " How know you, that one of the Books of Eft- " her is Canonical, and the other Apocryphal,? Where is the Man that ever knew the Canon from the Apocrypha, before it was told him? &c. tt * Adv.Haref. 1. 3. c. i, 2. ' 101. " Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. c. j-. ' Contr. Fauft. Manich. l.Vi. Vid. Pamel. ad loc. c. 2. & 1. 22. c. 70. & 1. U. c Hiftor. Ecclef. I.3. c.3. & c. 6". *l- , f Mr. Baxter's Pref. to Saint's j Catech. IV. p. 97. & p. Reft. Par. 2. §. $. 1 I might Ch.VlI. determining the Candn. 67 I might argue yet farther, and afk, How, but by Tradition, do moft Men believe the Scriptures to be traly tranflated out of their Originals? For, not underftanding them themfelves, they are liable to be impofed upon, arid . neceffitated to credit the Fidelity of thofe who do underftand them. If they do not believe the Teftimony and Faithfulnefs of the Tranflators, 'tis impoffible any internal Evi dence fhould convince them of the Truth of the Books tranflated. But to omit this, it is indeed very obfervable, that the fame Writers, who at fome times have wrote warmly for the Teftimony of the Spirit, have at other Times, forgetting this, given up the whole ofthe Contrbverfy, by allow ing all to the Church and Tradition. Nothing lefs than this is certainly implied in that Conceffion of Dr. Whitaker s, That the Church has Power, or it be longs to its Office, to judge or determine, what are true, genuine, and canonical Books; and what are falfe, fpu rious, and apocryphal. And Icannot but obferve, that Calvin himfelf, tho' in the PafTages above-cited, he fays, Men cannot by any Arguments be brought to believe the Scriptures ; yet, in the next Chapter11, does himfelf make ufe of many Arguments taken from Teftimony and Tradition for this Purpofe ; fuch ' as, The Providence of God in preferving them\ under the Tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Septua- gint Tranftation, Sec. for the Old Teftament: The' wonderful Succefs of Chriftianity againft all Oppofi- tion, the mighty Prevalence of its Doctrines, the; Death of Martyrs, Sec. all which are founded only upon Hiftory and Tradition. Others who, unwil ling to difpute the Sufficiency of the Argument from internal Evidences, have attempted a fort of Medium, or. compounding the Matter, by .a ftrange «* Controverf. deScriptur. I. * Inftit. Chrift. Rqb'g. C.B. Quxft. III. c. 2. p. 202. F 2 fort 6i The befi Method of Part I, fort of Mixture of both. Thus Dr. Cofim'1, allow* ing the Force of internal Teftimonies to prove the Scriptures, fays, that " notwithstanding this, for " the particular Number of fuch Books, whether <( they be more or lefs, we have no better nor " other external Teftimony, or Rule herein to " guide us, than the conftant Voice of the Ca- li tholick Church, as it hath been delivered to us, f' ' 'Tis extant among the A- t DiiTert. de Canon. §. 24. fociyfha of the Old Teftament." " guments Ch.VII. determining theCanoti. $9! " guments, than fuch as are drawn from the Lan- * guage in which they are written, and the con- " ftant Teftimony of the antient Church." The plain Meaning of which is, That fonie Books prove thfmfelves to be of divine Original, others do not j the Spirit dictated fome Books, which evidence they are hisj others which do not. Everyone can fee, how contrary this is to the Reformers Doc trine ; and I am unwilling to make any other Infe rence, only would hence obferve, whatAbfurdities the greateft Men run into, who do not allow themfelves a juft Freedom! of Thought. Upon the whole therl, the Subftance of what I contend for is; The facred Books of the NewTefta- ment, at their firft Writing, were publifhed abroad in the World, and deliver'd to the firft Churches in diftaht Countriesj for their Ufe : They who firft received them, knew them to be the Books of the Perfons under whofe Names they were, publifhed, and could and. did teftify to the fucceeding Ages, what they thus knew of thefe Facts. This Tefti mony of the primitive Churches is ftill faithfully preferved in the Writings of the antient Chrifti-. ans, and is therefore not only a good and fufficientj but the principal Means by which we know the Truth of the Fact, viz. that the Books were writ ten by fuch and fuch Men. Befides this, the Books themfelves contain in themfelves Evidences of their Excellency above all others ; which fhould be the Means to ftrengthen and confirm pur Faith; and, for our farther Help, we are to hope for the Influences of God's Holy Spirit, to clear our Judg ments, and free us from thofe Prejudices which we naturally have againft Divine Things; to help us to fee the former Evidences in their due Strength, and fo to imprefs the Things revealed on our Minds, as to produce a fuitable Conduct and Behaviour. There is only one Objection, as far as I can fee, feft, which deferves any Confideration ; and that F 3 is, *76 The heft Method, Sec'. Part;. B is, If 'tis by Tradition, and fearching the Re cords of the Antients, that we are to have Satif«| fadion as to the Truth of the Scriptures; then the' greater Part of Chriftians, who are not capable of doing this, muft be without Satisfaction. - To which Ianfwer, That though the Bulk of Chriftians cannot themfelves have Recourfe to thefe original Evidences; yet there are many, who have with a great deal of Diligence and Impartiality made it their Bufinefs to do it, whofe Teftimonies they have, and rnayfafely depend upon, as they nei ther can nor would deceive in a Matter of fuch Importance. Nor does it follow from hence, that their Faith is ill grounded, becaufe it relies on the Teftimony of fallible Men, and fo is but a huraaa Faith; for this is no more than what equally fok lows from their not knowing the Original Lan| guages,,?and fo being in Confequence obliged ; to depend Upon the Veracity and Judgment of others, for the Truth and Goodnefs of itm."' > v , If any, after all, oppofe their own Experience i to what I above faid ; I defire them to confide^ i . That this can be no Argument to prove the Scriptures, to another ; and, 2. Whether the utr moft he, can infer from his Experience withRea* fon, be not this, That he has felt the powerfuljiln- fluences of the Chriftian Religion (revealed in the NewTeftament) upon his Heart,without having evet been made to know at any particular Time, that fuch Books and fuch PafTages were of Divine" Original, or to diftinguifh what is genuine in them, from What is fpurious"? *¦ See Baxter's Saints Reft, §.6". Neceflity and Nature of the p. 238. Tradition that eftablilhes thj B They are Bifhop Burnet's Canon of the New Teftament, Words on Art. 6. p. 79. He may read Mr. DodtveU's Diflert, igrhp. woulcj fee more of the in Iren. 1. §. $f, 36, 37. Chap rt Qi-VIII. 71 Chap. VIII. A large Account of all the Places in the Chriftian Writers , of the four" firft Centuries ; where Catalogues are to be found of the Booh of the New Tefta ment. Prop. IV. Thofe Books which are mention'd in the "Catalogues made by the moft antient Chriftian Writers, of the^ facred and infpi red Books are to be effeemed Canonical, and thofe which are not found in any , of thefe. Catalogues, muft be efteemed Apo- , cryphal, THIS Propofition does neceflarily depend up on, and follow from the foregoing one; for if the Tradition or Teftimony of the moft early Writers of Chriftianity be, (as was there proved) the Method, by which we( are to determine con cerning the Authority of any Book, their Evidence can never be more clear or material, than when they purpofely give us Lifts or Catalogues of tfiofc Books, which are to be received as facred and Ca^ nonical. All thefe Catalogues I have with much Labour. endeavoured to collect, and fhall prefently produce ; premifing only, that the Omiffiori of a Book in fome one or two particular Catalogues, cannot with any Reafon be urged againft its Ca nonical Authority, if it be found in all, or moft F 4 of - 72 'Primitive Catalogues of Parti, of the others, and any good Reafons can be affign-! ed,for the Omiflion where it is. Thus, for In ftance, the Revelation is omitted, either becaufeit was not perhaps known to the Author, or its Cre dit not fufficientiy eftablifhed in the Country where he lived ; or, which perhaps may be as probable as the other, becaufe it being fo full of Myfteries, few or none were judg'd proper or able to read it to any Purpofe. This was certainly the Cafe in England; this Book being, for this Reafon,- omitted, in the publick Calendar for reading the Scriptures, though it be receiv'd into the Canon. If therefore thefe, or any fuch good Reafons can be affign'd for the Omiflion of a Book in a parti-;, culat Catalogue (as, I hope, will appear in the par ticular Examination of ithe Books) it will be very! unfair to infer, from my Propofition, that fuchj Book is Apocryphal, efpecially when it is to be found in many, or moft other Catalogues. Thi?; premis'd, \ 'fhall now produce the Catalogue? themfelves, not at Length, which would be a needlefs tranfcribing the fame Things many times pver ; but only citing the feveral Places in the Au thors where they are, and noting the leaft Differ rence from our prefent Canon?. and withal adding he Year of their writing. f ' ' ' ' "* A LIST $h. VHI. the Canonical Books, 73 A LIST if all thofe Places in the Chriftian Writers of the four firft Centuries^, in isihich are to he found Catalogues of the Books of the New Teftament. N.Br In moft of thefe Places the Reader may alfo fee Catalogues of the Books of the; Old Tefta-i j ment; and, for the Benefit of thofe who may : defire to know which thofe Places are, I have j mark'd them thus*. I \ ^ 'he Names iofthe Wri ters. §1 * Origen, a Prefby- ter of A- \ lexandria,, who im- rploy'd in- ; credible Pains in knowingthe Scrip tures. II. Euseb ius P^mphij-us, whofe Writings evidence his Zeal about the Sacred A.C. 210. Jif The Variation or Agreement of their Catalogues with ours now receiv . Omits the Epi ftles of James and Jude, tho' he owns them both in other Parts of his Writings. His Catalogue is exactly the fame With the mo dern one; only he fays, the E- piftles ofjames, Jude, the 2d. of Peter, the 2d. The Places of their Wri tings', in which thefe Catalogues are. Comment, in Matth. a- fiud Eufeb. Hift. keel. I. 6. c. if. &l. f.Ex- pofit. in Jo an, ibid. Hiftor. Ecclef. I. ye. if. confer, efufi- dem lib. c. 3- the 74 Primitive Catalogues of Parti The Names ofthe Wri ters. Writings, and his greatCare to be in formed, which were ge nuine, and which not. III. ^Athana sius, Bp. of Alexan dria. IV. *C YRI L, Bp. of Je- rufalem. V. * The Bi- fhops af- fembl'd in the Coun cil of Laodicea 1** A.C 3rf 34° 364 The Variation or Agreement of their Catalogues with ours now received. and 3d.of 'John, tho' they were generally re ceived, yet had been by fome doubted of. As to the Revela tion, though he fays fome re jected it, yet he fays others receiv'd it ; and himfelf places it among thofe which are to be receiv'd with out Difpute. The fame perfect ly with ours now receiv'd. The fame with ours, only the Revelationis o- mitted. The Revelation is omitted. Canon. LIX'. N.B. The Canons of this Council were not long afterwards receiv'd into the Body of the Canons of the univerfal Church. The Places of their Wri tings,'^which thoft Catalogues are. Fragment. E- pift. Teftal. Tom. z. & in Synopf Tom. 1 . Catech. IV. §. ult.p. 101. t Thetapjls generally place this Council Before tbe Q»mcil u/Nice. Ch.VIII. the Canonical Qooksl 75 The Places of The N^rnes ofthe Wri ters. » "-SI S? v> ^1 VI. Epi pha- nius, Bp. qfSalamis in Cyprus. VII. Gregory Naz ian- zen, Bp. ofConftan-tinople. VIII. Phi las- T R I U S, Bifhop of Brixia in Venice. The Variation or Agreement of theifQCatalogues with ours now receiv'd. A.C. 37° 371 Tfie fame with ours now re ceived. Omits the Reve lation. their Wri tings, in which thofe Catalogues are 380 IX. * Jerome. 382. The fame with ours now re ceiv'd; except that he menti ons only thir teen of S. Paul's Epiftles (omit ting, very pro bably, the Epi ftle to the He brews) fie leaves out the Revela tion. The fame with ours ; except that he fpealcs dubioufly ofthe Epift. to the Hebrews; tho' in other Parts of his Writings he receives it ^Canonical j as hereafter will appear. Haref. 76, cont.Anom. p. 200. Carm. de ve- ris & genu-\ in. Scrip- tur. Lib.de Haref. Num. 87. Ep.adPaulin. 83. Tract. 6. p. 2. Alfo commonly prefix'd to the Latin Vulgar. The 7c> The Names of the Wri ters. *> Primitive Catalogues of Part I. ^ L-; rr ¦ *• • The Places of a \The (sanation or ^ ¦ Tir ¦ § ^„ , r their Wri Agremient of theirCatalogues with ours now receiv'd. X. * Ruff in, Prefbyterof Aquile- gium. XI. * Austin, Bifhop of Hippo in Africa. XII. *ThexLiv BPs.affem-bl'd in the 3d. Coun cil of Car thage. XIII. The Ano nymousAuthor of the works under the Name of Dionysi us the A- reopagite. IS -' -SS I A.C 300 S°4 St. -An prefentat it. It perfectly agrees With ours. It perfectly agrees with ours. It perfectly agrees with ours. 3P0 It feems perfectly to agree with ours : For tho' he doth not. for good Rea fons, produce the Names of the Books; yet (as the learned Dai lie fays, de Script.fuppofit.Dionyf. c.16.) he fo clearly defcribes them, as that he las left out no divine Book, may [be eafily perceiv'd. tings, m which theft Catalogues are. Expof. in Symb. Apoftol. §.36: int.Ep. Hie ron. Par. I Trac. 3. p. no, & inter Op Cypr. p. fjf, De Dobtrin Chrift. I. 2 c. 8. Tom Op.yp.zf Vid. Canon. xlvii. & cap. ult. Lib. de Hie- rarcb. Eccl. cyp.y Thefe Ch. VIII. the Canonical Booksl 7 7 Thefe are the principal Catalogues ofthe Books of the New Teftament, that are to be found before the Fifth Century. Some perhaps have efcap'd my Knowledge ; and fome, pretending to this Age, I have purpofely omitted : as that in the Conftitutions under the Apoftles Names, and that in the Sir1* Canon, under the faid Name3; taking it here for granted, that they are not only fpurious, but of uncertain Original ; and that attributed by Pappus, in his Synodicon, to the Council of Nice h, with this. Relation, That the Bifhops there affembled were by a very extraordinary Miracle convinc'd, which were Infpired, and which were Apocryphal Books, after this manner : Having put all the Books, that laid Claim to Infpiration, under the Communion-Table in a Church, they prafd to God, that thofe which were of Divine Infpiration might be found above [or upn\ the Table, thofe which were Apocryphal might be found under ; and accordingly, as they prayed, it came to pafs. Such Accounts are not only very falfe and fabulous, but plainly ridiculous and incre dible. * Lib. 2. cap. fj. r«; S-ttrttdj'nss sraws, tov Kvgtor jreegjsTjf $¦«« TgysrtSp aa\&4 vra- xMk yiyoyiv, v!tw»l»)6a. Syn. 34. Chap. 7S tibw to judge of the Parti. Chap. IX. How we are to judge of the Canonical Authority of any Book, by its being cited by any Chriftian Writers. Prop. V. / Thofe Books are juftly efteemed Canonical, which the firft Writers of Chriftianity have cited in their Writings as Scripture ; and thofe Apocryphal, which they have not. THE Truth of each Part of the Propofition neceffarily follows from Prop. III. For if we are to receive what they received as Canonical, we are infallibly fure of this, by obferving what Books they cited as Scripture in their Works, and what they did not. An univerfal Agreement of Writers in the moft remote Countries, in quoting the fame Books as Scripture, and no other as fuch, is, if the Fact be true, a very plain and demonftrative Indication of the true Canon. 'Tis not at all ne ceflary I fhould here go about to prove the Fact, viz. that the Writers of the firft four Centuries have cited fuch and fuch Books, and univerfally omitted others ; this I hope to make good here after. All that I contend for now is, that if they have done fo, 'tis a Proof to us, that the Books cited are Canonical, and the Books not cited are Apocryphal ; and that will appear thus: Their univerfal Agreement to cite fome Books, and omit others, Ch. IX. Canonical Authority of any Book. J9 others, muft neceffarily proceed from one of thefe two Caufes, viz. either, I. Becaufe they had not yet feen or known any other Books claiming divine Authority, befides thofe which they did cite ; or, 2. Becaufe if they did know them, they did not efteem them of equal Authority with thofe which they did cite. Befides thefe, I cannot conceive any other Reafon affignable. Now if the laft be affigned, the Matter is given up, and the Propofition at once eftablifh- ed ; for what the Antients look'd upon as Canoni cal and Apocryphal , we are (by Prop. III.) to judge fo too. If the firft be faid, viz. That thefe Books are cited, and no other, becaufe theft had the good Fortune to be known, and the others had not-y this will be no lefs giving up the Caufe; for their not being known, is to us (by Prop. III.) the fame as not being Canonical, inafmuch as this their Ob- fcurity proceeded from their wanting that publick Teftimony of their being wrote by the Apoftles, which the other Books had given them by the Churches. The Propofition therefore holds good ; and I can't but think it worth obferving, that Eu- febius (to whom, above all befides, we are indebted for our Helps to eftablifh the Canon)makes frequent ufe ofthe very fame Propofition, to diftinguifh be tween thofeBooks which are,or are not to be receiv'd. So, for Inftance, he proves the firft Epiftle of Peter to be genuine, becaufe the moft antient Writers of Chriftianity before his Time made continual Ufe of it in their Writings, as an undoubted Book * ; and a little afterwards b, proves the Acts of Peter, the Gofpel, the Preaching, and the Revelation of Peter, to be Apocryphal, becaufe none of the Writers of the Chriftian Church have in their Writings taken any ' Oi txcAm Ufta&tjltgoi jt£ ttgyutn, finrilt tu» iafh^)iXtx\a sv tou, av a,v\m xafl" qf/jas ti$ ix.x.toTUtSM©* rowed from Mr. Dodwell. I am ferry to fay, that feveral learned Men have too unguardedly dropt Expreffions of the like Nature ; as has been ob- ferv'd in the Beginning of the Differtation prefix'd to this Volume. In Anfwer to this Opinion of Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Toland, feveral Things have been well urged by Mr. Nye e, and after him by Mr. Richardfon1 ': But it appears to me impoffible to give a due Anfwer to it any other Way, than by a particular Survey of all the Places in the Fa thers, where they are fuppofed to have quoted any other Books as Scripture, befides thofe now re ceiv'd ; which is propos'd as the Work of the Se cond Part of this Volume. In the mean time, for the better explaining and eftablifhing my Proper fition, I muft obferve three or four Things. I . That the Propofition does not mean a bare citing of a Book, but citing it as Scripture. St. Paul has c fii/ A x$k.fi/as tv o-uy/pajtt/- 39. (belli Tui k«\» $ux,h>x«.<± sxkAdfi- e Defence of the Canon, p. tttuun T(5 e«))f «{ f/jvripiw a.m- fr, $>c. ¦ynv vlu»', ar«yi»airx.ilxi. Apol. 2. T«y i!tt to aula idj(ri[bVt)[Ht>V&>tMcl<* TUt Places, tfo.1%. Primitive t$Mke:s, Canonical ij Places, and the Memoirs of the Apoftles, and Wri tings of the Prophets are tedd. . So TertuUian, giv ing ah Account of the Chfiftiahs Meetings* lays, *They affembled id reWd the Scriptures^ "and to offer tif Prayers. And in smother Place *, Among thefo- fenitt Mxe'rcifts of lUg'LordH Day, he reckons redding ihe ScrifttarH, fittging PfalMs, cjfr. The1 fame Ac- jc?6unt we" have in Cyprian*, the antient Book under the Name of Didfiyftus' the Areopagite?, and! feveral. other antient Writers, cited by Pamelius in his Jeatikd' Notes on Tertullian's Apology K Now1,' IfeyV thefe Books are to be received by us as Canonical, forafmtfchas this Practice of reading the Scriptures was fo very early^ that ij: is hardly poffible to fuppofe the Churches impofed upon by any fpurious dr forged Pieces. Hence Cyril of Je- rufalem, inftfueting his Catechumen concerning the ' Scriptures, tells him i, To avdid Apocryphal Books,. • dnd ftUdy tdrefuUy thofe Scriptures only, which were 'fWlickly redd in the Church -, and a little after, hav ing given hilrr a Catalogue of the faCred Books, he adds, Let all others be rejected ; aM fuch. as are nop rewd in the Churches, neither ^ do you . reaa\ i)i private. \ Herice, in the middfe of the" KJprtH Century, it ! was decreed/ by the Council of Laodicea, in their fifty ninth: Canon, that no private Pfdlms fhould b"e read fo the Church, nor any' Books without the Cjanori, but My the Canonical ones' ofthetUld and New tejla-^ b Cogimur ad divinarurn lite4 l Sdl. in Apoldg. c.~ 3 ij.N.^o." rarum commemorationem. A- 8 Bggi ch t« caroKgitpa .ymht pbl. C. J Qi t%t>toi»ct, ravlcfi fbo)«i. /jbi^Het tats* ' Inteir D6rriihivi «v*yiv«ir»tl«i, T*v\n p/yeii d Epift. 33, 34., *«!« .oy»j^u«, i- e. Such as all own'd. And, 2. T« A^iSaXXoju^a, fuch as were doubted of. In like manner St. Auftin1 fipeaks of thofe which were receiv'd by all Catholick Churches, and thofe, which were rejected by fome few Churches ; he muft needs mean of Hereticks, becaufe they are oppos'd to the Catholicks. I own, indeed, the Instances Eufebius produces of his fecond fort, were not doubted of by the Reafon now affign'di but whatever doubtful Books the others meant, may be well included in our Account, feeing they fpeak not of any of the Books of the prefent Ca non beipg doubted of, as he does. Secondly, I obferve, that tho' Eufebius and Ruffin, mention fome Books as read ins the Churches, yet themfelves' do exprefty exclude them from the Canon % as Eufebius does the Shepherd of Hermas, placing it among the fpurious Books'"; and Ruffin in fo many Words tells us, It was not reputed Canonical*. As to the Revelation being omitted in Cyril\ Catalogue, and in the eighty fifth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, as not being read in the Churches; I fhall refer the Reader to the Reafons. above affign'd for its being left out of fome Cata* logues, and to the particular Enquiry into this Book hereafter. ¦" Catech. IV. p.97, 98. f Hiftor. Eccl. 1. 3. c.3. 1 DeDoflr. Chrift. 1. 2. c. 8. ' Expofit. in Symb. Apoftol, Tom. Op. 3. §. j6-. r • HA P. Ch.XI. 87 If: Chap. XI. Several Proportions, whereby we may diftinguifh the Spurioufnefs of many Books. Prop. VII. That Book is certainly Apocryphal, in which are found any Contradictions. TH E Truth of this is evident : for as both fides of a contradictory Propofition cannot be true, fuch Book muft neceffarily contain Jbme- what that is falfe, and confequently cannot have God for its Author, nor be to us a Rule of Doc trine and Manners. Prop. VIII. That Book is Apocryphal, which either con tains any Hiftories, or propofes any Doc trines, contrary to thofe which are cer tainly known to be true. This is evident for the fame Reafon as the former; to impute fuch a Book to the Infpiration of the Holy Ghoft, being, in other Words, to make God the Author of a Lie, and to take him for our Guide in Matters of the laft Confequence, whom we know to be not only fallible, but actu ally deceived. Coroll. That therefore is an Apocryphal Book, which contains any thing contrary to the known G 4 Facts,, » S 8 Tropofitions to diftinguifh the Part I, Facts, or univerfally agreed Doctrines of the Chri- • ftian Religion. I hope it will hot be thought a Defect in ftrict Reafoning, that I take it for grant ed, that the Subftance of Christianity is true ; for this cannot be denied by any who will believe any Matter of Fact, of which they have not themfelves been Eye- WitnefTes. But if any will difpute this, and fay, I take for granted what I ought not, having not proved it ; I refer them to what is faid Cor. z. Prop. II. where, I think, as much is prov'd, at leaft is fairly imply'd, as I here take for granted. I purpofely omit here all Inftances, referving them for their proper Places ; only would obferve, that Eufebius"- makes ufe of the fame Propofition, to difprove the Canonical Authority of many Books that went under the Apoftles Names. The Senti ments, fays he, and Doctrines which are deliver'd in thofe Books, are fo very different from, or contrary to, the true and Orthodox Doctrine of the Church, as evidently demonftrate than to be the Forgeries of Hereticks, and therefore not only to be rank'd among Purious Pieces, but to be utterly rejected as abfurd and impious. Thus alfo Serapio, TertuUian, Epipha nius, and many others, reject the particular Apo cryphal Pieces they have occafion in their Wri tings to mention ; and thus, by the way, we may prove all, or moft of thofe Books, which are call'd the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament, to be really fuch. ' H Tt yvcjf&t) y.ai y Tm tv av- piriorrow'd Titles; yea, and long before their Time, the antient Writers of Christianity were fuccefsful in difcovering Forgeries by the fame Me- * In many of his Editions of the Fathers. " De Scriptor. Ecdefiaft. ' Biblioth. Sanft. d Cenfur. quorund.Vet. Patr. c Critic. Sacr. f Hiftor. Liter. thod. Ch.XII. a proper Method to judge of if. 03 thod. Eufebius'sWorks will Supply us with many Inftances to this Purpofe. He who has an Intent to deceive, andpublifh a Piece of his own for another's, may eafily counter feit his Name, Age, Country, Opinions ; but will find it almoft impoffible with any Exactnefs to imitate another's Style. For as every Man has his peculiar Air in' moving, fpeaking, &c. as every Man has a peculiarTurn of Eye, Caft of Countenance and Complexion, and many other Things by which he is diftinguifhable from all others ; fo has every Man a peculiar Way of thinking and expreffing his Thoughts, as different from all others as in any of the other Inftances. And tho' it may be faid, a Man writes in a very different Style at different Times, according to the different Subjects he has to manage, his different Age, his larger Attain ments by Study, the different Tempers in which the Mind is at the Times of Writing, &c. yet ftill there will be more or lefs of the old natural Pecu liarity vifibly remaining, by which' he will appear to be the fame,1 and not another who writes. Juft as a Man, tho' he change his Country, become ad- . vanced in Years, fometimes fmiles, fometimes frowns, ftill ¦ has the fame Countenance, the fame Smile or Frown, which will diftinguifh him from ^.all the reft of Mankind. Jerome, fays Sixtus &, writes one way in his Epiftles, another way in his Controverfies with Ruffin, another way in his Com mentaries; one way when he was young, and his Mind warm with the Exercifes of Rhetorick; another way when he was old, writing on more ferious Sub jects: Tet he always writes fo that you may know him to be the fame Jerome ftill, as ~a Man knows his Friend under all the various Cafts and Turns of his Countenance. " So likewife in every Writer there will always be a peculiar Way of Setting his * Lib. cit. p. 327, # Thoughts $£ rA Catalogue of the Part Ii Thoughts together, Contexture of the Drfcouffe* Method of handling his Subject, and fomething distinguishing, which I can no more deferibe, than that in a Man's Face, which makes him different from all the World. The Mildnefs or Haftinefsof ¦ his Temper, the Serioufnefs or Levity j theDulnefe or Brifknefs, the Length or Shortness, or fome Marks or other will Still appear. This St. Auftin elegantly exprefles of one of Cyprian's Epiftles, which he prov*d genuine by its Style thus, His Style has a certain peculiAr Fact, by which it may be knownh. After all, I confefs, a Perfon may be eafily de ceived in this Matter ; and therefore there is need of the greateft Care, and long and intimate Acj quaintance with the Authors, of whom we thus judge (it being certain, that the Style will ftill be more eafily difcern'd by us, in Proportion as we have read the Book.) I nave therefore, for the Rea der's Affiftance (if it will be any to him) collected^ according to the beft of my Capacity, the various Styles that I have obferv'd in Reading, and plac'd them in the following Catalogue. He who would Study the Point farther, may read to good Purpofe what Tally and cpuintilian have wrote on this Subjeft. A Catalogue of the various Styles of Authors. I. npHE Plain or Simple Style-, i. e. fuch as is X levell'd to the Capacity of moft Men, having the Thoughts rang'd in fuch Order, and exprefs'd in fuchWords,as that moft Men will with Eafe underftand them. It may be call'd the Eafy, h Stylus ejus habet quandam propriam faciem, qua poflet ag- nofci. Epift. ad Vincent. 48. p. 184. Tom. Op. 2. # or Ch.XII. various Sorts df Styles. 5$ or Clear Style, and is very remarkable in the Hifto rical Books of the Old and New Teftament. 2. The Affetled,- or Rhetorical Style + oppofite to the former, viz. That which is labour'd and a* bounds with Words of uncommon Ufe, and plac'd differently from the common Way of Speech j What the Latins call Oratio luxurians, Voces fonera, Pompa & Lepor Verborum. This St. Paul fays he avoided, I Cor. ii. r, 3. calling it Excellency of Speech, and enticing Wordi of Man's Wifdom. 3. The P&pkx'd and Involv'd Style, having the Thoughts plac'd in fo uncommon an Order, that rt wilfrequire confiderable Pains to connect them j different from the former, in that it may be in Very common and intelligible Words:, and alfo na tural Without Affectation. This was the Style of Tacitus and TertuUian among the Antients^ and Mr. Selden among the Moderns. 4. The Ruftick or Homely Style, i. e. fuch as is below the common Standard of the Country, or What we call in Latin, Barbarous. This more re- fpects the Words than the Thoughts, and is the Style of the Latin Vulgate Bible, and many of the Latin Translations of the Greek Fathers. f. The Strong or Nervous Style, i.e. fuch in which there are the moft juft Reafonings expref- fed in the moft cogent Words, or fuch Words as powerfully and fully convey all the Ideas the Au thor had. Such was certainly the Style of Saintf Paul, and Juftin Martyr among the Antients, and Archbifhop Tillotfon^ and'Mr. .£<>?£ arriong the Mo derns-. 6, The Languid, or Weak Style, the Oppofite of the former, which does but faintly or in Part conr Vey the Ideas of the Author, or whofe Reafonings1' are fcarce conclufive. I need not produce Inftan ces of this Sort. 7. The Sublime Style, i. e. Such as leads the Reader into uncommon Speculations about di vine 9<$ A Catalogue of the Parti; vine Things. This may fully coincide with the Simple, as to the ExpreSfion, but muft in fome ¦ iiKuiure differ from it as to the Thoughts, being uncommon, and fuch as will require Pains to take in; fuch is the Style of Ifaiah's Prophecy, in re flect of the Book of Efther or Ruth. 8. The Myftical, or Typical Style, i. e. fuch as makes ufe of former Events to prove any' Point. This-was the Style much in ufe among the Jews in our Saviour's Time, and was a Style much af fected and reputed by their learned Men, and ac cordingly taught in their Schools. Hence they had their Doctors, whom they call'd ED'Oll and 4U?"nn ^jn whofe Bufinefs it was to find out myftical and allegorical Senfes of Scripture ; and their tttmo ^rn i. e. the Schools where this fort of Learning was taught {. Hence perhaps we may account for there being fo much of this Style in St. Paul's Writings , he having had his Education in the Jewifh Academy at Jerufalenii This Style is principally vifible in his Epiftle to the Hebrews, and the fourth Chapter of his Epiftle to the Galatians ; and 'tis remarkable, that thofe two Epiftles, above the reft which he wrote, con- cern'd the JeWifh Converts. This Style is alfo very much ufed in the Talmud, in Irenaus, TertuU lian, and moft of the firft Chriftian Writers, efpe cially Origen. I wifh thofe, who are fo fond of this Style, were able to give as good Reafon for their ufing it, as St. Paul could. o. The Parabolical Style, i. e. fuch as abounds with Parables and Similitudes, as our Saviour's Difcourfes in the Gofpels. lo. The Theatrical Style, i. e. fuch in which there are frequent Interlocutions, or Dialogues: ' Vid. Fuller. Mifcell. Sacr. Authors, in the Places cited, I. 3. c. 7. Scalig. Elench. Tri- think St. Paul meant thefe Doc- hxr. on. Camer. in Myro- tors by theWordaA'JjVi Cor. thee, ad 1 Cor. i. jo. Thofe i. zo. Of Ch. XII. various Sorts of Styles'. 97 Of this there are many Examples ia-St. Paul's Writings, and more common and evident ones in Solomon's, efpecially in his Ecclefiaftes. Under this may be included the Style in which there are many Profopopoeia ; i. e. when inanimate Things are introduc'd in' the Difcourfe, and addrefs'd to as Perfons: This is frequent in Mofesv, David}, and the Prophets0*. ii. The Humourous ' 'Style, i.e. fuch as abounds either with what they call Wit, or what is an Af fectation of it, tho* quite different from it, viz. Puns and Jingles of Words. Many of our Practi cal Writers of Divinity in the laft Age dealt much in the latter of thefe, as too many of our beft Writers on the fame Subject have of late in the former : Both of thefe may juftly be faid, ludere turn facris. 12. The Interrogatory Style, i. e. fuch in which are frequent Addreffes in the fecond Perfon ; of which there are fome Examples in St. Paul's Epiftles n, and many in our warm Writers of Prac tical Divinity. 13. The Style in which are many Repetitions : This is very remarkable in St. John °. 14. The Style in which are many Proverbs or Apophthegms recited.-Thofe who are acquainted with the Jewifh Books, will know there is much more of this in our Saviour's Style, than is commonly imagin'd p. if. The Style which abounds with Parenthefes, i. e. breaks off the Sentence with the Interjection of other Things that don't properly belong to the * See Deut. iv. 26. xxx. ip. ° Joh. viii. 21, 14,. ijoh. i. Xxxii, 1. 8, 10. ii. 9, 10, 11, and v. 12, ' Pfal.xix. 1. Ixv. 1 j. Ixxvii. 13, 14. 16. xcvi. 11,12. xcviii. 8.cxiv.j f See Grotius and Hammond's m Ifai. i. 2. Annotations, and Mr. Le Clerc's " See Rom. viii. 31, &c. Paraphrafe on the Gofpels. % Cor. ix, H Argument 9s A Catalogue of the Parti, Argument, for its farther Illuflration : This is very common in St. Paul % and among later Writers in Mr. Selden and Dr. Owen. if. The Concife or Sententious Style; fuch as So* lomon's Proverbs. 1 6. The Prolix Style, which is too common to need the producing any Inftances. Under this I include, not only Length of Periods* but Multi plying of Words. 17. The Connected, or Coherent Style, which re gards the Senfe , and is commonly the Style of , Mathematicians, and all good Reafoners : *'. e. Such in which a Sentence depends upon the former, as the Links of a Chain, and in which nothing can be left out without fpoiling the whole Argu^ ment. 1 '8. The Connected, or Coherent Style, which re<- fpects the Words, and indeed in fome Senfe (tho' very different from the former) the Thoughts; \.e. fuch in which the laft Thought of the preceding Sentence gives Occafion to the Thoughts of the enfuing Sentence, and fo the laft Word of the preceding Period is the firft of the next, and fb on. This Style can feldom be ufed in Arguing.; 'tis very evident in the firft Epiftle of St. Peter, and the firft Chapter *of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Coloffians. 1 p. The Loofe or Rambling Style is too well known. Left it fhould be thought, that this and the feventeenth coincide with the fifth and Sixth, viz. the Nervous and the Languid ; I obferve, that every coherent Style is not nervous, nor every lan guid Style incoherent. 20. The Efficacious, or Powerful Style, peculiar to the Scriptures ; / e. the inward Efficacy and Power which is in them to reach and imprefs the Confciences of Stupid Sinners. By this I mean ? Eph. ii. 1 1 .. ¦— 6. fomewhat (ph. XII. various Sorts of Styles* 99 fomewhat different from any yet mention'd, and ho other than what thefe Books claim for them-* felves, and are experienc'd to have, by thofe whd have felt the Power of Religion on their Hearts. And though I own this Style is not of it felf visi ble, till the Spirit and Grace of God make it fo, and confequently cannot (according to my Propo sition) be made ufe of to determine certainly con5- cerning any Author, as the ethers may, yet I men tion it for the fake of thofe who allows 1. That they have a greater Aptnefs and Ten dency to imprefs Mens Minds, according to their Intention, than any other Books have. 2. That as David fays r, The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soul, &cc. or, as Paul expref- fes itf, That the Word of God is quick and powerful, and Jharper than any two-edged Sword ; piercing even to the dividing afunder of Soul and Spirit, and of the Joints and Marrow ; and is a Difcerner of thi Thoughts, and Intents of the Heart. ' Pfal. xix. 7, 8. r rfeb. iv. ii. Hi Chap< io© Tropofttions difcovertng the Partly Chap. XIII. Several Propofitions whereby the Spu rioufnefs of a ' Book may be difco- vefd. Prop. XII. That Book is Spurious and Apocryphal* whofe Idiom and Dialect is different from the known Idiom or Dialed of the Author whofe Name it bears, or the Country where he liv'd. THE Idiom or Dialect of a Language is fome what very different from the Style of & Writer, inafmuch as all Languages are fufceptible of all forts of Styles; the Idiom of a Language be ing what is common to a whole Country, and dif fering from others only by fome Accidents ; but the Style ofaWriter is fomewhat that is peculiar to him felf, arising only from the vaft and inexpreffible Va riety of Nature and Constitution. Thus this Propofi tion differs from the foregoing, but is prov'd by the fame fort of Medium, viz. that as each particular Perfon has one Style which another cannot imi tate; fo each Country, or the language of each Country, has its own Idiom or Peculiarities, which thofe of another Country can fcarcely imitate to that Perfection, but that the Difference will be difcernible. I confefs, indeed, it feems to me a more eafy Matter to imitate a Dialect, than a Style; yet notwithllanding this, the Criticks in Langua ges Ch. XIII. Spurioufnefs of a Book. I o i ges know well, fiiere is fomething in the Genius of them which is inimitable by thofe of other Countries ; fome Words, fome Phrafes, or Difpo- fition of Words, which are never perfectly learnt. Befides, as a Writer can't fully imitate the Phra- feology of another Country; fo neither can he avoid the Peculiarities of his own, tho' he be fuppofed to write in another Language : Thefe are what he has from his Infancy been habituated and accuf- ftom'd to, and become almoft as natural to him as his own Air and Style. Hence Peter was difco- ver'd to be a Galilean at Jerufalem, {Matt. xxvi. 73 .) though the Language of the Jews and Galileans was very little different : Juft as an Inhabitant of the Southern Parts of England would immedi ately difcover one of its Northern Inhabitants, not by his Words and Tope only, but his Dialect. Hence it feems not difficult, for Inftance, to dif- itinguiSh between the Latin wrote by an Englifhman, and that wrote by a Roman in Auguftus's Time. And it would, I believe, be impoffible for a Per fon now in any Nation, to impofe a Book of his own Writing under the Name of any Roman Wri ter, without being immediately detected. So cer tain it is, that each Nation has its peculiar Idiom and Dialect $ which may be yet farther confirm'd by the known Remark made by all who are ac quainted with Languages, viz. That it is exceeding >hard to do Juftice to an Author, when he is tranfla ted into another Language ; the Tranflator finding himfelf perpetually at a Lofs either for Words br Phrafes, or both, fully and exactly to exprefs the Author's Idea's. The Rule therefore laid down, muft be of great Service to us, in detecting the Spurioufnefs or For gery of a Book, the Impofture commonly fhewing it felf either in fome Words or Phrafes not known in the Country, where the pretended Author liv'd, but pecuhar to another ; or elfe in an unnatural H ? Refemblance 102 Tropofttions difcovering the Parti. Refemblance and Affectation of a Dialect he was- not Sufficiently acquainted with. Inftances of this we may perhaps meet with hereafter ; yet I can-. not but add one Remark here concerning the Dir alect of moft of the Writings of the New Tefta ment, becaufe it will be a very demonstrative Evi dence of the mighty Power and Force there is in the Genius or Nature of a Language to fhew it felf: The Remark I mean is concerning the Hebra? ifms of the New Teftament. 'Tis agreed on all hands, that moft of thofe Books were originally written in Greek ; but no one can be ignorant, how different the Greek is from that which was commonly fpoke and wrote in the World at that Time ; fo different in its Idiom and Phrafeology, that it muft needs have puzzled the moft celebrated , Linguists of Athens to have conftrued the Phrafes, if they had understood all the Words. The Truth is, the Books were written by Men who were born in Judaa, who had convers'd in the Jewifb {i.e. the Syriack~] Language from their Childhood, and fo had the Idioms and Peculiarities of it be come perfectly natural to them ; and hence, tho' they made ufe of Greek Words, they conceiving after their former Manner, placed their Words af ter their wonted Manner, i. e. in the Hebrew of Syriack Dialect. Such is the Language of moft of the New Teftament (of which, if it were necef- fary, it were eafy to produce a hundred Inftances) which plainly Shews how great the Force of a P'erfon's natural Language is, "and how difficult it is to conceal it, even when he makes ufe of the Words of another. And I dare venture to fay, that the Idi oms of Latin or Greek would be as likely to Shew themfelves, as thfife of Hebrew j or that any Gen tile Writers would find it as difficult to avoid the Idioms of their own Country Language, and imitate thofe of Paleftine, as the Jews did to avoid theirs, and imitate thofe of other Countries. I conclude Ch. XIII. Spurioufnefs of a Book. 103 Conclude therefore, that the Idiom of the Lan guage of any Book is a very likely Means to judge of its Genuinenefs ; and if it be prov'd contrary to the known Idiom of the People among whom its pretended Author liv'd, that it is to be look'djflp- on for that Reafon as fpurious and ApocryphalSr Prop. XIII. That Book is Spurious and Apocryphal, which evidences a Difpofition or Temper of Mind in its Author, different from the known Temper and Difpofition of the Author whofe Name it bears. The Truth ,of this Propofition depends upon thefe two known Obfervations, viz. That there is a great Variety in the Tempers of Mens Minds, and that it is next to impoffible for a Perfon fo to conceal and difguife himfelf, but that his natu ral Temper will be more or lefs vifible : The Pride or Humility, the Warmth or Coolnefs, the Dull- nefs or Brifknefs, the Courage or Cowardice ofthe Soul, and many other fuch, are Qualities fo natu ral to it, fo predominant in it, that a Man may as eafily alter the Call of his Complexion, or Shape of his Body, as fo alter them that they fhall be come jndifcernible. David could not write, but he evidenc'd his Humility: nor Cicero, but he evi denced his Pride. St. Paul could not write with out Shewing the paffionate Vigour and Warmth of his natural Temper ; nor St. John without fhew- ing the Sedatenefs and Mildnefs of his.. I need not produce Inftances in a Cafe fo evident ; only would obferve, that of all the Tempers of the Mind, none are more predominant, and more like ly to Shew themfelves in Writing, than the proud H 4 or 104- Tropoftims difcovmng the Parti. or modeft, the paffionate and warm, or the cold and dull. Prop. XIV. That Book is Apocryphal, which for the moft part is tranfcrlb'd or ftolen out of another. Nothing can be more evident than this. Every Book which is fuppos'd Canonical, is at the fame Time fuppos'd Infpired, or to be wrote under the Conduct and Influences of the Divine Spirit; but to be a Plagiary, and under the Conduct of Infpiration, is manifeftly inconfiftent. To fuppofe the Holy Spirit to affift one Perfon in firft writing, and then another Perfon in transcribing or ftealing out of that Writing, is to fuppofe what is apparently abfurd and impious. 'Tis abfurd, becaufe 'tis mak ing Infpiration neceflary, where nothing was lefs fo, every one having natural Powers fufficient to tranfcribe a Book, without any extraordinary Af- fiftance ; and indeed, the little Neceffity there is for Infpiration in fuch a Cafe, is no weak Argu ment to prove there was no Infpiration at all. Farther, as the Suppofition is abfurd in it felf, fo 'tis impious and prophane, viz. to make the Holy Spirit concur to the Production of a meer Cheat and Impofture ; for fuch certainly is every Book that is compofed out of another's Works, with-. out any Intimation that it is fo. Nor will the Goodncfs of the Plagiary's Defign at all alter the Cafe ; for whatever Merit Men may imagine in fuch pious Frauds, I hope none will thijik God himfelf fo pleas'd with them, as to be the imme diate Author of them. I am very well aware it may be here urg'd, that two of the Books now received into the Canon, feem to be taken out of, or tranfcrib'd from, two of the 4- others $ Ch. XIII. Spurioufnefs of a Book. 105 others, viz. The Gofpel of St. Mark out of that of St. Matthew, and the Epiftle of Jude out of that of St. Peter. The Objection is indeed fpecious ; to which I now anfwer only, that as to the common Opinion of St. Mark's being an Epitome o& St. Matthew, I have elfewhere ' largely difproved it, and am fo vain as to think, the Arguments I have there form'd againft it may be fufficient to convince any one of the Falfhood of it. As to Jude's Epiftle being an Epitome of the fecond Epiftle of Saint Peter, I fhall defer the Confideration of it to a more convenient Place hereafter. " See my Vindication of Saint Matthew's Goipel againft JUr. Wbifton, Chap. 6 i o. Chap. XIV. The Syriack Verfion propofed as a good Means to determine the Canon of the NewTeftament : AnHiftoricalAccount of the Verfion. Prop. XV. The Translation of the Books of the New Teftament in Syriack is of very confide rable Service in determining and fixing the Canon of f hofe Books. THE Truth of this Propofition depends upon the Antiquity of the Verfion ; for if the moft antient Chriftians are to be Judges, and their Teftimony i oeJ The Syriack Verfion a good means Part I, Teftimony is to determine in this Matter (as has been prov'd Prof. III.) their Judgment can no way be more evident, than in the Collection or Choice/ which they made of Books to be tranflated into their own Language ; and if fuch Collection of Books was mile by the Eaftern Churches in the Time, or at leaft near the Time of the Apoftles, it muft confequently be of great Weight in deciding ¦' this Matter. That therefore which is incumbent on me, in order to eftablifh this new Propofition, - is to fhew, That the Syriack Verfion of the Nm Teftament was made in or near the Apoftles Times. And in this Matter I fhall think it worth while to be fomewhat particular and large, not only becaufe the Proof of this will be of iuch prodigious Ser vice to our prefent Purpofe, and to many other' valuable Ends ; but hereby hoping withal to do fomewhat towards reviving the Credit of this moft antient Monument of Chriftianity, and influencing fome at leaft to learn the Language of this Verfion, which is both fo ufeful and fo eafily learnt. In my Vindication of St. Matthew's Gofpel, I have attempted fomething of this fame fort ; but as that happen'd to be in the laft Sheet of the Book, the Inconveniency of the Prefs obliged me to contract my Thoughts , for which Reafon, as well as for the fake of thofe who have not feen r.hat Book, I fhall not judge it amifs to make ufe of any thing which I have there faid, adding any Difcoveries I have fince made on the Subject. In managing of which I will produce, i. All that is Hiftorical concerning it. 2. The Judgments of learned Men about it. 3. Some Arguments by which the Antiquity of the Verfion will be eftablifhed. 1 . As to the Hiftory of this Verfion. 'Tis a con stant and antient Tradition among thcSyiians, that it was made by 57. Mark. This Account we have Bom Poflellus, who travell'd into the Eaftcrn Parts of Ch.XIV. to determine the Canon. «o? of the World, in order to inform himfelf of aft that he could among them, who declares, that the Syrians deliver'd it to him as an antient Tradition, That St. Mark tranflated his own Gofpel, and .the reft of the Books of the New Teftament, into his own Country's [i. e. ^Galilaean or Syriack] Language*. The firft time the Europeans became acquainted with this Verfion, was in the Year of Chrift if 61, on this Occafion : Ignatius, a Patriarch of Antioch, hearing ofthe Advantages of Printing, fent a cer tain Prieft of Mefopotamia, call'd Mofies Meridinaeus, into Europe with_a Copy of the Syriack Teftament, to be printed for" the Benefit of the Chriftians in thofe Eaftern Parts of the World ; who, failing in the Execution of his Defign both at Rome and at Venice, at length fortunately met with Albertus Widmanftadius in Germany, who with the Encou ragement and Affiftance of the then Emperor Ferdi nand caufed it to be printed in Syriack Characters b. In this Edition were wanting, The fecond Epiftle of Peter, The fecond and third Epiftles of John, The Epiftle of Jude, and The Revelation, After this Edition of Widmanftadius at Vienna, feveral others were foon publifh'd by Tremellius, Guido Fabritius (who had the Advantage of an antient Manufcript, which the aforemention'd Poftellus procur'd in his Travels in the Levant Country) Troftius, and others. All thefe were publifhed without the four men tion'd Catholick Epiftles, and the Revelation; tho' thefe have been fince added in the later Editions of the French and Englijh Poly'glotts, and thofe of Gutbirius and Schaaf, for which the World is ob- lig'd to Mr. Pocock of Oxford, and the learned De Dieu; the former of which firft publifhed the four Epiftles out of an antient Manufcript that lay con ceal' d in the Bodleian at Oxford, and the latter the 1 Guid, Fabrit. Praefat. in Syr. vera! Editions, efpecially that ot Teft. Schaaf 's. J See the Prefaces of the fe- Revelation, so8 The 'Syriack Verfion a good means Parti Revelation, out of a Manufcript of Scaliger's in the Library at Leyden. This is all I know relating to the Hiftory of this Verfion ; except that I have fomewhere read, that fome of the Syrians afcribe this Verfion to Thaddaus, one of the Apoftles, as its Author, who compofed it for Abgarus, King of Edeffa; and that there are feveral Manufcripts of the whole, or fome Parts of the Tranflation now in Europe, viz. two in the Duke of Florence's Li brary, one of which is above a thoufand Years old, the other not much lefs ; three in the French King's not very old, one of which Gutbirius had from Conftantine V Empereur, that of Pofiellus, and thofe above-mention'd c. 2. I propos'd in the next Place to fhew, What the Judgment and Opinion of learned Men concerning the Antiquity of this Verfion has been. And tho* I never thought NumLers any Evidence of Truth, yet they certainly are of Appearance of Truth; and it muft needs be very unreafonable to fuppofe a great Number of difinterefted Perfons of Senfe and Learning would receive that for Truth, which at leaft had not fome plaufible Reafons to fupport it ; fuch certainly is the Cafe in refpect of this Tranflation. The firft I produce is Tremellius, who publifh'd it and tranflated it into Latin. u By whom, fays he, " or by what Authors, or what Time the Sy- " riack Verfion was made out of its Original Greek, " we are not yet able pofitively to determine, any " more than concerning the Authors who made " the Greek Verfion of the Old Teftament, and " the old Latin Vulgate ; But it feems every way " probable, that it was made in the very Infancy of a the Church of Chrift, either by the Apoftles them- " felves or their Difeiples ; unlefs we will imagine " them in their Writings to have had a Concern I Simon, Critis. Hift. of the N. Teft. Par. z. c. 14. only Gh. XIV. to determine the Canon. lag " only for the Churches of foreign Nations, and " none for thofe of their own Country d. Our learned Mr. Fuller* calls it, moft antient, a very excellent and truly divine Monument of Chri ftianity. Alftedf, " The Syriack Verfion of the New-Tefta- « ment is to be attributed to the Church of Antioch, " while yet m its Infancy, and to thofe in that City guage ; only for the fake of thofe who are unac quainted with thefe Things, I fhall lay down the following Remarks, which, if it were neceflary, it would be no difficult matter to confirm. I. The Original or Primeval Language of the World was Hebrew". 2. This continued univerfal till the Flood, and fo on till the Attempt of building of the Tower of Babel ; for then the whole Earth was of one Language, and of one Speech °, about feventeen hundred and fifty Years after the Creation. 3 . At that time there was a Confufion of Langua ges ; and Men being featter'd into different Parts of the Earth, and not converting with each other, form'd different Dialects of Speech p. 4. Thefe feem to have been no other than the vari ous Dialects of the OW Hebrew; as Chaldee, Syriack, Arabick, and the other Languages of that Eaftern Part of the World are : Juft as from the Latin we fee the Italian, French, and Spanifh had their Ori ginal 1. y. The Chaldee or Syriack Dialect was the Lan guage of Syria and Mefopotamia, and the adjacent Country. This is evident from the Title Laban the Syrian put upon his Monument, viz. ,8*fv)ino "U1 which are plain Syriack or Chaldee Words1 ; and from Rabfhekah's Speech to the Jews, Which is ex- prefly faid to be deliver'd .rVQlit i. e. in Syriack f. 6. The Family of Abraham, through all their va rious Ages, retained their old Hebrew Language pure and uncorrupt till the Babylonifh Captivity. This is evident, becaufe all the Books of the Old Tefta ment wrote before that Time are in that Lan guage; and in the laft-cited Place, the Jewijh Of- n Bochart. Phaleg. 1. i.e. ij. Lingu. Heb. prsefix. Comment, " Gen.xi. 1. in Pentateuch. ' lb. Ver. 9. * Gen. xxxi. 47. * Vid. Lc Clerc Diflert. de r 2 King, xviii. 16. I fleers 114 An Account of the Parti) ficers defired to communicate with Rabfhekah in Syriack, and not in Hebrew, that fo the com mon People of Jerufalem might not underftand them. 7. After the Captivity they forgot their own He- brew, and learnt the Language of the Chaldeans or SyrianSj or rather mixt it with their own. This appears j in that a great Part of the Books of Ezra and Daniel, which were wrote after the Captivity, are wrote in this Language ; and they had need of Interpreters to translate the other Books, when they were read in the Synagogues in Hebrew, which they did not underftand, into Chaldee which they did1. 8. This Chaldean or Syriack Language, or, as fome call it, Syrq-Chaldaick Dialect, was the Lan guage of Jerufalem and Galilee, and all the Country about, in our Saviour's Time. There needs no other Proof of this, than the great Number of Syriack Words which are now remaining in the Greek Tefi lament; fuch asTalitha Kumiu, Epphathaw, Elloi, Elloi, Lamma fabaclhani x ; Bethefda y, Golgotha ?, Gabbatha 3, Raca b, Cephas % Aceldama d, Boaner ges'1, Maranatha{, Bar Jonas, Abbah, &c. Thefe are all evidently Syriack Words (as they know who are the leaft acquainted with the Language) and fuch as were in common Ufe among the Jews, in our Saviour's Time. I would only obferve farther concerning one of thefe Syriack Words, viz. Acel dama, that it is faid to be sv m uPia. cftaXsalw aulcov, i. e. in their own Dialect which they then fipake. 1 Lightfoot Harm. N. Teft. fc Matth. v. 22. P> 6. c John i. 42. u Mar. 7. 41. -» Aft. i. 19. w Ib.vii. 34. • Mar. iii. 17. x Ib.xv. 34. f 1 Cor. xvi. 22. y John v. 2. 8 Mat. xvi. 17. 1 Matt. xxvii. 33. |> Mar. xiv. 33. * John xix. 13. Thofe Ch.XV. Syriack Language. it* Thofe who are not acquainted with thefe Stu dies will be very likely to object here. That we read nothing of the Syriack in- the New Teftamewtt, but that the Words abdve are commonly called He brew; which is indeed true} as alfo that the firft Chriftian Writers commonly call the Language of the Jews at this Time Hebrew. But 'tis eafy to an fwer, that Hebrew being the old Language, and the other derived from it,, and not very different, *tis no wonder the Jews were fond of the old Name, and always retained it. Arid as to the Fa thers, it cannot be Strange they fhould call it as the Jews did, they generally being ignorant of ei^ ther Language; though Juftin Martyr^, who liv'd in Syria, Speaks of Hebrew and Syriack as of one and the fame Language* Dialog, cum Tryfh. Jud. p. 231. And the moft Learned of the Fathers, Je rome, who underftood both, perpetually dbferves the Difference ; and Nonnius, who liv'd in the fourth Century,, in his Paraphrafe on St. John's Gofpel in Greek Verfe, for Hebrew puts Syriack. So on John xix. 1 3 . And f. 17. of the fame Chapter, To\y,oQa tov xaXstffxs Sugajn re/Jtd,, &C. And f. 20. concerning the Infeription on the Cro% Autroviri yXwaryi ts 2u^5 xcu A^atJ*i (pwvyj. 'Tis plain then* that Syriack was the Language of Judea in our Saviour's. Time, that in which him felf and his Apoftles convers'd and preach'd. Mr, Voffius is the only one I know of a contrary Opi nion ; he thinks the common Language pf Jeru falem and that Country was Greek * ;. but 'tis plain from Acts xxi. 37. the common Jews did not un derstand that Language; m&Jvffpbus cSfnAj tells 1 VoffiRefponC ad iterat. P. Simtin. Object, I * asS- 1 1 6 An Account of the Syriack, Sec. Parti; usk, That it was a ftrange Language to him and his] Countrymen. If any one has a mind to fee more of this Controverfy, he may fee it warmly managed between Father Simon1 and Vojfius m in the Books cited in the Margin. All that I Shall farther add, is, that inafmuch as I have promifcuoufly above ufed the Words Chaldee and Syriack, the Reafo»j thereof is, becaufe thofe two Dialefts are fo very much alike, and indeed almoft the fame, as every one knows, who is acquainted with the very Rudi ments of them, and may be very eafily perceiv'd by thofe who have not learnt the Languages, if they will but caft their Eye upon Buxtorf's Chal dee and Syriack Grammar; or perhaps more clearly" if they confult that incomparable Harmonica! Grammar of the Orientals compiled by Erneftus Gerhardus, founded upon Schickard's Hebrew Rules. The Truth is, there is fcarce any Difference at all between them, fave only in a few Words, and the Punctuation. There would be but little Difference viftble between Chaldee and Syriack (fays the learned Critick in thefe Languages, Lud. de Dieu") if thofe who' affixed the Points to them had thought it fit. I diftinguijh them, fays he, becaufe others do ; and fome .little Difference there is in forming the Words ; elfe for my part I own them to be one and the fame Language0. So Amir a?, and to the fame Purpofe our. celebrated Countryman Fuller "l; The ^Chaldee and Syriack Dialects are not fo properly faid to be alike, as to be almoft the fame. And in another Place1 accounts for it by a learned Proof, that the Syrians and Chaldeans were one and the fame Peo ple. And I cannot but obferve here, that what the " Prxfat. in Antiq. Jud. & ack and Chddee Grammar. Prajfat.in Bell. Judaic. ° Ibid. 1 Critical Hiftory of the New r Praslud. in Gram. Syr. feu Ted. Par i. c.<5. Chald. m Lib. jam. cit, i Mifcell.Sacr. 1. i. c. I. ; See his Preface to his Sjri- [ Lib. 3. c.20. Prophet Ch.XVI. ii7 Prophet Daniel in one Place calls a'TO tW? i.e. The Language of the Chaldeans'", in the next Chapter is call'd trVB*18 i. e. Syriack £. f Dan. i. 4. ' Ib. ii. 4. Chap. XVI. Several Obfervations, which prove the Syriack Verfion made in or near the Apoftles Times, 0\>f.x.*%T was abfelutely needful, that a Verfion ¦*- fhould be made ; and therefore very proba ble, a Verfion was made of the Books of the New Teftament into the Syriack Language, in or near the Apoftles Times. This Obfervation naturally arifes and follows from the two foregoing ; for if, as has been proved, an innumerable Multitude of Perfons were converted to Ch^jftianity in Jerufalem and Galilee, in Ctefarea, Damafcus, Samaria, Joppa, Lydda, Antioch, and all over Syria; if the Lan guage of all this Country was Syriack, there can be nothing more unreafonable than to fuppofe, they were for any long time deftitute of thofe infpir'd Books, which contain'd the Foundations pf their new* Religion. To fuppofe this, would argue them either to have very little Knowledge of, or very little Zeal for, their Profeffion ; neither of which was the Cafe we are lure. Nothing can be more reafonably concluded, than that upon the foregoing Hypothefis, either the Apoftles or them- I 3 felves j t 8 The Syriack Verfton made in Part I, felves would take care to have a good Verfion as foon as might be. i. /J ^ wzY£ ^ gredtf Parti. • any other to be read in the Churches, but fuch as the People do not underftand. This Argument; I look upon as conclufive, and therefore Shall anti--.i cipate an Objection or two, which fome perhaps rnay be apt to raife againft it. As, i. That Juftin dwelt at Rome, and not in Syria,! where he was born. To which I anfwer, thaty tho' it be certain Juftin was at RomeA, yet the Ac counts we have of him feem to intimate, that he Went there only with the View of prefenting his Me^ morials for the Chriftian Religion to the Emperor and Senate, and that hewas not a Refident of Rome; \ and therefore when this was done, he return'd again to Afia^ and at Ephefus he had that famous Difpute with Trypho the Jew, which is ftill ex tant e. . This feems not unlikely to have been ei ther as he was going to Rome from Syria, or re turning to Syria from Rome; becaufe in the End of the Difpute f he tells us, they prayed for his Safeiyf in the Voyage he was then going to make. 'Tis true in deed, the Words in Eufebius %, Ext t«s- Pa/jtn? ra,s ifya](y6as ivroieflo, are commonly tranflated h as tho' they exprefs'd his fix'd Habitation at Rome ; but the Words imply no fugh thing, but more pro perly are Significative of fuch a Continuance as is made by a Traveller on a Journey; and fo we find the Word cftalg/C^ is continually made ufe of in the New Teftameqt, to denote the Continuance. of our Saviour and his Apoftles for a few Days in. a Place till they removed to another *. Befides,. ; there is another Senfe which may be given to Eu- i ,, Vid. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1.4.* e Hift. Eccl. I. 4. c. 11. in. c. i6.Hieron. Catalog .Vir. Muft. fine. in Juftin: gc Phot. Bibliothec. iv Vid. Verf. Chriftophorfon, Cod. exxv. & Valef.' Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. ' John iii, 22. xi. 3-4. Afts xii. 19. xiv. 2, 28. xv. 3$-. 'Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. xvi. 12. xx, 6. and feveral othe* in Extrem', Places. * ••' lebtus 5 J 8. Ch. XVI. or near the Apoftles Times. 1 21 febius'sWords, much better than that of hisTranf- lators ; viz. if we take ' Jtarygas -woietv to fignify his having publick Conferences, and making publick Bifcourfes. This feems moft agreeable to the Con text of Eufebius ; and is moft evident in that Je rome^ and Photius},' (peaking of Juftin's being at Rome, inftead of tfiiarfyGas tvroieilo have Jiarpigas ws, which can be taken in nb other than the Senfe laft given ; efpecially if we confider, that Photius adds the Word * Locis lupra citatis. fano, &c. which Etymologies ' Thus Latlantius I.4. c. x6. every body knows are trifling, and others, derive Pafiha,' the ufe 1 24 The Syriack Verfion made in Part I. ufe of to exprefs Satan's feducing D^vid to num ber the People f. . Hence came the Verb >Jt3D very common in Chaldee, to draw \. afide,: or go afide, and the Syriack ^ra fignifying the very fame;. and fo the Participle Peal of this Verb in Syriack will denote one that goe'sv afide, or an Apoftate and Deceiver of others, anB*that Participle is J-^sfiQ/ Sale, oxSata, the very Word that Juftin produces. This Verb is very common in this Senfe in the Syriack Tranflation of the New Teftament ; and Gal. iii. 10. the Noun derived* from it fignifies Apoftacy, The Reader learned1 in thefe things may fee the Inftances in Dr. CaftelFs~*Vo\yg\otx. Lexicon, and Schaafs and Troft'fus's Syriack Lexicons. 2.) The other Wdrd'is Nas. This, fays Juftin, Jig* nifies the fame as Sata in Hebrew or Syriack, and denotes that, on the account of which Satan is call'd Serpent. Nothing can be more juft than this. The Word is apparently Syriack, derived from the known Hebrew Root tr~lDJ which in Piel fignifies to tempt, and is ufed of God's tempting Abraham*. In the Syriack it is often ufed in the fame Senfe; and the Noun form'd from it denotes frequently the Tempter", on which account Satan is called Serpent. So that nothing can be more evident than that Juftin underftood the Syriack Language; and confequently his want of Know ledge of it can be no Objection to his living in Syria. I conclude therefore, that if the Writings of the New Teftament were read in the Churches where Juftin Martyr- liv'd, they were read in Syria; and if they were read in Syria, they were read in the Syriack Language, becaufe no other was there r 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. The Word 1. where it is. Vid. Cleric. Satan is not indeed in our pre- Coram, in loc. fent Copies in that Place; but ' ' Gen. xxii. 1. either it by fome means dropt u See the Lexicons ci^ed, a- but of the Text, or at lead muft bove. be fuppiied from 1 Chron. xxi. ¦' ' : underftood, Ch. ^t VI. . or near the Apoftles Times. 12$ underftood, and confequently a Tranflation of the New Teftament into Syriack -was made out. *>f [Greek in Juftin Martyr's Time, i. e. within a few Years of the Apoftles Time. It cannot be improper here to add, that in the Book which goes .under Juftin Martyr's Name, call'd Qua ft. & Refponf. ad Orthodox. I find men tion of a. Syriack Tranflation ofthe Qld Teftament, as there is alfo in St. Auftin's famous Book DeCivit. Dei, I. if. c. 13. I might argue from hence the great Probability of a Verfion being made of the New alfo into the fame Tongue; but, I confefs, I queftion the Genuinenefs of that Book, there being fomething in it certainly later than Juftin; and yet I cannot but think the learned Dr. Cave's Conjecture w concerning it deferves considering, That perhaps it may be that Piece of Juftin's whichP hotius calls SolutionesSummari&Dubitationum . adverfus Religionem, only much interpolated. This Conjecture feems probable, which tho' the learned Doctor propofes as his own*, was made long be fore him by Andr. Rivet y, from whom 'it .is evi dent he borrowed it, tho' he , mentions not his Name. This is the more obfervable, ' becaufe thai learned Writer in the Page before treats* Sandius very roughly,' for propofing an Opinion of Rivet's in the fame Place as his oWn, without mentioning Rivet's Name z. w Hiftor. Liter, in Juft. Mar- he being a Samaritan, would tyr, p. 38. • never have interpreted the Syri- 1 Loc. cit. ack Word Ofanna by ptyaiwtrv- y Critic. Sacr. lib. 2 . c. f. r® wri^nM^vi, when 'tis ' evi- §. 3. ¦- dehtly of another Signification! z That Opinion is, that this Vid. Quseft. 8c Refponf. ad Or- Bopk cannot bcjttftm's, becaufe thod. Quseft, ^-o. p. 42 1 . Chap. 125 The Syriack Veiftow Made in Part I. Chap. XVII. The Syriack Verfion proved to he m&a%^ in or near the Apoftles Times from fome internal Evidences. Obf. frpHE Syriack Verfion of the New Teftame^ *• now extant, is very probably the fami which was made in or near the Apoftles Time. I . This is conftantly afferted by the Syrian Churchy from whom we had it. See the Hiftory of it aboye^ z. There was no more Probability of the Syrian Churches lofing their Tranflation, . than of the Weftern Churches lofing their Greek Copies. For the farad Reafon as thsGreeA Copies did multiply, the Syri* ack ones would multiply too ; and for the fame reafon that Care would be taken to preferve the one, Care would be taken to preferve the other. They were both efteem'd the Word of God, tho' in different Languages ; and in. the Nature of •Things it feems morally impoffible, that the Churches of Antioch, Jerufalem, &c. Could ever lofe a Treafure of fo much Value, and which they fo much efteem'd, as they did thefe facred Writings. Add to this, that the Jewifi) Targujns made about this Time were fafely preferv'd; and the Chriftians can't with any -reafon be fuppofed, lefs careful of their facred Books, than, the Jews, ^k 2. ffhere are internal Characters in the Tranflation it felf , which evidence its very great Antiquity, or its being made near that Period which I have affign'd it : For Inftance, t.Tht QkXVII or near the Apaffies Times. 127 ¦jT. The firft Inftance in the Syvmk Verfion which I propofe as proving that Antiquity of it, which I contend for, is the Tranflation of the Name Pto lemais, as h ¦ is in, ouv Greek Copies^ Act xxi. 7. by the Name p&jAcu, or Ato; for it may as juftlyV or indeed more juftiy, be pointed with the Vowel Dfehopho, thanEzozo. Now to make out what. I defign, I obferve the moft antient Name of this Place among the Ifea* elites was iDtf Aco, or Aeco*, Judg. i. 31. Tms Name undoubtedly continued long* in ufe, and af terwards chang?d- into Ptolemais ; though at what Time, or on whatOccafi'on I cannot certainly tell. Mr. fieiland*, and after him Dean Prideau»b, fay it was repaired by Ptokmee Phlfaddphus, and from- him had its ntw^amePtolemats. This w,as about if o Years before Chrift; and feems a very probable Account; I fay probable only, becaufe I know not what antient Author relates it. However this be, it is certain, the. former Name was antiquated' and out of ufe among the Romans, and they call'd it; Ptolemais. So we find byP'Mny c, Pfiolemais CtaudU Cafaris cofonia qua quondam Ace ; and Stephanus] Xli^j tsraXstov ; YLrohfiicus -¦cwXi? Qtoiiubuts, maikeflvtr't sf£o1s£9v Ax»]* ; Feofenaa-is was formerly caff 'id Ace. How the Termination o- fhould change into e, is veryeafily accounted for; fuch Changes being com mon when a Word 'is- taken out- of one Language ' into another6. Now why the Syriack Interpreter fhouM translate it Aco, and not retain Ptolemais, can be accounted for no other way, but by fuppofing the Perfons for whom his Verfion was made, were more acquaint ed with the one Name than the other. Upon any other Supposition, it would have been abfurd for' . " Palasftin, Hluftrat, apud. Prid. « Natur. Hiftor. L ?. c. to . Ipc, jam citand. d Apud Fuller. Mifcell. SaA\ " Conheft. of Hift. of the . I.4. c. if. Old. and New Teft. Par. 2, Book * Vid. Fuller, ibid, 2. *.p. 78. him 12.8 The Syriack Verfion made in Partly him to have changed it. I argue then hence, that this Verfion muft be made cither before, or veiy foon after the Destruction of Jerufalem ; becaufe*; till that Time one may fuppofe a People, (viz. the Jews) to retain the old Name Aco ftill, out of a Fondnefs (very predominant in that People) for its Antiquity ; but how they, or indeed any other Part of Syria, could after the Roman Conqueft call it by a Name different from the Romans, feems to me impoffible to conceive. Befides it was, as Pliny fays, a Roman Colony even in Claudius's Reign, and therefore very remarkable ; and fo in confequence muft in 30 or 40 Years more (in which Time the', Conqueft alfo was) be much more known by the Name Ptolemais, by which the Romans call'd it. To fuppofe therefore that this Tranflation, in which we meet with this old Name inftead ofthe new one, was made at any great Diftance of Time. after the Destruction of Jerufalem, . is to fuppofe the Translator acting quite contrary to the Defign of his Tranflation; and inftead of a Name well known to all, to fubftitute an antiquated Name, which could be known but to few. On the other hand, iuppofing it made about the Period I affign, it was a very proper Tranflation, being made for thofe who were wont to call this Place by this Name, as indeed it appears out of the Talmud in many Places the Jews in our Saviour's Time were wont to dof. 1 only add farther, that Jofephm, tho' a Jew, both in his Hiftory and Antiquities ef the Jewifh War, whenever his Occafion led him to mention this Place, calls it as St. Luke does in the Place above-cited in the Acts, Ptolemais, and never Ace, nor Aco % : Unlefs perhaps where he is relating the Hiftory of the Jfiraelites firft Entrance r See Dr. Lightfita's Centur. & de Bell. Judaic. 1. 2. c. 17. Chorograph. c- 64. where he particularly defcribes * Antiq. Jud. 1. 13. c, 20, 21. the Place. * into Ch. XVII. or near the Apoftles Times. 1 29 into th^s Country h ; there indeed, as it was proper, in tranfcribing the Hiftory of the Ifraelites Poffef- fions in Canaan, he mentions this City under the Name of Ap*»i, which undoubtedly ought to be read Axn, as one of the beft of Engiifh Criticks, Mr. Fuller'1 has conjectur'd and prov'd ; tho' Bo- chart thinks the Letter ^ ought not to be caft. away, and oppofes Mr. Fuller herein k. II. The next Argument for that Antiquity of the SyriackV erfion, which I have affign'd, T collect from its Tranflation of the Greek Words EKhtw, Efivn, EQvj- x-©» ; and their Adverbial Derivatives EXXLa/191 and Eflvixur. After a careful Examination of all thofe Places in the Original Greek, where either of thefe Words occur, and a Comparifon of them with the feveral Tranflations of them in the Syriack Verfion, there feems to me the moft juft Reafon to conclude, 1. That the Author of this Verfion was one who had been formerly a Jew. z. That he liv'd either before, or not long after the Destruction of Jerufalem by Titus, and the Dif- perfion of the Jews. Now before thefe I muft premife a few Remarks concerning the Meaning of thofe Greek Words in the Writings of the New Teftament. ( 1 .) The Word EXXluu in the New Teftament is made ufe of by the Writers of it to denote all the IVorld befides the Jews. The Word properly Signified a Greek; but ever fince the Grecian Conquefts by Alexander, the Greeks became the moft noted Peo ple, and the Jews (who had but very little Acquain tance with the World) call'd all Nations by their Name. Hence we find frequently the Diftinction of all Mankind into IstMa? jtewEXXLiuair1, into Jews b Antiqu. Jud. l.f. c. i. p. ' Rom.i. 16". ii. 9. iii. 9. 125". A£t, xix. 10, 17. 1 Cor. i. 22. 1 Mifcel. Sacr. I.4. c. if. xx. 32. Gal. iii. 28. and many * Canaan. 1. 2, c. 17. in fine, other Places. K and i jo The Syriack Verfion made in Part I. and Greeks, or (as our Tranflators, regarding the Senfe more than the Words, do well enough ren der it) Jews and Gentiles: Juft as the antient Greeks divided all Mankind into EKhlwas and Ba^a^us™. But this Remark is fo obvious and well known, that I fhall infill no farther on it. (z.) The WordMn in the New Teftament denotes in a peculiar Senfe all Nations befides the Jews. Thus the old Hebrews in their Language diftinguifhed themfelves from all others, by calling them Q"ljn and Cycyn >• e. the Nations. It would be fuper- fluous to produce Inftances of this, there being fcarce a Page in the New Teftament, where there are not one or more Inftances. (3.) In the Ideas of both thefe Words the Jews im plied fomething that was bad; or, which is the fame thing, they look'd upon all the World as Profane, Sinners, Unclean, &c. They efteem'd themfelves as a peculiar People, privileged above all the World, only in Covenant with God, and fo only in hope of his Favour; no Names therefore were thought bad enough for the People of other Countries ; Uncircumcis'd and Reprobate of God were with them Synonymous Terms ; andjthey could fay no thing of a Perfon among themfelves that would found worfe, than to liken him to a Man of ano ther Nation. This is fufficiently evident out of the New Teftament ; for Inftance, when our Sa viour fpeaks of a reprobate abandon'd Perfon, unfit for any Communion, he fays n, Let him be to you as an Heathen; i. e. Efteem him as vile as you do thofe of other Nations, for fo the Word EOvtaiS' muft Signify ; and he makes it more than once an Argument to reftrain his Difeiples from a finful Practice, becaufe the EGvn, the Nations, i. e. the Heathens did fo°. But to fav nothing more of a 't> m Thycid. 1. 1. §. 3. Not. ,-. " Matt, xviii. 17. in Scholns. Strab. 1.2. p.4,-. » Matt. vi. 7. and 22. Vid. & Rom. i. 14, thing Ch> XVII. or near the Apoftles Times. 1 3 r thing fo well known, 'tis eafy to fee what Notions the Jews had of all People befides themfelves, as impure and unfit for Converfation, from the Hif tory of St. Peter's Vifion, Acts x. For nothing lefs than a Miracle would convince him ofthe Lawful- nefs of his having any Converfation with thofe, whom they called the EWtwas or Eflvn, i. e. of any other Country befides his own p. He held ir, as he fays, an unlawful Thing for a Man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one born in another Country ; the Reafon of which was, be caufe they judged them unclean, and were afraid of being polluted by them. Now this premifed concerning the Ufe and Meaning of thefe Words in the New Teftament, I come to confider how our Syriack Translator has rendred them. 15 1.) The Word EXXnv, by which the Jews denoted all the World befides themfelves, the Syriack Inter preter very often tranflates by |_^j.j^ i.e. a profane, impious, ftnful Perfon. See John vii. 3f. Act. xviii. 4, 17. Mar. vii. z6. In other Places he tranflates it j^Qij i.e. a Syrian, Aramaus. So Act. xvi. 1, 3. xix. 10, 17. xx. 2.1. Rom. i. 16. ii. p, 10. i Cor. i. zz, &c. x. 31. xii. 13. Gal. ii. 3, 14. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11. In other Places JioiaS» i.e. Gentiles. Joh. xii. 20. Act. xxi. 28. Rom. iii. p. 2. The Word Eh\Y©>, i.e. a Man of another Na tion, he tranflates J^ijLjj i. e. profane or impious. Mat. vi. 7. xviii. 17. Efluxus- (which we tranflate after the manner of Gentiles) Gal. ii. 14. he tranf lates £s.*?iO)? i.e. after the manner of Syrians ; and fo E9v/i, /". e. Gentiles, he renders commonly jiaicu^ but very often J^jLjj i. e. Profane. So Mat. x. f. 1 Cor.v. 1. x. 20. xii. 2. 1 Pet. iv. 3. Now from thefe Translations I argue, p Aft. x. 18. K 2 1. that i j 2 The Syriack Vetfim made in Part I. i . That the Tranflator was one of the Jewifh Na tion; elfe it would have been impoffible for him . fo exactly to have form'd his Verfion to the Jew ifh Notions. Who elfe would have taken every Opportunity to have reprefented all the Nations of the Earth in fuch a manner? Nay, indeed, who befides could have thought of it, and fo na* rurally form'd himfelf into the Jewifh Way of fpeaking ? Is it likely any one but a Jew would call all the World profane ? or, can it be thought that a Man, not accuftomed to give thefe Cha* racters, could have fo readily on all Occafiohs done it ? But to put the Matter out of doubt, I will Single out one of his Words, viz. j*iOj| Armojo, which he moft commonly ufes for EXX»i^ as may be feen above. The Word is the very fatne with the old Hebrew tQ1H which fignified a Sy rian, or Native of 'Syria. Now to underftand the Reafon of this Appellation, viz. why Gentile and Syrian, or Profane, were among the Jews Synofly* mous Terms ; we muft obferve, that though they were a Part of Syria, as the Word is generally us'd by Geographers, yet they did not look upon them felves as fuch, but always had a very contemptible Opinion of the Syrians, as being Idolaters. So we find in Onkelos's ChaldeeVcrfion ^ny and itfoix i. e. uncircumcifed and Syrian, are ufed promifcu- oufly to denote any Foreigner, or profane Perfen, Lev. xxv. 47. becaufe they were their neareft Neighbours and Idolaters ; and the firft Idolaters mentioned in Scripture were Syrians, viz. Than, Nachor, and Labani; perhaps alfo becaufe when the Ifiraelites were taught to humble themfelves be fore God, in their Form of Confeffion, were thefe Words, Our Father was a Syrian ready to perifhK Thus it came to pafs that the Word Syrian among the Jews denoted a profane Perfon, or an Idolater, 3 Bochart. Phaleg 1. 2. c. r. • Deut. xxvi. j. as Ch. XVII. or near the Apoftles Times. 133 as the Word EXXLou did, when they wrote in Greek-, and accordingly in the New Teftament1" the Syrian Woman is called EXXfwu. Now the Syriack Inter preter ufing the Word Syrian for a Gentile or pro fane Perfon, evidences that himfelf was certainly a Jew ; for to no other Nation could thofe Words, Greek and Syrian, be fynonymoufly and promifeu- oufly ufed for Idolaters or Heathens. 2. As this Tranftator was a Jew, fo from the Tranflation of thefe Words it feems evident, that be liv'd -either before, *or not long after the Conqueft of Jerufa lem. For when the Jews were featter'd abroad in the World, they who were become Chriftians, fuch as this Interpreter muft neceffarily be fuppofed to be, could not, but learn, that thefe Distinctions were now to ceafe, and as the Apoftles taught them, it was neither Jew nor Gentile, circumcifed nor uncircumcifed, but the new Creature only, that was acceptable to God. While their Temple ftood, and they continued together as a People, one may well fuppofe, that even a Chriftianized Jew would retain his former Notions of all the reft of the World being profane ; and indeed this was really Fact, as to a great Part of the Convert Jews, and the beft Reafon that can be affigned for the Syriack Tranflation of the foremention'd Words. But af terwards they could not but fee, I mean thofe of them who embrae'd Chriftianity, that as Chrift had foretold, their former Differences were to be laid afide, no Perfons to be reckon'd common and un clean, all fincere Perfons, of whatever Country, were equally acceptable to God, &c . and in Con- fequence of this, their old Denominations muft ceafe; and fo this Verfion be made either before, or foon after their Difperfion. Nor can it be objected, that the Syriack Inter preter knew no other Words whereby to tranflate f Mar. vii. 2(5. Vid. omnino Joan. Caraer. Myrothec. adMatth, xviii. 17. K 3 the 134 The Syriack Verfion made in Part I. the above-mentioned Greek ones ; for, 'tis certain, that he not only knew others, but with a great deal of Accuracy and Juflice has made ufe of them. Thus when the Word ExXLuu in the New Tefta ment is put to denote thofe who were properly Grecians, or Inhabitants of Greece, he makes ufe of the Word J^jOj i. e Iawr, orl&wx©', a Greek, properly fo called. So when Paul, according to the forementioned Diftinction of the Greeks, divides all Mankind into Ewlwa; and Bagfafsr, he ufes the Word Jj.jo.» Rom. i. 14. and in another Place, where he thought the fame Diftinction was made, viz. Col. iii. 11. he ufes the fame Word. So when he means the proper Natives of Greece, he calls them J*ao j Act. xiv. 1. xvii. 4. 12, &V. and the Greek Language he always flyles JS*j.Lj o* as. Luk. xxiii. 38. Joh.xix. 20. Act. ix. 2p. xxi. 37. This is a moft convincing Argument, that where he tranflates the Word Exxfou, profane, he foake according to the Notions and Language of the Jews ; and therefore that he liv'd 'in the Time above-mentioned. C H A P' Ch. XVIII. or near the Apoftles Times. 135 Chap. XVIII. The Sy rhckTranflation is of the greateft Antiquity, becaufe there is a moft remarkable Agreement between it and our moft antient Greek Manufcripts of the New Teftament. I Have in the foregoing Chapter produced two feveral Inftances, or Arguments, out ofthe Sy riack Verfion, which evidence its Antiquity. The only one I Shall mention farther is, III. Its Agreement with the beft and. moft antient Copies of the New Teftament. This tho' per haps it will not prove it to be of that Age I con tend for, will at leaft prove it of very great Anti quity. He who will read Beza's larger Annotations on the New Teftament, will frequently obferve, that the Syriack Tranflation and his famous Manu fcript, undoubtedly the oldeft now in the World, (which he gave to the Univerfity of Cambridge) do in many things agree, where they both differ from others. The fame may be faid of feveral other an tient Copies. I fhall omit Inftances, which any one may eafily collect, and only eftablifh farther its Antiquity, by confidering the Omiflion of fome Things, which are found in all our printed Copies ; firft premifing, that I do not here determine any thing, concerning thofe PafTages, the Syriack Ver fion being liable to the fame Corruptions as the Greek Copies, This premifed, I obferve, K 4 1. That 1 3 6 The Syriack Verfion made in Part I. i. That our prefent Syriack Verfion has not the Hiftory of the adulterous Woman, John viii. 'Tis indeed inferted in our Englifh Polyglots out of a Manufcript of Archbifhop UJhefs, and afterwards '_ by Schaaf from thence put into his late Edition in Holland, but was wanting in the old Syriack Co py. And fo we find in many of the moft antient Greek Manufcripts, and not mentioned by many of the oldeft Chriftian Writers. Moft of Beza's Ma nufcripts indeed had ita; but of a great number which Maldonate confultedb, but one had it. Eraf- mus faysc, it was wanting in moft ofthe GreekCo- pies, but inferted at the End of fome of them. In the Greek Catena of twenty three antient Fathers on John, not one had itd. Neither Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chryfoftom, Nonnus ( who wrote a Paraphrafe on John) nor Theophylact, &c. make any Mencion of it e. Father Simon faw many old Manufcripts in France, which had it riot, only fome of them at the End f. I need cite no more ; 'tis plain, it was formerly wanting in many Copies, which, with what has been faid above, feems to be a good Argument of the Antiquity of the Sy riack Verfion. z. The Verfion has not the famous controverted Text, i John v. '7. The late Dutch Editor has un fairly inferted it in the Text, though he knew it was in no Manufcript, and that what he inferted was only Tremellius's Tranflation out of Greek g. As the former Verfcs, fo this alfo is wanting in almoft all the antient Manufcripts, and is nor cited by any of the antient Writers againft the Arians in the fourth Century, nor even'in the Council of Nice; tho' fome fuppofe it was made ufe of by Cyprian ' Annot. in Joann. vii. j-3 . '•vid. Sim. loc. cit. b Comment, in Joann. viii. ¦ Bez. in loc. apud Simon. Critic. Hift. of the r Simon, loc. cit. N. Teft. c. r . s Var. Left, ad Calc. Teft. Sy- c Annot. in loc riac. before Ch* XVIII. or near the Apoftles Times. 137 before that Time h. But this is a well-known Sub ject. I only infer, that the Want of this Text in the very oldeft Manufcripts, proves the great Anti quity of the Syriack Verfion. 3 . The old Syriack Verfion has not in it the four Catholick Epiftles (viz. The fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, and the Epiftle of Jude) nor the Revelation. 'Tis true, thefe are added in the laft printed Editions, as I have obferv'd above, but were wanting in the old Manufcripts, which I take to be a very confiderable Proof of the Anti quity of the Verfion ; for their being wanting muft neceffarily proceed from one of thefe three Caufes, viz. either, 1 .) Becaufe they were not written, when this Verfion was made ; or, 2.) Becaufe the Knowledge of them was not yet come to the Syrian Churches, for whom this Tranflation was made; or, 3.) Becaufe they were not yet univerfally receive ed into the Number of Canonical Books. Now which foeyer of thefe be faid, the Anti quity of the Verfion will be fufficiently eftablifhed. But the firft of thefe feems moft probable; be caufe, as I fhall hereafter fhew, the Churches of Syria did both know and receive feveral of thefe Books at leaft as Canonical in the fecond Century, as 'tis certain they do now', though it feems they are not ordinarily bound with the others in the fame Volume, and read in their Churches ; a very probable Reafon of which the Reader may fee in Mr. Richardfon's Anfwer to Toland' s Amyntark. 'Till therefore any thing more probable can be faid on the contrary (which, I dare fay, has not yet been done) I think it fair to conclude, that the * Father Simon's Critic. Hift. Pr*f. in Verf. Lat. Syr. Teft, ofthe New Teft. Par. 2. c. 1. * Page 18. , I So Guido Tsabritiui afliires us, four 1 3 8 Objections againft the Antiquity Part I.* four Canonical Epiftles above-mentioned not being: in the old Syriack Copies of the New Teftament j? evidences this Verfion was made before they were written. This Argument was thought fo conclu sive by Tremellius x, and our learned Bifhop Wal- tonm, that from it they were perfuaded to believe this Verfion was made in the Apoftles Time. Thus have I largely endeayour'd to evince the Antiquity of the Syriack Verfion ; from which how evidently the Truth of my Propofition follows,' every one muft fee at once : viz. how much it confirms the Canonical Authority of any Book,? that it is found there, and how much it contri-! butes towards fettling the true Number of Canoni-' cal Books. ' Praef. in Nov. Teft. Syr. . m Proleg. in Bibl. Polyglott. xiii, §• i J- m Chap. XIX. Some ObjetTions againft the Antiquity of the Syriack Tranflation anfwered. TT may perhaps be judg'd neceflary, that before JL I leave this Subject, I fhould give the Reader fome Account of what has been faid contrary to my Hypothefis of the Age of this Verfion; tho' I proteft fenoufly, I know not my felf, nor have yet mi?Ailh any thhlg' that canwith any Force be objected. But to omit nothing in a Matter of fuch Confequence, I will propofe all that I know has peen, or can be objected. 4- i. Mr. Ch.XIXi of the Syriack Verfion, anfwer' d. 139 1. Mr. Walter a learned Bifhop in Germany", though he allow this Verfion (what he calls omnem laudem Antiquitatis) the greateft Antiquity, is afraid to fuppofe it made either by the Apoftles, or in their Time, or even in the Times immediately fucceding them ; becaufe, fays he, then it would be of Divine Authority. But nothing can be more weak than this ; for, (1 .) // does not at all follow, that it muft be of di vine Authority, becaufe it was made by fome honeft Chriftian in their Time; unlefs we fuppofe every Writer of their Time under the Conduct of Infpi-> ration : much lefs does it follow, that it muft be Divine, becaufe it was wrote by a Perfon immedi-? ately after their Time ; for if fo, then the Writings of Papias (one of the weakeft of Authors,) the Wri tings attributed to Ignatius, Clemens, or any one, who had the good Fortune to be born then, muft have been Div ine. But, (2.) If there were Arguments fufficient to prove it made by the Apoftles (which is fuppofed in his Reafoning) I can't fee this fhould be any Reafon for our not believing it to be fo; (viz- becaufe then it would have divine Authority;) for by the fame Reafon we may reject any one of thofe Books, which are certainly known to be theirs. 2. He farther urges, that it is not mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, Atha- nafius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, Kc. who wrote in Syria or Egypt. To which it will be fufficient to anfwer, that moft of them, if not all, were ignorant of the Lan guage, and fo could not cite it, or had no Occafi- on to cite it ; which I may fafely affert, till it is proved that they had. But, if my Memory don't fail me, Bifhop Walton in his XIII. Prolegom,. I pfficin. Sib],. §, 34f. before 140 Objections againft the Antiquity Parti. before the Polyglot t Shews, that Chryfoftom did cite it in his Homily on Heb. xiii. 3. Mr. Du Pin fuppofes it made in the fifth or fixth Century, becaufe of the Addition to the Lord's Pray er, viz. the Doxology, and the Word Eucharift is put there inftead of Bread, Which, fays he, does not fa* vour much of Antiquity0. The firft of thefe Shall ' be confider'd prefently ; the laft of thefe Objec- *' tions, viz. about the Word Eucharift, is founded upon a very great Mistake, which one would won der fo great a Matter of Antiquity fhould be found guilty of; for, to mention no others, I have ob ferved the Word Ev%a.(>fsia. feveral times in this Senfe in no later a Writer than Juftin Martyr c, who, as has been prov'd, liv'd very near the Apo* files Time. Nor indeed is it at all ftrange the Word fhould have been thus early ufed, when we confider, that the Original of it was the Apoftles ufing the Verb Eu^ag/ysai to denote our Lord's Action in celebrating this Ordinance d. 4. Grotius e (as well asT>u. Pin) imagines this Verfion made after the Ufe of Liturgies came into the Church ; becaufe in it, at the End of the Lord's Prayer, we read the Doxology f, For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, for ever; which not being to be found in the moft antient Greek Copies, they con clude was put into them after the Ufe of Liturgies, and this Verfion made out of fuch a Copy. This Objection, I confefs, appears very plaufi- ble ; but the Force of it will be eafily taken away, if it appear, (1.) That the Doxology; is as old as the Prayer it felf. b Hift. of the Canon of the p. 160, 261. New Teft. c. 4. §. 1. p. 1 17, * See Matt. xxvi. 27. Luke II°- xxii. 19. c Apol. 1. pro Chrift. p. 97, « Annot. in Mat. vi. 1;. 08. & Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. f Mat.vi. 13. (I.) If Ch.XIX. of 'the Syriack Verfion, anfwer 'd. 141 (2.) If we confider, that we may as eafily fuppofe this Paffage, if it be at all an Interpolation, infert ed into the Syriack Verfion, as into the Greek Copies. (1.) The Doxology feems to be as old as the Prayer it felf: For, 1 .) 'Tis certainly in the beft, moft antient, and al- - moft all the Greek Manufcripts in the World. Eraf- mus, tho' he difputes againft the Paffage g, acknow ledges he found it in all the Greek Copies : And Brugenfis affures us, it was extant in all, except one Manufcript at Paris h. z.) Chryfoftom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others of the Greek Fathers, read the Paffage1. 3. J It appears manifeftly cited by Clemens Roma- nus twice, in the End of his firft Epiftle to the Co rinthians k. 4.) The Genuinenefs of the Paffage feems to me fully demon/irated by that excellent Obfervation of the moft ingenious and truly learned Mr. Gregory ', out of Lu- cianV Philopatris. That merry Writer having been ridiculing (according to his Cuflom) the Chriftian Religion and Doctrines (particularly the Doctrine of the Trinity, that three fhould be one, and one three, &c.) in the End of the Dialogue has thefe Words ; Say no more of thofe People, but begin your Prayer with [the Word] Father, and end it with the famous Hymn m. By this 'tis evident he muft intend what we call the Lord's Prayer ; and if fo, then the ct-wXucovu/ji®' coc^n can mean nothing but the Doxology, and iffo, the Teftimony is beyond s Annot. in loc. in N. Teft. Gallic, ad loc. " Apud Glaff. Philol. Sacr. Li . ' See his Works, c. 3 8. Tract. 2 §.2. p. 149. m Pag. 484, S2 -a-ih-vamfm* ufor «« xologies claus l'Epitre de Saint tsA©' wife*}. Clement aux Corinthiens. Clerc exception, 142 ' Objections againft the Antiquity Part I. exception, that the Claufe was annexed to the Prayer in Trajan's, or at leaft Marcus Antoninufs Time. ,, f.) Tis farther urged by the fame incomparable, Mr. Gregory, that our Lord gathered his Form of Prayer out of the Tradition of the Elders (i. e. the Jewifh Prayers) and that this Doxology was among them. This he proves, by producing the Jewifh Prayers 'at length out of "their Books, which is more fully done by Dr. Lightfoot n, Drufius °, and CapellusP. Now hence it follows, the DoxologySj muft be as old as the Prayer ; tho' I muft own, I'j am apt to fufpect, that tho' the Words of our liOrd's Prayer are in the Jewifh Euchologies, yet that thefe were taken from the Chriftians, rather, than the contrary. Neverthelefs, they are of An tiquity fufficient to prove the Point in hand. I cannot therefore but blame the Rafhnefs of Erafmus % Beza r, and others , who have upon flight Grounds juftled this Paffage out of Scripture, and reckon'd it a trifling Addition to the Text, as Erafmus in fo many Words calls it. All that I know can be objected is, that it is not at the End of this Prayer in Luke, nor in the oldefi Latin Co pies, nor cited by the Latin Fathers ; for Anfwer to which I fhall only refer the Reader to what is above faid, to Glaftius's Differtation on this Sub ject f, and Dr. Whitby's Examen of Di". Mill's vari ous Lections'. I conclude then, that this Doxology being as old as the Prayer it felf, can be no Argument againft the Antiquity of the Syriack Verfion. But, (2.) Suppofe the Doxology really an Interpolation into the Greek Copies, and not originally a Part of n Hor. Heb.. in Matth. vi. « Ubi fupra. 7 r3- ' Loc. jam cit. ° Preterit, in loc. r Philol.Sacr. p. 140 ? Spicileg. in loc, > Lib. z. cap. 1. §. ,. p. ip. the Ch.XIX, of the Symck Verfion, anfwefd. 143 the Prayer it felf, the Antiquity ofthe Syriack Ver fion will not be at all hurt hereby. 'Tis true, the Liturgies and Forms of Prayer, as this Objection of Grotius^ Du Pin, and, as I find fince, of Dr. Mills, fuppofes, were of late ufe in the Church ; and if tbe Syriack Tranflation was made after thefe, I am ready to grant what thefe Gentlemen contend for, that it was not made near the Apoftles Time. But let the Ufe of Liturgies be as late as they pleafe, and the Interpolation of the Doxology even after them ; yet, I fay, it does not follow, that the Syriack Verfion was made after, becaufe we may as well fup pofe an Interpolation of the Syriack, as the Greek Text. I have the Pleafure in this Thought to join with Father Simon u, who well argues thus; No Argument, fays he, can be weaker than this is againft the Antiquity of the Syriack Verfion. If this Addi tion was inferted into the Greek Copies, why may not the fame Thing be affirmed of the ?' Syriack Verfion, which might be revis'd or alter' d in that Place con formable to the Greek Copies ; efpecially fince the Sy rian Churches had their Liturgies from the Greeks ? Thus does not this Objection any way detract from the Antiquity of the Syriack Verfion, nor contradict the Truth of my Hypothefis, that it was made in or near the Apoftles Time ; of which I fhall fay now no more, but leave the Subject with one or two, which feem to me important, Corol laries. Coroll. 1 . The Antiquity of the Syriack Verfion wonderfully confirms the Purity and Incorruption of the printed Copies ofthe New Teftament. The Con nection of this, is the Agreement there is between them both ; and this is not only very great, but even furprizing to one who confiders, that our prefent Greek was compiled according to the Judg- * Lib. fupra citat. c. 1 3 . .- ment 144 Objections againft the Antiquity PartL ment and Difcretion of one fingle Perfon, out of a great number of differing Manufcripts. That there is fuch an Agreement, I aver upon a long and clofe Observation. Now that this Agreement Should be, and the Places in which they agree be corrupt ed, is the moft abfurd Suppofition imaginable. Each muft prove the other to be genuine ; unlets" we can fuppofe a Combination in the Churches of the Eaft and Weft to corrupt their Copies in the feme Places, without any Reafon in the world. Coroll. II. The Syriack Verfion is of very great Service in explaining many Pajfages in the New Tefta ment. He who will confider, that this was the Lan guage which our Saviour and his Apoftles fpake»aaet Evangelium juxta Marcurn, <<^a ru®* tvuyfttox yptfm ti&yt, jui auditor Petri & interpres Kara to evxyfiXion jtoa. Hift. Ec- uit, hujus dicitur. Catal. Vir. clef. 1. 3 . c. 4. Illuftr. in Petro. See below, f Sufpicantur quidam quotief- Chap. XXXI. N°. L. cunque Paulus iu epiftolis fuis c Loc. jam. cit. dicit, Juxta evangelium meum, * Rom. ii. 16. xvi. if. See de Lucse fignificare volumine. alfo Gal. i. 8. % ThelT. ii, 14. Catal. Vir. Illuftr. in Luca. times; 154 Several Apocryphal Books Part II. times called, the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and fome times the Gofpel of the Ebionites: And, 2. Becaufe it was not cuftomary for-the Authors of thofe Times to affix Titles to their Works ; and fo their Works being difpers'd into different Coun tries, fome made ufe of one Denomination, which they thought moft fuitable to the Defign of the Book, others of another. Thus, for inftance, the Book which was by fome call'd the Preaching (i.e. Sermons) of Peter, was by others call'd the Doctrine of Peter. O B S E R V. II. Several of the Books ofthe Catalogue were compWd out of thofe Books which are now receiv'd into the Canon of the New Teftament. I t appear'd to the Hereticks of thofe Times % very probable (as indeed in the Event it prov'd a very fuccefsful) Method, to propagate their fa vourite Notions under the Name of fome Apoftle; this, they faw, would procure them much great er Regard and Efteem, and this gave Birth to moft of thefe Apocryphal Compofures. But tho' fome of them boldly ventur'd to prefix the Apoftles Names to that which was entirely their own Compo- fure, others more artfully mixed their own and feme Apoftle' s Writings together, retaining only fo much of his Writing, as would enable them with the greater Confidence to impofe their fpurious Piece upon the World, as molly his. Thus did the Na zarenes, Marcion, Hefych'ms, Luclanus, and others. Ob s erv. Ch.I. made out of the Canonical. 155 Observ. III. No Chriftian Writer hath appeal' d to, or made ufe of any of the Books of the prece ding Catalogue (i. e. of the loft Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament) as of any Authority. Although the Proof of this Propofition be the main Bufinefs of the fubfequent Part of this Vo lume, yet I thought it neceflary to premife fome general Account of this matter here, becaufe the main of the Controverfy about the Canon of the New Teftament does certainly depend upon this Queftion, viz. What thofe Books are, which the primitive Writers of Chriftianity appeal d to, as Sa cred, in their Writings, or after what manner they appeal' d to them ? ;Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Toland, and others, who have attempted to make the Ca non of Scripture precarious and uncertain, princi pally infift upon this, Thai the prefent Books of the Canon and others are indifferently and promifcu- oufly cited and appeal' d to in the moft antient' Re cords of the Chriftian Religion. And inafmuch as feveral learned Men have too unguardedly dropt Expreffions of the like Nature, I thought it not improper to give the Reader here the following general Account of the Manner in which thefe Books are cited. I affert then, 1. That, for the moft part, the. Apocryphal Books abovemention'd are exprefly, and in fo many Words, rejeiled by thofe who have mention'd them, as the Forgeries of Hereticks, and fo as Spurious and Apo cryphal. This I affert (upon the clofeft and moft impartial Enquiry into all the Places of their Wri ngs* I5 , Chron.xxi.v. 29. c Jo(h--v- »J- ; 2Chron.xii. if. Reader Ch. II. A noted Objection anfwer*d. 1 63 Reader in his ownWords": "IntheHiftories ofthe Kings of Judah and Ifirael, feveral Things are men tion'd, which are not there explain'd, and are re- fer'd to as contain'd in other Books which the Prophets wrote ; and fometimes theNames of thefe Prophets are mention'd ; and yet thefe Writings are not extant in the Canon which the Church of God receives. The Reafon of which I can account for no other way, than by fuppofing, that thofe very Perfons to whom the Holy Spi rit reveal'd thofe things which are of the high- eft Authority in Religion, fometimes wrote only as faithful Historians, and at other times as Pro phets under the Influences of Divine Infpiration; and that thefe Writings are fo different from each other, that the one fort are to be im puted to themfelves as the Authors, the other to God as fpeaking by them; the former are of Service to encreafe our Knowledge, the other of Authority in Religion, and Canonical ". So far he. To fupport which Sentiment, I will only add the Inftance of Solomon's Writings, who, tho' undoubtedly infpir'd in fome of his Writings, yet can by none be fuppos'd to be fo in all, as when he wrote his Herbal, his yooo Songs, his Differta- tions in Natural Philofephy, about Birds, Infects, Fifties, &c. ° and, if we will credit Jofephus, fome Books of Magick and Conjuration, in which were defcrib'd effeblual Methods of cafting out Devils, and curing Diftempers by Inchantment, with Forms of exorciftng evil Spirits, fo that they fhould never return : An Art, fays that Hiftorian, which our Countrymen to this day retain from Solomon0. Such Books, n De Civit. Dei lib. iS. c »*v rw avfyumiis. 'Evahn n o-uy- ?8. tom. op. f. ra.\a^f^ «i? srapjiyopeirtw ra ° See I Kings iv. 32, &C. tia-r^arx K«i rpoz-s? i%>gx,aSu- (%ut thpuc, yas-tftj «py«i is taken out of Epimenides. ' Controverf. I. de Script. Quxft. VI. c. 9. '' Ifagog. ad Script. Sacr.c. 6. ' Dub. Evang. tom. 2. Dub. 88, 89. u Inftitut. Theolog. loc. ii. de Script. Quaeft. 7 . il $4 /?» ¦CVOSi -->t.-r:V.-' S5f •<_ .6 S5F'"~V.O > >&$M^^ft& Chap. Ch. III. l6s Chap. III. The Opinion of moft learned Men, grounded on i Cor. v. 9. that Saint Paul wrote another Epiftle to the Co- rinthians, befides the two now ex tant, examined and confuted ; by a critical Difcuffton of the Place, and the Teftimony of Clemens Romanus. HAving in the foregoing Chapter attempted fome general Proof, that no truly Canonical Book is now wanting, I apprehend I Shall not do Juftice to that Subject, if I don't farther obferve, that many learned Men, not only of the Romifh, but Reform'd Church, have been perfuaded, that Saint Paul wrote feveral other Epiftles to the convert ed Churches, befides thofe which we now have. This Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Capellus, and many others have afferted : Drufius has carried the matter fome what farther3, and tells us, If thefe Pieces were now extant, they ought to be efteem'd as much Canonical as any others of his Writing. The only Founda tion of this Hypothefis is, that St. Paul feems to refer to a former Epiftle of his, i Cor. v. p. whence, fey thefe learned Men, 'tis probable he wrote ano ther Epiftle to the Church of Corinth, befides the two which are extant, and feveral other Epiftles now quite perifh'd. Mr. Le Clerc is fo very fanguine on this 2 Preterit. 1. 6. in loc. M 3 Head, 1 66 Whether S. Paul wrote more Part II. Head, as to fuppofe there might be good Reafons for tearing and burning them after they were read, and that we fhould not have been at all the lefs Difeiples of Chrift, if feveral of thofe Epiftles, which we now have, had been loft b. But as this Opinion exceed ingly leffens the Authority of the Canon, I Shall here briefly difcufs it, and critically enquire into that Text, which is the principal and indeed only Foundation of it. But before I come more parti cularly to make any Enquiry, or examine into this matter, I defire it may be carefully obferv'd, that the Examination I here propofe does no way in terfere with the Enquiry I propofe to make into the Books of the Catalogue above ; the Queftion in that cafe being concerning Books, which, for the moft part, were certainly once really extant, but are to be prov'd fpurious and apocryphal : But the Queftion here is, Whether fuch and fuch Pieces ever were in being at all ; which are fup pos'd to have been really wrote by the Apoftles. Inafmuch then as all that has been urged on the Affir mative fide of the Queftion, is gather'd from that one Text afbremention'd, I apprehend, all that is neceflary will be a particular Difcuffion of that. In order to which I obferve, That it has been thought by many, that Saint Paul wrote an Epiftle to the Corinthians, before either of thofe of his Epiftles to that Church, which are now extant. This Hypothefis is founded on thofe "Words of St. Paul, l Cor. v. p. / wrote to you in an Epiftle, not to company with Fornicators : Which Epiftle, they fuppofe, mutt neceffarily have been one preceding this. This has been generally the Opinion, not only of the Writers of the Romifh Church, but alfo of many of the moft celebrated * Supplement to Dr. Hammond, and the Vindic. of Dr. i*»w» Proteftants} Ch.III- than two Epift. to the 'Corinth. 167 Proteftants ; fiich as Calvin c, Beza d, Drufius % Pareus*, Grotius g, Mr. Le Clerc h, Dr. Collins', Capellus, Dr. Mill k, and others, who make no doubt to affirm, that St. Paul did not only, befides the Epiftles which we now have under his Name, write this former Epiftle to the Chriftians at Corinth, but feveral others, now lofi as this is ; and that we have- very great Reafon with Gratitude to acknow ledge the kind Providence of God, which has prefer- i)ed to us fib many of the Apo file's Writings. In an fwer to this Opinion, I would obferve, 1. That it is very improbable, becaufe, not one of the antient Chriftian Writers have ever mention'd any fuch Epiftle ; nor is there to be found, in all An tiquity, any Citation out of it, or fo much as the moft diftant Reference to it : It being a thing never thought of by any of the Fathers, that St. Paul wrote more than the fourteen Epiftles we now have. Hence the moft early Writers of Chrifti anity, who are fuppps'd to have been cotemporary with St. Paul himfelf; fuch as Clemens Romanus, Poljcarp, &c. .though they feveral times take Paf- feges out of his Epiftles, and even out 6f thofe two which are now extant, to the Church at Co rinth, have not the leaft obfcure Intimation of any other. 2. There are very many Circumftances, both relating to the Time and Occajion of that which we now call the firft Epiftle of Paul to the Corinthians, which will evidently prove, that it was the firft he ever wrote to that Church. For the Proof of this, I muft refer the Reader to what is hereafter faid in the particular Differtation on this Epiftle. c Comment, in 16c. on this Place. d Annot. in loc. ' See his Englifh Annotations e Preterit, lib. 6. in loc. on this Epiftle. f Annot. in loc. k See Dr. Mill's Prolegom. g Annot. in loc. §¦ 8. h See his French Annotations M 4 3-1 168 A Taffage of C\exnex\s Rom. Part II. 3. 1 offer it as a Conjecture to the Learned in Chriftian Antiquities, Whether the following Paffage in Clemens Romanus ' do not prove the Epiftle now call'd the firft to the Corinthians, to be the firft which St. Paul wrote to that Church. The Words of Clemens are l, " Take again the Epiftle of the " bleffed Apoftle Paul into your Hands. What *' was it that he firft wrote to you in the Beginning " of his Epiftle? He did truly by the Spirit write " to you concerning himfelf, and Cephas, and A- " polios, becaufe even at that time you were fortn- " ed into Divifions or Parties." The Paflage he refers to of St.' Paul is plainly that in the firfl Chapter of the prefent firft Epiftle, f. 1 2. Now this I fay, that every one of you faith, I a,m o/Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, &V. Now, fays Clemens, this is what St. Paul firfl of all wrote to you, or what he wrote the firft time of his Wri ting; than which I cannot fee what elfe it was pof fible for Clemens to mean by the Words wWlov typp-^w. Now hence I argue, that if Clemens, who is fuppofed cotemporary with St. Paul, and to have wrote this Epiftle to the Church of Co rinth, not long after St. Paul, did imagine that Apoftle had wrote no Epiftle to that Church be fore that which he there cites, and which is now call'd the Firft, we have the faireft Reafon to con clude there was no one written fooner. The only Objection which I can think of, that can be made againft this, is, that what Clemens caMsPaul'sGofpel [EuayHKia] I tranilate His Epiftle. To which 'tis eafy to anfwer, that befides that the Words which he cites, are in the foremention'd Place of his Epiftle, it has been often obferv'd by AvaXccZiTt rw sTi«-e,Mji> tk KnS iltlSltXlV VfhW 7tl&k flStfl-g TS Clement's Ch.III. i Cor.V- 9. difcufs'd. 169 Clement's Commentators m, that the Word Gofpel is ufed frequently for any of the facred Books of the New Teftament, as the Word Law is frequent ly put for alt the Books ofthe Old". 4. It being thus probable, that St. Paul did not write a former Epiftle to the Corinthians, we have juft Ground to interpret the contefted Paffage in a different Senfe from that commonly receiv'd; and this I think, may be very eafily done (without any Violence done to the Expreffion) of this fame Epiftle, and what he had before wrote to them in it. Ey£$fv|/a ujxiv sv tu sttis-oXv), I have wrote to you in the Epiftle, or this Epiftle, i.e. I have told you in the foregoing Part of my Letter : So he had indeed fe veral times in the preceding part of the Chapter, f. 2, f , 6. that they fhould have no Converfation with the inceftuous Perfon. I know 'tis common ly objected, that this Senfe cannot be juft, becaufe of the Words f. 11. But now I have written to you; which, fays Beza, Parens, and Le Clerc, muft needs be meant of another diftintt Time of Wri ting, and not the fame; and this indeed is the main Strength of their Opinion. But a clofe Confidera- tion of the Context will make it very clear, that no fuch Inference can be juftly drawn from the Words, Nujl'j c^s iy^y\a. vjjuv, But now I have writ ten to you. In the beginning of the Chapter' he had declar'd to them, it was their Duty to avoid the Society of Fornicators, and fuch fort of Per fons: 'Tis plain from f. to. he apprehended they were in danger of miftaking his Meaning, by ex tending the Prohibition fo far, as not to have any Converfe at all with the World; i.e. with the Gen tiles, who were generally guilty of thefe Crimes. The Apoftle found it neceflary to prevent their Miftake, and therefore repeats what he had before ™ See Junius and Dr.Fc// in loc. " John x. 34. xv. 2f. and 1 Cor. xiv. 21.- wrote, \yo i Cor. V. 9- difcufs'd. Part II. wrote, and tells them how they Should underftand it , viz. only with relation to the Profeftbrs of Chri ftianity, who were guilty of thofe execrable Vices. This occafion'd the Words, Nuwi . v. 9. Grot, in loc. and Gaff. Gram. f So raw is ufed more than Sacr. p. 709. 4- with Ch. III. Other Interpretations ofthe Words. 171 with r«u\i\, as it often does 9 ; fo we find it with the very fafne Subftantive, 1 Theff. v. 27. viz. tip «nro>oov, to exprefs the very fame Epiftle which he was then writing. 4. The old Syriack Tranflator, who liv'd (as has been prov'd) near St. Paul's Time, well know ing there was no former Epiftle of his to the Church at Corinth, paraphrafes the Paffage, f.11. in the fame manner as above, in thefe Words, c^oo^ ^^a mj} jio) i. e. This is what I have wrote to you, or the Meaning of what I have wrote to you; by which 'tis plain he did not ima gine the Apoftle writing a new Epiftle, but ex plaining fomewhat he had before written in this. Thus it feems manifeft, that St. Paul's Words do not intimate his having wrote a former Epiftle to the Corinthians. There is indeed a different In terpretation from that above put upon the Words by fome learned Men, who translate ty^y^a vniv iv m sxis-oXv], I wrote, or had written, or was about to write in this Epiftle, that you fhould not compa ny with Fornicators, &c. but now hearing this high Offence, I Sharpen my Style, and forbid not only aflbciating with fuch, but even common Fel- lowfhip. This is Dr. Lightfoot' s Conjecture', and efpous'd by Dr. Whitby f, but feems very precarious and groundlefs. 1 . Becaufe it fuppofes the Apoftle to have had different Sentiments as to what he was to write, which indeed Dr. Whitby is not afraid in fo many Words to aver ; Some things, fays he, in this Epi ftle, were chang'd by him before he fent it to them. But how apparently abfurd is this, to imagine this great Apoftle under the Conduct of Infpiration, firft to write one thing and then another ? If the in- 11 See Glafl". Gram. Sacr. lib. p. 112. 3.tra£t. 2. [ Annot. in loc. [ Harmony of the flew Teft, fpir'd 172 Other Interpretations ofthe Words. Par.II. fpir'd Pen-men of Scripture could thus alter their Sentiments, and make Changes in what they wrote, what muft we think of the Infallibility of that Spirit who dictated to them ? But as I verily believe Dr. Lightfoot thought not at all of this Confequence of his Opinion ; fo, I am perfea- ded, Dr. Whitby, who is fo zealous an Advocate for Infpiration, would have been far from efpoufing it, had he thought more of it. 2. The Paraphrafe of the Text, according- to this Interpretation, is very different from theApo- ftle's Meaning, as appears from what is already faid. Dr. Lightfoot, in another Part of his Works', has a quite different Conjecture concerning the Paflageof St. Paul under Debate, which though perhaps it be entirely groundlefs, may not be unworthy of the learned Reader's Notice. 'Tis, in fhort, a fort of compounding the Matter between thofe who imagine a former Epiftle to the Corinthians now loft, and thofe who think the contrary. I Shall think it fufficient (having faid fo much on this Head already) to give the Reader a Tranflation of the Doctor's own Words : " The Apoftle, fays he, " had fent Timothy to the Corinthians, before he " wrote this Epiftle to them (Chap. iv. 17.) and " 'tis probable he had fent fome Epiftle by him, " in which he had written thus (viz. the Words " of Verfe the ninth ; that they fhould not keep " company with Fornicators.) But when Stephen, " Fortunatus and Achaichus came, and laid before " him the State of the Church at Corinth, and " gave him both Letters and certain Queftions " from that Church, inafmuch as they knew Ti- « mot by was not yet arriv'd at Corinth, he com- " prehends and fuperfedes (or fuppreffes) that former " Epiftle in this. So that in fome Senfe you may truly 'Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. v. $>. " fay Ch.IV. Account of an Epiftle, &c 173 " fay that Epiftle is loft, inafmuch a an exact Copy " ot it is not now extant ; but in another Senfe " you cannot truly fay fo, becaufe all things which " were contain'd in that Epiftle, we have in that " which is now extant, and many other things " befides. Chap. IV. An Epiftle, under St. Paul's Name, to the Corinthians, and of the Corin thians to St. Paul, now extant in an Armenian Manufcript , tranflated out of Mr. La Croze's Latin into English, with fome Remarks. THE preceding Pages being taken up with an Enquiry into that important Queftion, Whether St. Paul wrote any Epiftle to the Church of Corinth, before either of thofe which arc now extant ; it will not be foreign to the fame Purpofe to obferve, that there are now extant in the World an Epiftle under the Name of St. Paul to the Corinthians (different from the receiv'd ones) and an Epiftle under the Name of the Church of Corinth to St. Paul. 'Tis not indeed properly my Bufinefs here to make any Enquiry into Apocryphal Pieces now extant ; that being left for the third Part of this Work, and the loft Books only propos'd to cbme under Con sideration here : But inafmuch as thefe two Epiftles 4. will 174 Account of an Epiftle, &c. Part* II. will not in any other Part of this Work come within my Propofal to be difcufs'd, defigning only to enquire into thofe Pieces which are mention'd by fome Writer of the firft four Centuries, where as thefe are not by any, I hope it will not be un acceptable, if I digrefs a little here : And fince I have been difcourfing fo much on a loft Epiftle of St. Paul's to the Corinthians, prefent the Reader with thefe two antient Pieces, which I believe have not yet appear'd in our Language, nor till lately in Europe, adding fome Short Reflections on them. The firft Account, as far as I know, of them in print, is that of the learned Dr. Gregory in the Preface to bis Notes on fome Pajfages of Scripture: " / have feen, fays he, the third Epiftle of St. Paul " to the Corinthians in the Armenian Tongue, begin- " ning, Paul a Servant of Jefus Chrift, &c. and " an Epiftle of the Corinthians to St. Paul in the " fame Tongue, beginning Stephen, &c. to our Bro- " ther Paul greeting. In a Latin Marginal Note, he adds", that the Manufcript with an ItalianVer- fion was in the Library of Sir Gilbert North. The famous Archbifhop Uftjer law the fame Manufcript in the fame learned Gentleman's Cuftody, and only informs us farther, that it was wrote at Smyrna*, taking a fmall Sentence out of the Epiftle of the Corinthians to Paul. In the Year M.DCCXV". Mr. David Wilkins tranflated bothUpiftles out of the Armenian Tongue into Latin, from a Manu fcript in the Library of Mr. Maffon at Utrecht, jvhich are fince printed by Fabritius, with anothet Latin Verfion made by Mr. La Croze, Library- Keeper to the King of Pruffia, in the Year 1716"'', from which, as being the laft, and, as he fays, a " Vid. Not. in Epift. Ignat. ad Trail. §. 84. J Fabrit. Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. Par. 3. p, 667. more Ch.IV. The Epift. ofthe Corinth, to J'.Paul. 1 7 s more literal and exact Verfion than the former c, I have made the following one in Englifh. The ETISTLE ofthe C orinthians to St. PAUL. / N-B. I place this firft, becaufe the other is evidently defigned as an Anfwer to this. . CTephen, and the Preibytcrs who are with him, *^ Nemenus, Eubulus, Theophilus, and Nomefon* to our Brother Paul, Greeting. Certain Men, whofe Names are Simon and Clobeus, are come to Corinth, who by their artful and delufive Speeches have very much Ihock'd the Faith of fome, to which it is incumbept on you to make anfwer your felf'; for we have neither heard from you, or any other Apoftle, fuch Doctrines. But this one thing we know, that we faithfully retain (or obferve) what ever we learnt from you,or the other (Apoftles.) We efteem it a very great Inftance of Divine Compaf- fion to us, that you are ftill in the Body with us, and that we may again hear you, (or from you.) As foon therefore as may be, either write to us what we muft ftedfaftly hold (as Truth) or elfe, let it not be long before you vifit us in Perfon. We believe in the Lord, and that he fhew'd him felf in a manifeft Manner, - and has deliver'd us from the Hands of the evil one. But their Words are erroneous; for they fay, There is no Neceffity of reading the Prophets ; That God is not Almigh ty; That there will be no Refurrection of the Dead ; That Flefh is not by any means made by God ; That the Body of Jefus Chrift was not born of the Virgin Mary, and laftly, That the World c See his Remarks in French, upon thefe Armenian Epiftles, in tbiritias loc. cit. p. 680, and 683. was 1 7 6 The Epift. ofFml to the Corinth. Partll. was not made by God, but by fome Angel. En deavour therefore, Brother, to come fpeedily to us, that the City of Corinth may continue with out Offences, and the Folly (or Ignorance) of thofe Men may be brought to a juft Contempt before all. Farewel in the Lord. The EPISTLE of PAU L to the CORI NTHIANS. PA UL, a Prifoner of Jefus Chrift, to the Bre thren at Corinth, harrafs'd with various Trials, Greeting. I do not at all wonder, that ye are fo foon accofted with fuch, who would draw you afide to Impiety. For as our Lord Jefus is about foon to hailen (or perfect) his Coming, there are (or rather will be) thofe, who both change and de- Spite his Commandments. But I from the Begin ning did teach you the very fame things, which I receiv'd from the former Apoftles, who had con stant Converfation with our Lord. I fay then, that our Lord Jefus was born of the Virgin Mary, ofthe Seed of David, according to that which the Holy Spirit fent into her by the Father from Heaven declar'd, namely, that Jefus fhould appear in the World, and by his Flefh fhould work Deliverance for all Flefh, and raife us again from the Dead ; of which Refurrection he gave us a plain Inftance in himfelf. Farther, it is manifeft, that Man was cre ated by the Father, and therefore not fo abandon'd to Mifery, but that he fhould be again fought after with Care ; for he was fo fought after, as that by a filial Adoption he might obtain Life. For God, who is the Lord of all, and the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, firft fent Prophets to the Jews, to difluade them from their Sins, and incite them to Righteoufnefs : For when he intended the Sal vation of the Houfe of Ifrael, he beftow'd his Holy Ch.lV. Remarks on the Epiftles, &c. 17 i Holy Spirit^ and fent him into the Prophets, who preach'd the Worfhip of God not liable to Error^ and the Birth (of Chrift) for a very long time. I fhall not here enter into any particular Criti- cifm on thefe two Letters, no mention being made of them within my prefcribed time, only offer to the Reader, who is curious in thefe things, a few curfory Remarks I have made in reading them. As, Firft,Tha.t if we fuppofe St. Paul did really write an Epiftle to the Church of Corinth before either of thofe now receiv'd, and which he refers to in the Words above cited, 1 Cor. v. 9. This Epiftle here tranflated cannot be it, becaufe there is in this no Prohibition of aftbciating with Fornicators, which is fuppofed to have been in the othen, and cer tainly was in it, if he ever wrote any. Hence it appears either to have been too great a Comple ment or Overfight in Mr. Wilkins, the Tranflator of thefe Epiftles, in his Dedication of them to Mr. La -Croze, to defire his Opinion, whether Saint Paul did not refer to this Epiftle of his in the fore mention'd Place. idly. This Epiftle under the Name of St. Paul to the Corinthians, is certainly fpurious1; becaufe, I. 'Tis not mention'd by any one Writer of the primitive Church in the firft four Centuries, nor in deed by any Chriftian Author in any Age till the laft. 'Tis neither quoted, nor plac'd in any of their Catalogues, nor read in any of their Churches; and therefore, by Prop. III. IV. V. VI. muft bd judg'd Apocryphal ; as alfo becaufe it is not in the Syriack Copies ofthe New Teftament, Prop. XV- 2. It contains things contrary to thofe which are certainly known to be true, and therefore apocryphal by Prop.VIII. Such is that Intimation of the fecond coming of Chrift being very near, in the Begin ning of the Epiftle, a Notion which was very N much 1 7 8 Remarks on the Epiftles, Sec. Part II. much efpous'd by fome of the antient Hereticks. See Dr. Hammond on iThefif.ti. z. 3. It contains feveral Things very unlike to, and different from St. Paul'* known Way of Writing ; and therefore fpurious by Prop. XI. Such for In stance, I .) Is the Salutation in the Beginning ; Paul a Prifioner to the Brethren at Corinth Greet ing a Phrafeology not known in his, or any of the firft Chriftians Salutations in their Epiftles. 2.) The Author's declaring that he receiv'd what he taught them from the former Apoftles, who convers'i with Chrift ; whereas St. Paul very frequently af fures the Churches to whom he wrote, and parti cularly this Church of Corinth, that what he preach ed among them, he receiv'd not from Men, but by im mediate Revelation from theLord. See I Cor.xi. 13. and Gal. i. 12. Eph. iii. 2, 3. Thus much may fuffice concerning the Spuri oufnefs of this Epiftle under St. Paul's Name- There is no need of any fuch Remarks on the Co rinthians Epiftle to Paul, fince if it were real and genuine, I know no Claim it could make to Cano nical Authority. Only one thing I can't forbear obferving, which is a very clear Detection of the Forgery. They defire Paul to be very fpeedy in vifiting them at Corinth ; whereas St. Paul was at that time, as he exprefly calls himfelf, a Prifoner. This does not feem very confiftent; for fuch a De- fire fuppofes Paul to have been at his own Liberty. I fhall only add, that Mr. La Croze fuppofes thefe Epiftles forged either in the End of the tenth, or the Beginning of the eleventh Century. Chap. Ch.V. 179 IM Chap. V. TheAtfs of Andrew receiv'd by the En- cratites, Manichees, Apoftolicks, or Apota&icks and Origenians, dif- cufs'd, and prov^ d Apocryphal. I Proceed now to the particular Examination of the loft Apocryphal Books, according to the Order in which they are plac'd in the Alphabetical Table at the End of the firft Part ; and fo fliall begin with that antient Book which was call'd, The ACTS ofthe Apoftle ANDREW. N.B. IN confidering this, as all the other Apo cryphal Books, the Method I purpofe to obferve is, firft to produce all and every thing that is faid of them by the antient Writers, and then to make the moft fuitable Reflections I can. This Book is mentioned, 1 . by Eufebius ». las ovoixcflt roxi • ayroso- Xojv wpqs tojv aiptlixw ¦sr^ipspou^uaj cor Av- e^es W(>tf.%ets- cov xcPtv KtAafji&K iv cruyrjo^jui/jialj tcov xa]a2jcjfc'V>^ar iy.y.'kn- ffiayixaw tis avnj ets /uvyj- Books publifhed under the Name of the Apo ftles by Hereticks fuch as the Acts of An drew which are ne ver thought worthy to be cited in the Works Hift. Eccl. I.3. c. 2 «¦. N 2 iftm 180 The ASls of Andr ykjj ayay&v n|icoc-sv. ricp- pco Jn -ara v-oj. o mr tyPJp" c-scor <^5< to n9©' to «7ro- s-oXwov ivaKkarlei %a- fining, n rs yvw/xy) xat ft tcov sv eufloir (psg^ju/jucov TxrcaottgiPts Tzrheisov oa-ov tuc a\*)9sr ogOoc^tar a- 7rac/Wa, on TS (K- xX^o-[«7i)ts VTra^ovliS. They chiefly depended upon thofe Scriptures, which are call'd the Acts of Andrew and of Tho mas , being altogether different from the Ca non of the Church. y. By the fame, concerning the vile Herefy of the Origenians d. They make ufe of feve- Ks^gtu/lou uodvult. c. if, 40, 42, and 46. tom. Opp. 6. Let now any impartial Perfon judge, whether it be not probable, that the Reafon why thefe fe veral Parties and Sects did fo mightily efteem the Acts of ^Andrew, was, becaufe they found fome of their peculiar and favourite Notions therein ; and, if fo, then we have another Argument, whereby to conclude it Apocryphal, viz. that it contain'd ASTertions contrary to thofe which are certa' known to be true by Prop. VIII. Chap, Ch.VI. 185 Chap. VI. Other Books under the Name 0/ An drew confidefd: They were the fame with the ABs of Leucius. The Gofpel of Andrew. The Decree of Pope Ge- lafius, relating to Apocryphal Books, produced, with its various LeEtiom: The Antiquity of this Decree. N° II. Some other Apocryphal Books under the Name of the Apoftle ANDREW. I Entitle them other (although, perhaps, they may appear to have been the fame with the former) becaufe they are not mentioned exprefly as the Acts of Andrew. Thefe are recorded, 1. By Auftin, confuting the anonymous Author, whom he Styles Adverfiarius Legis 13 Prophetarumz. Sane de apocryphis rite pofuit teftimonia, quae tub nominibus Apoftolo- rum, Andreae, Johannif- que confcriptafunt ; quae, fi illorum effent, recepta He hath made ufe of Teftimonies out of fome apocryphal Pieces,which were written under the Names of the Apoftles, Andrew zndjohn; which, E Contra Adverfar. Leg. 8c Prophet, lib. i. c. zo. in init. tom. Ppp. 6. • effent 1 8 6 OtherBooks of Andrew Apocryphal. Part II. effent ab Ecclefia, quae ab illorum temporibus, per Epifcoporum fuccef- fiones certiffimas ufque ad noftra tempora perfe- verat. if they were truly theirs, would have been receiv ed by theChurch,which has continued under an uninterrupted Succeflion of Bifhops from their Time to ours. 2. By Pope Innocent I.h Caetera autem, quae fob nomine Matthiae vel fob nomine Andreae, quae a Nexocharide 8c Leo- nide Philofophis fcripta font non folum repu- dianda, verum etiam no- veris effe damnanda. But the reft (of the Books) which are writ ten under the Name of Matthias or under the Name of Andrew, which were written by Nexocharides and Leonides thePhilofo- phers, are not only to be rejected, but condem ned. Whatever the Subject of thefe Books was, they appear plainly to have been Spurious by the ex prefs Teftimony of both thofe who mention them. Prop. Ill, IV, V. I have only to add, that per haps thefe Books, as alfo the former, viz. the Acts of Andrew, were either wholly, or in part, the fame with the Acts of the Apoftles un der the Name of Leucius, which I fhall particular ly confider in its proper Place, under the Letter L. As alfo who the Philofophers Leonides and Nexo charides (mention'd in this Decree of Pope Inno cent, as the Authors of this Book) were. b Decret. Innocent. I. Epift. 3. ad Exuper.Tholof Epifcop.c.7. Numb. I If. Ch.VI. The Gofpel of Andrew." 187 Num. III. The Gofpel a/ANDREW* Apoftle. TPHis Book is not mention'd by any, but by Ge- -*- lafius in his Decree * : His Words are, Evangelium nomine AnT I The Gofpel under the dreae Apoftoli apocry- 1 Name of Andrew the A- phum. ' pottle is Apocryphal. As there are not any Fragments of this Gofpel extant, nor any other Teftimonies concerning it, 'tis impoffible for us now to form any particular Idea of it, either as to its real Author or Contents. 'Tis probable, it was firft forg'd and us'd by the fame Hereticks, as the other Books under that Apoftle's Name ; however, 'tis eafy to prove, it never was reputed to be a Canonical Book, by Prop. IV, V, VI. I have only farther to obferve, after Mr. Fabritius^, That in fome Copies of this famous Decree of Gelafius, there is no mention made of this Gofpel under Andrew's Name ; and if thefe fhould happen to be the beft Copies, it will then follow, that there never was any fuch Gofpel in the World. Having occafion here, as I often fhall hereafter, to make mention of this Decree of Pope Gelafius, concerning the Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament, I perfuade my felf, it will be a very excufable DigreSfion, if I give the unlearned Read er a Tranflation of the Decree it felf, as far as it concerns any Books which fall within my Defign. 1 Loc. citat. * Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. Par. 3. p. fz6. The 1 88 The decree of Part II, The DECREE of Tope GELASIUS concerning Apocryphal Books. i. The Travels under the Name of Peter the Apoftle, which is alfo call'd the Eight Books 1 of St. Cle mens, are Apocryphal. 2. The Acls under the Name of Andrew the Apoftle are Apocryphal. 3. The Acls under the Name of Philip the Apoftle are Apocryphal. 4. The Ails under the Name of Thomas the Apoftle are Apocryphal. y. The Alls under the Name of Peter the Apoftle are Apocryphal m. 6. The Acls under the Name of Thomas the Apoftle are Apocryphal. 7. The Gofpel under the Name of Thaddeus is Apocryphal". 8. The Gofpel under the Name of Thomas the Apoftle, which the Manichees ufe, is Apocryphal. p. The Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas is Apo cryphal. 10. The Gofpel under the Name of Bartholomew the Apoftle is Apocryphal0. 1 1 . The Gofpel under the Name of Andrew the Apo ftle is Apocryphal. 1 2. The Gofpels corrupted by Lucianus are Apocry phal. 1 3 . The Gofpels corrupted by Hefychius are Apocry phal. 14. The Gofpel of the Infancy of our Saviour is Apo cryphal p. 1 Other Copies, for eight read both ThadJ&xs and Matthias. nine, others ten. ° After this, fome Copies have m In fome Copies this is not The Gofpel of fames the Lefs, and mention'd. Peter. n Other Copies read here, p This is omitted in fome Tbe Gofpel of Matthias ; others Copies. if. The Ch.VI. Tope Gelafius: 189 if. The Book of the Nativity of our Saviour, of Saint Mary, and the Midwife of our Saviour, is Apocryphal. \6. The Book which is call'd The Shepherd is A- pocryphal. 17. All the Books which Lentitius, the Difciple of the Devil, made, are Apocryphal. 18. The Book which is call'd The Atls of Thee fc and Paul the Apoftle is Apocryphal. I p. The Revelation afcrib'd to Thomas the Apoftle is Apocryphal. 20. The Revelation afcrib'd to Paul the Apoftle is Apocryphal. 2 1 . The Revelation afcribed to Stephen is Apocry phal. 22. The Travels or Acts of St. Mary are Apocry phal. 23. The Book call'd The Lots of the Apoftles is Apocryphal. 24. The Book call'd The Praife of the Apoftles is Apocryphal. if. The Book of The Canon of the Apoftles is Apocryphal. 26. Tloe Letter of Jefus to King Abgarus is Apo cryphal. I may perhaps have occafion hereafter more cri tically to enquire into the genuine Authority of this Decree of Gelafius ; I fhall now only obferve, that it is generally agreed to be very antient, and by molt learned Men, to have been form'd in the Council of Rome, A. G. 494. Thofe who have examin'd the Manufcripts tell us, that in fome of them it is afcrib'd to Damafus, who liv'd in the Century before Gelafius, and in others to Hormif- das, who liv'd the Century after : Whence Baluzius feems rightly to conjecture, that Pope Damafus began the Decree, Gelafius renew'd and made fome Additions to it, and Hormifdas after wards 1 90 The Decree of Tope Gelafius. Part II. wards farther enlarg'd and confirm'd it 1. 'Tis true, Bifhop Pearfon, in his celebrated Vindication of Jgnatius's Epiftles, attempts to prove from this Variety of Titles, that the Decree is fpurious, as alfo by other Arguments r, which are approv'd by Dr. Cave, and tranflated into his excellent Work f. But 'tis not at all Strange thefe learned Men fhould reject this Decree, when we confider it as directly oppofite to fome Notions, which they would have been much more unwilling to part with than this Decree. ' See Spanheim. Hift. Chrift. r Vindic. Ignat. Par. 1. c. 4. Secul. V. p. 1018. and Dalkas p. 44, &c. de Pfeudepig. Apoftol. 1. 3. c. 3, s Hiftor. Liter, in Gelaf p. 4, &c. 3 7 j. Chap. Ch.VII. 191 «®5 Chap. VII. The Gofpel of Apelles : His Age and Principles. The Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoflles : ft was the fame with the Gofpel of the Hebrews. Num. IV. The GOSTEL of APE L L E S. THis Gofpel is not mention'd by any Writer till Jerome, who places it among feveral other Apocryphal Pieces of the New Teftament, whofe Words, becaufe I fhall frequently refer to them, I fhall here tranferibe at length1 Plures fuiffe, qui Evange- lia feripferunt, Lucas E- vangelifta teftatur,dicens, Quoniam quidem multi, 8cc. quae a diverfis auc- toribus edita, diverfarum Haerefium fuere princi- pia, ut eft illud juxta^E- gyptios, ScThomam, 8c Matthiam, 8c Bartholo- maeum, duodecim quo- quc Apottolorum, 8c Ba- filidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum, quae enume- rare longiffimum eft : cum haec tantum im- The Evangelift Luke de clares, that there were many who wrote Gof pels, when he fays, For- afinuch as many, 8cc. (c. i. f. 1.) which being pub lifh'd by various Authors, gave birth to feveral He refies ; fuch as that ac cording to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthi as, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apoftles, and Bafilides, and Apel les, and others, which it would be tedious to enu- ' Prafat. in Comment, in Matth. # praefentiarv.ni i92 The Gofpel of Apelles." PartIL pnefentiarum neceffe fit merate : In relation to dicere, extitiffe quof- dam, qui, fine fpiritu 8c gratia Dei, conati Sunt magis ordinare narratio- nem, quam biftoriae te- xere veritatem. thefe, it will be enough at prefent to fay, that there have been certain Men, who endeavour'd without the Spirit and Grace of God, rather to fet forth fome fort of Account, than to pub- lifh a true Hiftory. This Gofpel is confiderable, as it appears to have been receiv'd by fome Chriftians who were the Difeiples of its Author in the latter End of the fe cond Century. Mr. Fabritius fuppofes, that Apelles did not write any new diftinct Gofpel, but only form'd one out of the true and genuine Gofpels,-. that,as Mar cion,he might be thought the Author @§^ a new Gofpel : But however true this Suppofition may be, it is not worthy of any great Note, be caufe it is moft certain, that moft of the Gofpels which the Hereticks made ufe of were form'd out of the true and genuine Gofpels, with the Addi tion and Omiflion of what they thought propen However, 'tis evident, it was an Apocryphal Piece, by Prop. IV. V. VI. and inafmuch as Jerome tells us, it was calculated to promote the Herefy of its Author, it muft neceffarily be fuppos'd to have contain'd Affertions contrary to thofe certainly known to be true, and therefore to be rejected by Prop. VIII. To confirm which Obfervation, I Shall here give the Reader fome Short Account of Apelles and his Doctrines. He was a Difciple of the famous Heretick Mar cion, and became famous about the Year of Chrift CLXXX. He wrote many impious Tracts againft the facred Scriptures, rejected both the Law and the Prophets, maintain'd, there was One Principle of all Things, who was the good God, from whom pro ceeded Ch.VII. The Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles. 1 9 s ceeded the evil God, who made all Things. He denied the Refurrection of the Dead, and pub lifh'd a Collection of Revelations, which he re ceived from a noted Strumpet, whofe Name was Philumene, of which both TertuUian and Eufebius give us an Account b, as do Origen c, Epiphanius d, and Auftin of the other Particulars e. Num. V. The GOSTEL according to the TWELVE ATOSTLES. f^Oncerning this Apocryphal Piece, unqueftiona- ^ bly very antient, we have an Account; given us; 1. By Origen*. Ecclefia quatuor habet Evangelia, Haerefes plu- rima ; e quibus quod- dam feribitur fecundum iEgyptios, aliud juxta duodecim ApoftoloS' Legimus, ne quid igno- rare videremur, 8cc. The Church receives four Gofpels, the Here ticks have very many j fuch as that according to the Egyptians, that according to theTwelve Apoftles-1 Thefe we read, left we fhould be thought ignorant. 1. By Anibrofies. Multi Evangelia fcribere conati, quae boniNum- mulariinon probaverunt. Unum autem tantum- modo in quatuor libros b De Prsefcript. adverf. He retic, c. 30.1 ,i Hift. Eccl. l.f. c. 1 J. ' Contr. Celf. l.f. p. 167. 4 Haref. 44. ! De Hattef. ad Quodvultd. Many have endeavour'd to write Gofpels, which the Catholick Church hath not approv'd, but hath determin'd to make N. 23. torn. opp. 6. See alfo Dr. Cave's Hift. Liter, p. 5- 1 . and SpanheimtHd. Chrift. p. 64. f. f Homil. in Luc. i. 1. in inif. 8 Prafat. in Comment, in Luc. in init. O digeftum 1 04 The Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles. Part II. digeftum ex omnibus ar- I choice of four onlyi bitrati font eligendum; There is indeed a Gof- 8c aliud quidem fertur, pel fpread up and doWty quod duodecim fcripfiffe dicuntur. Aufus eft e- tiam Bafilides fcribere quod dicitur fecundum Bafilidem Legimus, nelegantur; legimus, ne ignoremus; legimus, non ut teneafnus, fed repudi- emus, 8c ut feiamus qua- lia fint in quibus Magni fici ifti cor exultent fu- um. faid to be written by the Twelve Apofiles. Bafilides wrote another call'd by his Name — ^-Thefe we read, that they may not be read ; we read them, that we may not feem ignorant; we read them, not that we receive, but reject them, and may know what thofe things are, of which the He* reticks make fuch boaft- ing. • 2. By Jerome, in the Paffage juft now produc'd\ He reckons the Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles among thofe, which occafion'd Herefies in the Church, and which were wrote by Men deftitute of the Spirit and Grace of God, with out a due Regard to Truth. 4. By the fame, in his Dialogues againft the Pela gians'1, introducing Atticus difputing againft the Opinion, That the Baptis'd could not fall into Sin, and at length citing this Gofpel to that purpofe, in the folio wing Words : In Evangelio juxta He- braeos, quod Chaldaico Syroque fermone , fed Hebraicis Uteris fcriptum eft, quo Utuntur ufque hodie Nafcareni, fecun- In the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syriack Lahguage, but in Hebrew Letters, which the Nazarenes to See above Num. IV. * Lib, 3. -Epift. 17. ia inir. dunt Ch. VII. The Gofpel of the twelve Apoftles. 1 o 5 dum Apofiohs, five ut plerique autumant, juxta 'Matthaum, quod inCae farienfi Bibliotheca habe- tur; narrat hiftoria, &c . this day ufe [and is call'd the GofpeV^according to the [twelve J Apoftles, or, as moft think, ac cording to Matthew,ano\ which is in the Library of Cafiarea ; there is the following Hiftory, &c. I omit here producing the Fragments of this Gofpel, and making any critical Remarks upon it, becaufe I Shall have a more convenient Place of doing this, when I come to difcourfe Concerning the Gofpel according to the Nazarenes, which ap pears very evidently by this Paffage of Jerome, to have been the very fame with this Gofpel ac cording to the Twelve Apoftles. O 1 Chap. iors The Gofpel of Barnabas. PartIL Chap. VIII. An Account of the Gofpel of Barnabas, mentioned by Pope Gelafius. Two fuppofd Fragments. Large Fragments of an Italian Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas, now in the PoffeJJion of Prince Eugene : It appears evi dently a late Mahometan Impofiure. B. Num. VI. The GOSTEL of BARNABAS- THIS Book does not appear to have fallen within the Cognifence of any of the Chri ftian Writers of the firft four Centuries-; only 'tis thus mention'd in the famous Decree of Pope Ge lafius I. above produc'd, Num. III. The Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas is Apocryphal. There are not, I believe, any Fragments of it extant, at leaft not within my Time, unlefs that be fuppos'd to be one, which we find in Clemens Alexandrinus*, who having cited thofe Words of the Pfalmift ( Pfal. cxviii. ip, 20.) Open to me the Gates of Righteouf- nefs, I will go into them, and I will praifie the Lord. This is the Gate of the Lord, into which the Righte ous fhall enter : he adds, Barnabas expounding this • Saying of the Prophet, thus reafons: I Stromat. 1. 6. p. 646. IToXXwk Ch.VIII. A fuppos'dTaJfage of Barnabas. 197 IloXXaiv -aruXwv avioyyuv, I Although there are ma il ^uaj.oawji\, wj\i\ sny, n 1 ny Gates open'd, Righ iv X(ys"&), vi n [xaxapfoi ¦sravlis ci aaiXltovlt:. teoufnefs is that (Gate) which is in Chrift, at which all they that en ter Shall be bleffed. This Paflage, attributed by Clemens Alexandrinus to Barnabas, is indeed in the firft Epiftle of Cle mens Romanus to the Corinthians, §. 48. and there fore Dr. Grabe b fuppofes, that Clemens Alexandrines was miftaken in citing it out of Barnabas, becaufe it is not in the Epiftle which goes under his Name ; which is indeed probable enough, not only becaufe the Paflage is exactly the fame in Clement's Epiftle, but becaufe it does not appear that any Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas was known in the World, either in the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, or a long time afterwards. The learned Dr. Grabe, out of an antient Manu fcript, has indeed produc'd a Saying attributed there to Barnabas, which he fuppofes to have been taken out of the Gofpel of Barnabas, men tion'd by Pope Gelafius0. The Fragment is this, as he has given it us out of the thirty ninth B%- roccian Manufcript in the Bodleian : Ba^vaSas 0 «7ro?o\©' e- (pq, Ev aixiXXcus -nrovn^cir afiXiaflsp©' 0 vmwas, cri- oti iTTi^tleu. -nrXsov sj£&>v tt/Stapliac. Barnabas the Apoftle faith, He who prevails in unlawful Contefts, is (fo much) the more un happy, becaufe he goes awiy having more Sin. Whether or no this Paffage is really a Fragment of the antient Apocryphal Gofpel under the Name of Barnabas, feems to me very uncertain. The J Spicileg. Parr. torn, i, p. 303. « Ibid. p. 302, 30-3. O 3 Author 108 The Italian Gofpel of Barnabas. Part II. Author Nof the Manufcript (which is a Common-* Place-Book made after the modern Alphabetical Manner) does not mention the Name of any Gof pel from whence he took it ; nor has the Doctor^ who produces it, given any Reafons to fupport his Conjecture,, and therefore we may as fairly con clude it to have been taken from the Epiftle under the Name of Barnabas, as from the Gofpel; and though it be not now to be found in any part of that Epiftle, yet I cannot fee why it may not be fuppos'd to -have been in that part of it which is loft, fince 'tis certain we have it now not com* pleted: and lam the rather apt to imagine this, becaufe we cannot difcover any Intimations or Ci- tations of this Gofpel in the antient Writers, whereas the Epiftle was well known, and frequeafo !y refer'd to. I can fcarce tell, whether it be worth while to obferve, that Mr. Toland, in his late trifling Book, which he calls Nazarenus, finding it very much to his Purpofe, endeavours to confirm the aforcfaid Conjecture of Dr. Grabe e. He tells us, that in an Italian Manufcript, which he few in Holland, and which is now in the Library of Prince Eugene, entitled, The true Gofpel of Jefus, call'd Chrift, a new Prophet fent by God to the World, according to the relation o/Barnabas the Apoftle. In this, I fay, he tells us, he found the Paflage (juft above produc'd out of the Baroccian Manufcript ) almoft in Terms, and the Senfe evidently there in more than one place. 'Tis not my Bufinefs to make here any Remarks concerning this pretended Gofpel of Barnabas ; 'tis enough to obferve, that it is a very late and noto rious Mahometan lmpoflure, as appears fufficiently by the Scraps of it which Mr. Toland has produc'd, and more fully by the large Citations out of it d See Dr. 'Manje/s Remarks e Nazaren. c. z. p. 8. and c. on Mr. Toland' sN«z.arenu«, c.4. 7, p. 20. p. «. which Ch.VIII. Some Fragments thereof. 109 which are given us by La Monnoy f, who had by Baron Hohendorf, Prince Eugene's Adjutant General, the Sight of the Manufcript ; and as he feems to have given a more juft and full Account of it than, Mr. Toland, fo I verily believe he had more Op#, partunity to do it s. 'Tis. probable the Curiofity of fome Readers may be fuch, as to defire thefe Fragments in pur Language, for whofe fake, tho' it be a Digreffion from my propofed Method, I fhall infert them here, as I find them in either of the foremention'd Authors. The Title iss as above, " The true Gofpel of Jefus, call'd Chrift, a new ** Prophet fent by God to the World, according " to the Relation of Barnabas the Apoftle h. "The firft Words of the Book are thefe: " Barnabas, an Apoftle of Jefus of Nazareth, " called Chrift, to all thofe who dwell upon the " Earth, wifheth Peace and Confolation'. " He declares he was commanded to write this " Gofpel ; reprefents himfelf as one of the Apo- " files, very familiar with Jefus Chrift and the " Virgin, better inftructed than Paul concerning M the Defign of Circumcifion, and the Ufage of " Meats, either allow'd or forbid to the Faithful. * He afferts, the infernaL Torments of the Ma- *' hornet ans Shall not he everlafting. ' Animadverf: ad Menagian. oblig'd to have tranflated La •pud Fabrit.tom.3. p. 373- MonWy, as he does in his Ap- 8 For J much queftion whe- -pendix. ther Mr. Toland had or made h Nazaren. p. if . v much Ufe of the MS. other- ! Ibid. wife he need not have been O 4 " Jefus 20o A large Fragment of the Part II. " Jefus Chrift is never call'd any more than a « Prophet k. " It informs us, that the very moment the Jews were preparing to go and take Chrift in the Garden of Olives, he was taken up into the third Heavens, by the Miniftry of the four An gels, Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel; That he fhould not die until the End of the World, and that it was Judas who was cruci- fy'd inftead of him, God permitting that this Traytor fhould appear to the Eyes of the Jews fo very like to Jefus Chrift, that they appre hended him inftead of him, and as fuch deli ver'd him to Pilate; That the Refemblance be tween them was fo great, that the Virgin Mary apd. the Apoftles were even deceiv'd, but that afterwards Jefus Chrift had obtain'd of God Per- miffion to come and comfort them1." What pafs'd after this, we fhall find in the fol lowing Fragment, for which we are alfo oblig'd to Mr. La Monnoy, as well as the former. A large 'Fragment of fhe 'Gofpel oj ^Barnabas ». " The Virgin return'd to Jerufalem together " with the Author (Barnabas) James and John, upoii u the fame Day in which the Decree of the High " Prieft came forth. ¦ The Virgin, who fear'd God, *' although She knew the Injustice of the High k Barnabe, qui ft dit charge^ Jefus Chrift n'y eft appelle fira- de l'ecrire, y pafle pour un A- plement que Prophete. La pdtre familier avec JefusChrift, Monnoy loc. cit. p. 376, 377. $cavec laVierge., micux inftru-. ' Ibid. it que Paul du merite de Ja Cir- m Not underftanding through- concifion, & de l'ufige des Vi- ly the Italian it ielf, I am ob- erfdes accordees ou defendues lig'd in this Englifh Tranflation aux fideles. On y voit, que les to follow and depend upon the Pcines Infernales des Mahome- latin one of Nix. Fabritius. tans ne feront pas ecernelks. « Prieft's Ch.VIII. Italian Gofpel of Barnabas. 201 " Prieft's Decree, gave a Charge to all her par- " ticular Acquaintance (or Family) that they would " forget her Son. But God, who is acquaint- " ed with the Temper of all Men's Minds, knew u how we and the Mother of Jefus were very *' miferably diftrefs'd between Sorrow for the " Death of Judas (whom we beljev'dto have been w Jefus our Mailer) and Expectations of feeing him *£ rifen again from the Dead. The Guardian An- " gels therefore of the Virgin Mary afcended into *' the third Heaven, where Jefus was in the So- " ciety of Angels, and related to him all , the Af- " fair. Hereupon Jefus intreated God, that he " would permit him to (go) and fee his Mother " and his Difeiples. Then God being merciful, " commanded four of his moft beloved Angels, " viz. Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel, that " they fhould carry Jefus to his Mother's Houfe, " and there be his Guard for three fuccefllve Days, P 3 Scholar 2 1 4 The Gofpel of Bartholomew. Part II. Scholar of the above-mention'd Panttenus, and 0- rigeh, the Scholar of Clemens, who both dwelt at Alexandria ; befides whom, it does not appear that any Chriftian Writer (except Hegeftppus) knew any thing of this Gofpel, till Jerome. This I offer as a probable Conjecture concerning this Book P. I know but one Thing can be objected, and that is, How Jerome, who fiaw and read the Hebrew Gofpel of the Nazarenes, could fpeak. of this Gofpel of Bartholomew as diftinil from it, which he certainly does. To which I think it will be enough to an fwer, that 'tis very probable Jerome had never feen any Gofpel under Bartholomew's Name, but only rejects it, as what he knew was commonly efteem'a a Spurious Piece. I have only here to add, that if the foregoing Account be juft, Monfieur Daille 1 is very mucl , miftaken in fuppofing that the Gofpel of BarthoU^ mew was forged but a very little time before Ge* lafius. Nor is his Reafon true which he offers, viz. Becaufe it is neither mentiond by Eufebius, Je rome, nor any of the antient Writers; for that it was long before mention'd by Jerome in the Place above cited, every one may perceive. * Dr. Grabe propofes this * De Pfeudepig. Dion. Areo- Conjecture in part, Spidl. Patr. pag. c. %¦}. p. i j8. torn. i. p. n8. Chap. Ch. XI. The Gofpel of Bafilides. aij Chap. XI. The Gofpel of Bafilides : His Age and Tenets: His twenty four Books upon the Gofpel. Num. IX. The GOSTEL of BASILIDES. Concerning this Gofpel we have very little Ac count in any Chriftian Hiftories ; 'tis only juft nam'd among the Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament i . By Origen a. The Church hath but four Gofpels, the Hereticks many— — Bafilides was fo impudent as to write a Gofpel, and prefix his own Name to it. z. By Ambrofieh. Many have attempted to write Gofpels, which the Orthodox do not approve ¦ 'Ba filides had the Impudence to write one, which is call'd The Gofpel according to Bafilides. 3. By Jerome c. Many have endeavour' d without the Grace and Spirit of God to publifh Gofpels, among "which is that of Bafilides, &c. ' " Ecclefia quatuor habet Evan- b See. the Paflage at length a- gelia, Hsrefes plurima, . bove, Numb.V. in Luc. i. Aufus eft Bafilides fcribere E- c Praefat. in Comment, in vangelium, 8c fuo illud nomine Matth. produc'd at large above, titulare. Homil. in Luc. i. 1. Numb. IV. ia init. P 4 There 216 The Age andTenets of Bafilides. Part II. There are not now any Fragments of this Gof pel any where extant, nor am I able to make any Conjecture concerning it; befides that it was cal culated to promote the Heterodox Sentiments of its Author ; of which it may not be foreign to my Purpofe to give the following Account. He was one of the firfl noted Hereticks of the Chriftian Church, and liv'd very near the Apoftles Times, though the precife Time of his Age has been much difputed by Bifhop Pearfon d againft Daillee. He was the Scholar of Me'nander, and one of the main Authors of the known Sect of the Gnofticks, a quo Gnoftici, fays Eufebius in his Chro- nicon f. His principal Tenees were, That there was only one Being or Creature made by God; this Being form'd the next, and that another), and fib on, in a ridiculous Series of Gods or Angels pro ceeding from each other, to the number of ^6f, each of which' created a Heaven to anfiwer to the Number of the Days of the Tear, over which he prefided. That the Angel who prefided in that Heaven which is near- eft to us, made this Earth and its Inhabitants; That the Angel, or God of the Jews was more obfiinaie than the reft, and endeavour' d to make that People fuperior to all other; at which the Angels of other Nations' being provok'd, incited their refpetlive Countries to. wage War with the Jews ; That the Unbegotten Fa ther fent his Son, in the Shape of a Man± to prevent \ the Jewifh Tyranny; That he was not really Fleftj, or a Man, but only appear' d to be fo ; That he did not himfelf fuffer on theCrofs, but Simon the Cyrenian in his ftead. He denied the RefurrecJion, allow' d of (he Pythagorean Tranfimigration of Souls, ofjpdomy, * Vindic. Ignat. Epift. par. 2 . Ignat. 1. 1 . c. 1 o. «•?• f Ad ann.Ghrifti 13&. ; De Pfeudepig. Dionyf. & and Ch. XI. The Commentaries of Bafilides^ 2 1 7 and all forts ofUncleannefs,ozc. He that would read more of this fort may confult Irenaus s, TertuUian \ Clemens Alexandrinus ', Eufebius k, Epiphanius. l, Je rome m, and Auftinn among the Antients ; Mr. Span- heim (who has oblig'd the World with a Sped- .- men of their Images and Magical Hieroglyphicks. neatly engrav'd on Copper Plates ° ) . and Dr. Grabe \ among the Moderns P. I have been the more large in reciting the Te nets of Bafilides, becaufe it may perhaps be not abfurd to fuppofe them as fo many Fragments of his Gofpel. Eufebius 1 tells us of an excellent Piece wrote by Agrippa Caftor, wherein he confuted all the fubtle Principles of this impious Heretick, and mentions his having wrote twenty four Books upon the Gofpel ; but whether he means upon either or all the Gofpels which we now have, or upon his own Gofpel, is utterly uncertain. Valefius*, and after him Dr. Caves and Dr. Grabe1 fuppofe it to have been his own Gofpel, and not any of ours, which is indeed much the more probable Opinion ; for it. cannot be imagin'd that Herefiarch would Shew fo great Refpect to ours. But perhaps nei ther of thefe Opinions are true, but rather that the twenty four Books upon the Gofpel, which Agrippa Caftor fpeaks of, were the very Gofpel of Bafilides s Adv. Hseref. 1. i . c. z j ,8cc. " Eccl; Hift. Secul. ii. p. 638, & 1.2. c. 6j. 639. , h De Praefcript. adv. Hseret. f Spicileg. Patr. tom. 2. p. c 46. if, &c. 1 In the third and fourth 1 Hift. Eccl. Lib. 4. c.y. EiS Books of his Stromata, he is pa to EvayysAiov T£o-o-«pc» jj-pas often refuted. this sik«iti tiriyaov eivai to fiaaiheicv tu Xfirs, v.ai xaXiv sTrfflu/^iaif v.ai ncPo- vai; sv liaisaaKnij. ty\v aap- ia, xoXt7iiiopi£vyiv U7ra^c«)v Tair y^^ais ©ss agjifl/jtov ^t- Xfo/Jrtsliaf sv ya/*a sojlrjs I Cerinthus in a Book of Revelations written by him, as tho' he were fome great Apoftle, falfly tells us of certain furprifing Difcoveries, which were made to him by Angels, which he thus introdu ces, faying, That after the Refurrection Chrift fhall reign here on Earth, and thofe who dwell at Jerufalem fhall again ferve ( or be capable of) bodi ly Lulls and Pleafures. flsXwv Ch.XlII. Not the fame with St. John's. 225 GsXwv TrXovav Xsyav yi- To which that Enemy n&ai. Vid. Hift. Eccl. of the Divine Scriptures L. 3. c. 28. adds, the better to pro pagate his Errours, that the Space of a thoufand Years Shall be fpent in Marriage-Feafting. Hence it is evident that Caius knew of feme Book under the Title of The Revelation, which pretended to Infpiration, as being dictated by An gels, and wrote by Cerinthus, as fome great Apoftle ; for 1- think nothing more juft than Vakfias's Tranf lation of thofe Words Or u?ro-A7ro?oXs puy&Xs ys- yga/xjixevwv, a fe tanquam a magno Apoftolo conferiptas, for otherwife it will not be poffible to make any Senfe of the Sentence. Dr. Grabe indeed imagines, that Caius aferibed the Revelation of St. John to Cerinthus in the forecited Paffage, and meant no other than that this Canonical Book was publifh'd by Cerinthus under the Name of St. John*- But the Fragment which Caius produces does moft e- vidently demonftrate the contrary, becaufe the Con tents of it, viz. Chrift's reigning on Earth, the Jews ¦then enjoying Carnal Lufts and Pleafures,' and fpend- ing a thoufand Years in Nuptial Merriments are no where found in the Revelation of St. John. 'Tis true indeed (as that learned Antiquary obferves) Dionyfius Alexandrinus^ intimates, that it was the Opinion of fome, that no Apoftle nor holy Ecclefiaftical Writer wrote the Revelation called St. John'*, but that Cerinthus forg'd it, and the better to propagate his Notions and gain Credit to his Fancies, prefix' d the Name of John to it. He might' have added too, that the Hereticks call'd Alogi were of this Opinion*, but all this will not prove what he con- * Spicileg. Patr. T. i. p. 311. I.3. c- 28. " Lib. 2. de PromifT. apud ' Hsref. fi. n, 3. Eufeb. Hi'ft.Etcl. 1.7,0.1;. 8c Q^ tends 226 The Revelation of Cerinthus Part II, tends for, that The Revelations of St. John, and Cerinthus were the fame Book ; for befides what has been already obferv'd out of the Fragment of Caius to prove them diftinct, it is evident Dionyfius Alexandrinus look'd upon them as fuch too ; for tho' he endeavours to prove (what I hope here after to confute) that the Revelation under the Name of John the Divine, or Apoftle, was not wrote by him, but fome other John, yet he de clares his Belief of it as the Work ayas tjv(0>. xai StoTrvdjsv, of fome holy and infpir'd Writer, where as he had a little before condemn'd the pretended Revelation of Cerinthus, and his Doctrine which he calls Herefy, and accordingly produces the fol lowing Specimen of his Revelations, as well de- ferving to be exploded., See Eufeb. Hifii Ecclefiaft. 1. 7. e. 2f . Tslo ya% avai mj d'aPaj- xaXtar adits doyixa, nvi- yeiov laio&ai mv ts Kpirs Caaihetav, v.ai cov «i/I©J mpiyflc, (piXocrco|iji«l@j oov xacsravuerapxixi^EV rsloir ovagowoXav tau&ai, yaa- Tp©" xai Tan utxro yas-spa ¦wKnafjiovais, tsTs?j afliois, y.ai irdlois, nai yaixcis, nai o*t xv djcai &vaiais Kai is^acov ,g-2>a- yair. For this is the Doctrine . of Cerinthus, that Chrift fhall reign here on Earth, ', when, as he extrava gantly fancied , there fliould be an Enjoyment of thofe Lufts of the Flefb, to which himfelf was ex- ceffively inclin'd and .ad dicted,1^. «£#»*/,«»/ iV»- vifions for the Belly and- the Parts i.e. with Meats and Drinks, and Marriages, for the better accomplijbing of which De- figns there ftjould beFeaft- ings, and Banquetings, and killing of Sacrifices. Such a Book was the Revelation of Cerinthus, fufficiently different from that under the Name of St. Ch. XIII. a ridiculous Forgery. 227 S,t. John now in the Canon, and undoubtedly to be efteem'd Apocryphal, by Prop. IV. V. VI. VIII. and IX. I f it fhould be yet urg'd, that it is very ftrange, that not only the- Alogians, but others who liv'd before Dionyfius of Alexandria, and confequently very near the Time of St. John, ftoould after ibe his Book of Revelations to Cerinthus, as its Author, I Shall only now anfwer, Firft, That we have very ftrong Reafon to pre- fume the Revelation, now reputed Canonical, was really wrote by him whofe Name it bears. Secondly, That from the foregoing Account it feems very probable, that the Revelation of Cerin thus was compil'd out of that of St. John, 'with the Addition of many trifling Fancies, and perhaps the Omiffion of fome Things not fo agreeable to the Sen timents of that Heretick : This I am the rather in clin'd to think, becaufe ' 1 . This was a Praclice very common with the He reticks of thofe early Times of the Church, viz. to alter the genuine Records of Chriftianity, and to. ac commodate them to their own impious Sentiments, re taining only, fo much of the true Writing, as would enable them with the greater Confidence to impofe their fpurious Pieces upon the World. See above in this Part, Chap. I. Obf II. This has been already prov'd to be Fact as to the Gofpel of Bartholomew and Barnabas, and will appear hereafter to be true of the Gofpel of the Ebionites, Nazarenes, Mar cion, Peter, and others. 2. Becaufe this has been prov'd to be the Cafe in Refpefil of the Gofpel of Cerinthus in the prece ding Chapter, viz. that it was q,n interpolated and corrupted Copy of St. Matthew; and 'tis not ftrange the fame Perfon fhould be guilty of the fame Praclice with the Revelation of St. John. 3. Becaufe, fuppofing the Revelation of St. John to be genuine, there can be no other Caufe Q^ z more 228 Cerinthus'*1 Revelation compil'd, &c. Part II. more probable affigned, why it 'fhould have been by fo many attributed to Cerinthus. Upon this Hypo thefis of his altering it fo much, 'tis not ftrange if it was by his Followers afcribed to him as its Author, and fo by others ; and fo this being known, at length even the genuine Book of St. John came, by fome weaker Perfons, who had not compar'd both, to be afcrib'd to that He- retick. This will yet feem farther probable, if we confider the Mylterioufnefs of St. John's Book, which is fuch as would be a very likely Means to give Force to the common Report of its being ra ther wrote by Cerinthus than St. John, efpecially if we add this farther Consideration of its being wrote in a Style very different from thofe com monly receiv'd and acknowledg'd. Coroll. Hence we may give at leaft a probable Account, why the Revelation of St. John was fo long of doubtful Authority in the Church, viz. becaufe it was unhappily interpolated by Cerinthus immediately after its firft being publifh'd, and fo by many attributed to him : That this was the plain Reafon why the Alogians rejected it, Epi phanius exprefly tells us d, and may fairly be con cluded of others from what has been faid. Some thing like this is the Conjecture of Grotius con cerning this Matter, with whofe Words (becaufe of the juft Reputation of the Man) I will finifh this'Chapter e. I fuppofe, fays he, the Reafon why there have been Doubts concerning the Author and Authority of this Book, among others, (theie given) is, becaufe what we read in it of the Refurreclhn, of the thoufand Years, of Gog and Magog, agrees in Sound with the Jewifh Books ; and tho' they are here in a different Senfe, yet were perverted by Cerinthus, and fome Chriftians, who judaized too much into a plain Jewift) Senfe. But of this more hereafter. ,d Loc. jam cit. I Annot. in Titul, Apocalypf. Chap. Ch.XIV. Books under the Name of "Chrift, 229 Chap. XIV. Books under the Name of Chrift. None of this Sort mentioned 'till St. Auftin'f Time. A malicious Miftake of Mr. Toland deteBed. An E- piftle of Chrift to Peter and Pad prov'd out of St. Auflin to be a ri diculous Forgery. Another Book attributed to Chrift. Concerning the Magick of Chrift. £'. ¦ THE Books, which fall next in Courfe under Consideration, are thofe attributed to our Saviour Jefus Chrift, which before I come parti cularly to confider, I would premife; that I have not found any Mention of fuch within the Limits of my Time, i. e. in any Writers of the firft four Cen turies, befides by Auflin, except the Epiftle of Chrift to Abgarus,^ which is ftill extant, and to be exa min'd in the next Part of this Work. 'Tis true indeed, in later Ages, many fuch Forgeries are known to have been ; fome of which are ftill ex tant, but fo ridiculous and trifling, as not teTde- ferve any Mention or Regard. Mr. Fabritius has been at the Pains ( tho' to little Purpofe ) to col- • lect them in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Teftamenti, where p. 308, fjJV . he who has a mind may fee a more particular Account. I return to what is more material :* It does not appear that our Saviour ever Q^ 3 wrote 230 A Mijlake of Mr. Toland. NPart II. wrote any Book or Letter whatfoever, except what he wrote with his Finger on the Ground1, whilft the Jews were accufing the adulterous Wo man to him, concerning which Writing I think it as needlefs to, form any new Conjecture of my own, as it would be trifling td give the Reader the ela borate Difcourfes of Sixtus Senenftsh, Fabritius c, and others. Mr. Toland indeed in his Catalogue ( Amyntor. p. 20.) under the Title of Books re ported to be written by Chrift himfelf, reckons one entitul'd The Parables and Sermons of Chrift, as mention'd by Eufebius, Hift. Eccl. L. 3. c. 39., At firft View of this, one would be ready to conclude, that, fome fuch Book under this Title there cer tainly was written by our Saviour, feeing it is mention'd by fo credible an Author as Eufebius ; but let, the Reader obferve here a plain Inftance ei ther of the Unfairnefs or Blundering of that filly Writer ; for 'tis evident Eufeb;us never thought any thing of fuch a Book, either wrote by Chrift, or that went under his Name : The Paffage re- fer'd to is this ; fpeaking of Papias, and his Fond- nefs for Traditions, he adds Kat aWa dt 0 at/1©1 crufy^yAjs, coj tx ¥itgi- c/Ws&k ay^yKps u; aulov movla^a^ali^etlai, %tvas rs Tivar wa^CoXa; ts 2a/]n£<)s-, y.ai -- It , Ch, XIV- Chrift'j Epiftle to Peter, &c. 231 It is ftrange Mr. Toland would either fuffcr him felf to be fo much impos'd upon, or endeavour to impofe upon his. Readers a Thing fo very grofs, as to call that a Book written by Chrift, and cite Eufebius for it, when Eufebius exprefly fays, it was no Book at all, but only fome fabulous tradi tionary Stories of Chrift, which the credulous Pa pias had collected. I take it then for granted, that we have no Mention of any Books as written by our Saviour 'till the fourth Century ; which pre- mifed, I come to enquire, what Mention is made of them there. , Num. XII. The E 'TISTLE ^CHRIST to PETER and PAUL. CT, Auflin difputing againft the Pagans inti- ^ mates, that they pretended to have feen or, read fome Books which were written, by Chrift. .His Words are thefe d ; Ita vero ifti defipiunt, ut in illis Libris, quos eum feripfiffe exiftimanr, di- cant contineri eas Artes, quibus eum putant ea fe- ciffe Miracula, quorum fama ubique percrebuit ; Quid quod etiam di- vino Judicio fie errant Juidam eorum, qui talia Ihriftum feripfiffe vel credunt, velcredivolunt, ut eofdem Libros ad Pe- trum & Paulum dicant, .tanquam epiftolari Titu- lo prsenotatos. They are fo ftrangely in fatuated, as to affert, that in thofe Books which they fuppofe Chrift to have written, are con tain'd thofeArts,by which he wrought his celebra ted Miracles. ' They are fo blinded by the Judgment of God upon them, who believe' or would have others believe that Chrift wrote fuch Books, as to fay, that the Books are wrote in the Form of an Epiftle to Peter and Paul. De Confcnf. Evang. Lib, i . c. o, i o. T. Opp. 4. It 2 j 2 St. Auttin'* Opinion Part II. It is not very difficult to form a Judgment con cerning thefe fpurious Pieces ; and indeed the Folly of them is fo well demonftrated by St. Auflin, that I need do little more than give the Reader his Words. He firft feems to queftion the Sincerity of their Relation as to the Fact ; " If they have, " fays he, any fuch Books which they affirm Chrift " to have written, let theni produce them to us. They " muft neceffarily be very ufeful and edifying Books, " wh'fch were written by one whom themfelves e- u fteem'd as a Man of the greateft Wifdom. If they " are afraid to produce them, 'tis a Sign they are " bad ; and if they are bad, they could not be writ- ct ten by the wife ft of Men ; but fuch they confefs " Chrift to have been, therefore Chrift did not write " any fuch Book. A little after, Why do not " they who affirm they have read fuch Books do fome " fuch Works, as they with Wonder own he did by u them? " In the reft of the Chapter this pious Fa ther Shews it impoffible that this Book fhould not be a Forgery, by this good Argument, that St. Paul was not a Chriftian 'till a confiderable Time af ter Chrift's Afeenfion, and fo could not be join'd with Peter, as a Difeiple of Chrift, and receive a Letter from him, unlefs it was fent by Poft from Heaven. It is manifeft therefore this Book muft be rec- kon'd apocryphal and fpurious by Prop. IV. V. and VI. as alfo by Prop. VIII. it containing Things contrary to certainly known and undoubted Truths, which being fuch alfo as are fubverftve of the whole Defign and Doctrine of Chriftianity, viz. That Chrift wrought his Miracles by Magical Artse, prove it Apocryphal by Carol!. Prop. VIII. Whether this Book was forg'd bv a Heathen or a Chriftian, is not very eafy to determine. St. Auflin fuppofes the latter f; which indeed feems c See Auft. c. 9. Lib. cit. Oppofitlon between thefe, and f I interpret this of a ChriiH- thofe whom he calls inimici na- an, becaufe he makes a plain minis Cbrifti, i. e. Heathens. the Ch: XIV. of Chub's Epiftle to Peter, &c 2 ; 3 the more probable Conjecture, and becaufe it is a very ingenious one, it may be worth while to tran- fcribe it. " Perhaps, fays he, it was the Contri- " vance of fome, who fanfied by writing fuch " Books, under the Names of Chrift and his Apo*. " ftles, they could gain fome Weight and Autho- " rity from fo glorious a Name to thefe execrable " Arts ; but. were fo infatuated in their impudent " Impotlure, as juftly to expofe themfelves to the " Laughter of Children, and thofe who were on- " ly able to read (in gradw Letlorum) the Chrifti- w an Books. For when they had refolv'd to forge " fuch a Letter under the Name of Chrift to his " Apoftles, they contriv'd to inferibe it to thofe " to whom it was moft likely to be believ'd that " Chrift would have wrote, viz. thofe who were u moft familiar with him, and fo moft worthy of " having fuch a Secret committed to them ; here- " upon they prefently thought of Peter and Paul, il becaufe, I fuppofe, they had often feen thefe ^ " two pictur'dwith Chrift, feeing the Paffion of *' Peter and Paul on the fame Day is frequently " and folemnly celebrated at Rome. If this Conjecture be juft, we fee an Inftance of the pious Frauds of the firfl Chriftians in forging Books, which I affign'd as one Reafon of the great Number of Apocryphal Pieces, in the firft Part of this Work, Chap. 4. Num. XIII. Another BOOK under the NAME of Our SAVIOUR CHRIST. OF this we have fome Account in another Part of the laft cited Book of St. Auflin s. His Words are e Car/. 34. p. 394. Primo 234 Chrift. fal/ly fuppos'd a Magician: Part. II. I judg'd it neceflary ftrft to difcufs a Queftion mo ved by fome [Pagans^}. Why we [Christians] can produce no Books written by Chrift himfelf '? 'For fo they would perfuade us, that he wrote fome other Sort of Book, (different from the Evangelists) which they efteem, and in which he appears tw have thought Nothing to the Prejudice of their Gods, but on the other Hand himfelf to have worfhip'd them with ma gical Ceremonies, and that his Difeiples did not only affert falfe Things of him, in faying, That he was the God by whom all Things were made, when he was no more than a meer Man, tho' of moft extraordinary Wifdom, but that he did not teach thofe Things concerning their Gods which they (pretended to have) learnt. * It would feem at firft View, the Book here men tion'd was the fame with the foregoing, each of them treating concerning the Magick of Chrift ; Primo mihi difcutien- dum occurrit, quod non- nulli quaerere folent, Cur ipfius Chrifti nulla fcrip- ta proferamus ? Ita enim volunt, & ipfum credi ne- fcio,quid aliud feripfiffe, Jquod diligunt, nihilque fenfiffe contra Deos fuos, fed eos potius magico ri- tu coluiffe, &. Dilcipulos ejus non folum fuiffe men- titos de illo, dicendo il ium Deum per quern Om nia facta funt, cum (non) h aliud nifi quam Homo fuerit, quamvis excelkn- tiffimae fapientiaz,. verum etiam deDiis eorum non hoc docuiffe quod ab illo ' didiciffent. * I infert the Particle Non becaufe either that or ibme o- ther Word like it was certainly wrote by St. Auflin, tho' it be not in my Edition. ' but Ch.XlV.ChtiUfalftffupppos'd a Magician. 235 but if I miftake not, there is a probable Reafon at leaft to conclude them to have been different, be caufe St. Auflin fuppofes the former to havebeen Compos'd by fome impious Chriftian ; but this he could not poflibly concieve to have the fame Ori ginal. It is poffible a Chriftian fo call'd (for there were many in thofe Days little more fo than in Name ) might concieve a Magical Book, and pub- lifh it under the Name of Chrift, which is the Cafe in Refpect of the former Book, but it is im poffible a Perfon fhould take upon him the Chri ftian Name, and write a Book to prove Chrift a Worfhiper of the Idol Gods, to countenance the Heathens in their Idolatry, and to make all his Apoftles and Difeiples Impoftors and Liars, which is the Cafe with Refpect to the Book now under' - Consideration. However this be, it was certainly Apocryphal by Propofition IV. V. VI. and VIII. After reading what has been faid concerning thefe two Magical Books afcrib'd to Chrift, I hope no one will be furpris'd at the Mention of them ; nor is it ftrange, foch forg'd Accounts fhould be publifh'd, when we find that as the Jews objected to our 'Saviour himfelfj that he wrought his Miracles by the Power of Devils, Matt. xij. 24. fo both Jews and Gentiles endeavour'd to fpread the feme mali cious Lies in the firft Ages of Chriftianity. Celfus frequently makes this impious Objection, that Chrift learn' d his Magical Arts from the Egyptians, among whom he had his Education'. The fame we meet with frequently as made by others in the Writings of Eufebius^, Arnobius\ Auftinm, &V. The Jews have a trite idle Fable to the fame Pur pofe, That in the Reign of §>ueen Helena there was ' Vid. Origen. contra Celf 1. \. ' Contr- Gent. 1. i. p. if. p. 30. &1.8. p. 384. & Spen- m Loc. iupra cit. &Serm.xi. cer. Annot. in lib. 1. p. 7. in Matth. p. 38. Tom. Opp. k Contr. Hieroc. & Demonlr. 1 o. Evang. 1. 3. %6. a 23© A 'Jewifh Story concerning Chrift. PartIL a Stone in the Temple of Jerufalem, on which the Ark was formerly placed, on which was engrav'd finanrt DO i- e. the Name Jehovah, in fuch Letters that it might be read (for the Jews all hold that Name ineffable, and not to be pronounc'd.) Now the Efficacy of this Name was fuch, that who ever learn' d the Pronunciation of it, became thereby able to work all Sorts of Miracles. But the Wife Men among them, fearing left an ill Ufe fhould be made hereof \ appointed brazen Dogs to keep the Gate, which were form'd with fuch exquifite Art, that if any ftould learn the Name, and be going away with it in his Memory, they fhould be fo affrighted with the terrible Barkings of the Dogs, as to forget it • i ut that Jefus knowing this wrote it down in Parvh*- ment, and few'd it up in a Wound which he made in his Thigh for that Purpofe, and fo, after he went out of the Temple, taking forth the Parchment, re cover' d the Name again which he had forgot, and by Virtue of it wrought all jois Miracles. Such were the defpicable Objections the Jews and Heathens made againft our Saviour ; the Con futation of which in a very juft and clear Manner may be read in the fore-cited Places of Origen, Eufebius, Auflin, and efpecially Arnobius ; and a- mong the Moderns in the celebrated Huetius n, and Dr. Parker's Demonftration of the Divine Authori ty of the Chriftian Religion °. ¦ Demonftrat, Evang. Prop, IX. c. 39. ° Seta. if. Chap. Ch. XV. A Spurious Epiftle of Chrift. 237 Chap. XV. A Spurious Epiftle of Chrift among the Manichees. A notorious* Blun der of Mr. Toland. A Hymn which Chrift taught his Difeiples, forg'd by the Prifcillianifts in the fourth Century. The Occafion of the Forgery. The Spurioufnefs of the Hymn. Num. XIV. The E TI S TLE of C H R I S T produc'd by the MANICHEES. THE only Account which we have of this Letter is in St. Auflin 's Difputation with Fauftus the Manichee a. eft ergo tam de- qui hodie credat Qyis mens, effe Epiftolam Chrifti .quam protulerit Mani- chaeus, & "non credat facta vel dicta effe Chrifti quae fcripfit Matthasus ? Can any one be fo wild, as to believe that to be the Epiftle of Chrift, which M'anich But to conclude this Matter, 'tis plain by the exprefs Teftimonies of the beft Writers among the Antients, that our Lord Jefus Chrift left Nothing behind him in Writing, altho' thpre be indeed ma ny Sayings, not in our Gofpels, attributed to our Saviour, to be found in the antient Books, which for the Entertainment of the curious in thefe Things I have collected, and fhall place in an Ap pendix at the End of this Volume. Chap. Ch. XVI. The Gofpel of the Egyptians? 24 5 Chap. XVI. The Teftimonies of the Antients con cerning the Gofpel of the Egypti ans. All its Fragments : Supposed by later Writers to be written before Luke wrote his Gofpel. Too highly efteenfd by the Moderns. RejeSed by all the Antients as Apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus rejected it* It was forg'd by the Monks of Egypt. This largely prov'd, with an Account of Philo'* Therapeutae. Num. XVI. The GOSTEL according to the EGYPTIANS. IT H I S was one of the moft celebrated of all the antient Apocryphal Books; 'tis frequent ly mention'd in the old Writings, and Very highly efteem'd by feveral of our modern Criticks, being fuppos'd to have been a faithful Campofure of fome Catholick Chriftians in Egypt, before either of the four Canonical Gofpels now receiv'd. It requires therefore a very exact and critical Enquiry ; in at tempting which I Shall, according to my Method, firft produce the Teftimonies and Fragments of it, which are to be found in the antient Books, then the Opinions of the Moderns, which I have met R 2 with, 244 Fragments of the Part II.' with, concerning it, adding the moft fuitable Re marks I can upon the whole. The Antient Teftimonies and Fragments of the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. I. Hp HE. firft Writer, who has mention'd any ¦*¦ Thing of it, is Clemens Alexandrinus in the latter End of the fecond Century : The feveral Places are as follow, viz. Strom. Lib. Tn SaXoi/xn o Kv(y!& tvv- Syavojjfyiri) l^XQ} ¦as'0% 3-a- val^ tq/ujet, ov% a; xa- xx ts |3i8 ov7©», xai th? av, enriv, upiet? ai yvvcu- xsr Tiyflili. 3- ?¦ 44f- When Salome ask'd our Lord, How long Death fhould prevail ? ( Not as tho' Life were an Evil, or the Creation an Evil) he anfwer'd, As long as ye Women do bring forth Children. 'Tis not exprefly faid by Clemens here, that this Paffage was in the Gofpel of the Egyptians, but it evidently appears to be taken thence by the next Paffage a few Pages after, viz. Page Oi d^i av iflaaxojXivai *nj xlicrei Tis ©ss s1ai cAs, 01- ixou, tv tw x.a,T Atyvvrlikss EualyeXiai- (pcwi yag oil owl©' enrtv 2w1*)g, H\$-ov 4P- But thev who oppofe (the Defign) of God's Creation, by their fpe- cious Pretences to Celi bacy, cite thofe Things which our Saviour fpake to S.ilome, which I juft before mention'd. They are, I think, in the Gof pel according to the Egyp tians ; for they fay, that our Saviour himfelf faid, xofla- Ch. XVI. Gofpel of the Egyptians. xalaXvaat to. tgya tv\s &u- Ketas' GyjXeias- jjfy), tu? iiri&viAias tpya, Ji ym- ffiv xai (pOo^cv. 245 I am come to deftroy the Works of the Woman, that is, the Works of Female Cancupifcence, Generation, arid Corrup tion, .v. From what follows in Clemens it appears, that upon our Saviour's faying this, Salome ask'd him the foregoing Queftion, viz. How long it fhould be that Death fhould prevail againft Men ? and he an- fwer'd, While ye Women bring forth Children : To which in the next Page we meet with her Reply, and our Saviour's Anfwer again, Page ajjJ$Jr\s yag av%s, KaX&K cuv vnovrpa fxn Twnaa, wr s Jiovl©3 tv\s ysvsir.stsor -nta- pfKaixS 'avcfXEvnf ajxaSflou Xeywv 0 Kug|©>, Tlavav tyuyi (iolavnv, tuv o^s ¦arix.- fyav i%Mrav [xn r0. giflov, aXX' tv tci) mat A:- yuwlisr. either of the four Gof pels deliver'd to us, but in the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. This laft Paffage, with fome little Variation, is in the End of the fecond Epiftle of Clemens to the Corinthians, and will be produc'd in the Appendix at the End of this Volume. II. The Gofpel according to the Egyptians is men- rion'd by Origen*, The Church receives only four Gofpels ; the Hereticks have very many, fuch as that according to the Egyptians, 13 c. See the Paflage produc'd at large above, Num. V. c. 7. It is men tion'd in the fame Manner by Ambrofe : See the fame Place. III. 'Tis alfo mention'd by Jerome b in the Paf fage above produc'd at large, Num. IV. c. 7. in init. Many have wrote Gofpels, which gave Occafion to Herefies, without the Spirit and Grace of God, fuch as that according to the Egyptians, &c. IV. Epiphanius in his Account of the Herefy of the Sabellians faith, they eftablifh'd their erro neous Principles by the Gofpel of the Egyptians, and other Apocryphal Books. His Words are Haref. LXII. N. 2. Ke^puvlou a*t tous wacous ypq^MS vahauas ts hou xouvn? Ata9r)x»)j, Xsf sai J*t They make ufe of all the Scriptures, both of the Old and NewTeftament, " Homil. in Luc. i. 1. b Prsef. in Coram, in Matth. Ch.XVI. Gofpel of the Egyptians^ 247 but (principally) of fome certain PafTages, which they pick out according to their own corrupt and prepofterous Sentiments. — But the whole of their Errors, and the main Strength of their Hete rodoxy they have fipm fome Apocryphal Books, but principally from that which is call'd, The Gof pel of the Egyptians ; which is a Name fome have given it : For in that many Things of this Sort are propos'd in a hidden myllerious Man ner, as by our Saviour, as though he had faid to his Difeiples, That the Father was the famePer- fon, the Son the fame Perfon, and the Holy Ghoft the fame Perfon. Thefe are the Accounts we have from Anti quity of this famous Gofpel ; My fecond Propofal was, in like Manner to give fome Account of the Sentiments of more mo dern Writers concerning it. tjitiv owe at/lot sxXsyo/lau xala ty\v ic/W ai/lav ira- pynrvGroinyfyw (pgevoCXa- £ &av Ti xai avoiav T«v c\ "waaav ouflm vrXayav, nai ty\v Tu? ttrXavjif oa/lcov e^uvajjuv s^so-iv s| aTroxpu- r sv -wa- PjiSvsai /murngjtwc'W sx Tr^jcrWTrs TsScoT»)flof ava- (ptgtl'ou, cor ok/Is cfyXsvl©' toij y.aWais tov aulav a- vai Tialtfiy,, rov aSlov et- vcu tjov, tov axflov «vom «- yiov Trvb\>na. Sixtus Senenfis c. , The Gofpel of the Egyptians, or according to the Egyptians, was made ufe of by the Hereticks, cal- l Biblioth. Sana. Jib. a . p. 38. R4 led 248 Sentiments of later Part II. led Valentinians. Clemens Alexandrinus rejects (an- fwers ) certain Teftimonies cited out of it by Ju lius Caftianus, and other Hereticks, to confirm their Errors. Epiphanius fays, the Sabellians en- deavour'd to prove out of it, that the Father, Son and Spirit were one Perfon. Erafmus d. When St. Luke fays, chap. i. v. i. That many have taken in Hand to write, &c. he means thofe who attempted, but were not fuccefsful in wri ting ; for at that Time not only the Gofpels of St. Matthew and Mark were extant, but many other Gofpels were publifh'd, viz. The Gofpel of the Na zarenes, Thomas, Matthias, the Gofpel according to the Egyptians, that of the Twelve Apoftles, Nico demus, and others, which were afterwards rejected by the Church as Apocryphal. Grotius e. It is evident, that when St. Luke wrote his Gofpel, there were many other Books extant con cerning Chrift, the Importance of the Subject in fluencing many to that Undertaking : But as thefe others collected . the common Rumours, 'tis not ftrange they fhould mix true and falfe Things to gether, among whom I reckon the moft antient Writer of the Gofpel according to the Egyptians : For as to the other Gofpels which were fpread a- broad , they are the impious Fofgeries of much later Days. Mr. Du Pin{. The Antients make Mention of two Gofpels, which were not of the fame Authority with the d Annot. in Luc. c. i. v. i . f Hift. ot the Canon of the * Annot. in eund. lac.j New Teft. Vol. 2. c. 6. § 3. four Ch; XVI. Writers concerning it. 249 four Canonical Gofpels, but which cannot be re jected, as Records invented by the Hereticks to authorife their Errors, viz. the Gofpel ofthe Naza renes, and the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Father Simonz. The Fathers have fometimes made ufe of Apo-. cryphal Books, and have quoted even falfe Gof pels ; as for Example, the Gofpel that is call'd, ac cording to the Egyptians ; which yet is not on this Score alone to be reckon'd authentick, viz. be caufe it is thought to be moft antient, arid cited in Clemens Alexandrinus ; nor ought we to reject it under this Pretence alone, that the Gnofticks and Sabellians have maintain'd their Errors by this Book. Dr. Grabeh. What this learned Writer faith concerning this Gofpel is too long to be here tranfcrib'd, it may be fufficient to exprefs the Subftance of his Opinion in the following Particulars. He fuppofes, 1 . It had its Title from its firft Authors, whom the myftical Stile of the Book, fo much in Re- quell among the Egyptians, evidences to have been fome Chriftians in Egypt. 2. That this (as well as the Gofpel of the, He brews ) was publifh'd before Luke's Gofpel, and was refer'd to by him in his Preface, as being wrote be fore either of the four Canonical Gofpels. 3. That Clemens Alexandrinus did not rejebJ it, but endeavour'd rather to explain it, and make the PafTages cited out of it to appear capable of a good g Critic. Hift. of the New h Spicileg. Patr. Tom. i. Teft. Part i., c. 3. p. 28. p. 31, to p. 34. Meaning, 2 jo Sentiments of later ;l Part II. Meaning, which he would never have done, if he efteem'd it the Compofure of an Heretick. Dr. Mills. About this Time, viz. the Year of Chrift LVIII. or a little fooner, there were compos'd by the believ ing Chriftians certain Hiftorical Accounts of Chrift and his Actions, as appears from St. Luke's Pre face to his Gofpel. Thefe were compos'd, before cither of our prefent Canonical Gofpels, not with any ill Defign, but the very fame as our Gofpels now receiv'd. Among thefe the moft celebrated were, the Gofpel of the Hebrews, and the Gofpel ac cording to the Egyptians. See his Prolegom. in N. T. §.. 5f, to 38. It is probable the Authors of it were Eftenes, who receiv'd the Chriftian Faith from the Preaching of Mark at Alexandria. Nor does it feem to have been made ufe of by them' publickly, after the publifhing of our four Ca nonical Gofpels. See § y o. Mr. Le Clerc1. Several learned Men fuppofe the falfe Gofpels, viz. that according to the Hebrews, or that accord ing to the Egyptians, gave Occafion to Mark and Luke to write their Gofpels ; but inafmuch as we find no Intimations of this in our Gofpels, it feems much better to believe, that thofe holy and infpi red Men were fufficiently appris'd of the Danger of leaving fuch important Matters only to the Me mories of Men, before any fuch fpurious Gofpels were publifh'd. 'Hift. Eccl. Secul. I. Ann. LXV. § 11. p. 430. Mr. Ch.XVI. Writers concemmg it. 251 Mr. Whifton*. The Therapeuta mention'd by Philo feem to have been thofe firft Chriftians Afceticks,* which were converted from the Jews, chiefly in Egypt, foon after our Saviour's Paffion, before the coming of Mark thither, and to have both imperfectly un derftood and practis'd the Chriftian Religion. — - Eufebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, plainly take them for Chriftians, and their facred antient myfti cal Books are by Eufebius fuppos'd to be the Gof pels and Epiftles of the New Teftament J. The mo dern Criticks are entirely puzzled about thefe The- rapeuta, and yet are not willing commonly to be lieve them Chriftians. And indeed Eufiebius's Opi nion, that their antient allegorical Books were our Gofpels and Epiftles, is liable to great Exceptions, Since they%re not allegorical in their Nature, nor were they publifh'd any confiderable Time before Philo's own Writings ; fo that upon the whole, I believe, 'tis more reafonable to fay, thefe Thera- peuta were thofe firft Chriftians Afceticks, who had gotten very imperfect Accounts of Chriftiariity, and were guided by the Gofpel acording to the Egyp tians, which we know by the Fragments remain ing was a Gofpel fufficiently myftical and allegori cal, according to the Genius of that Nation. These are the Sentiments of the Criticks in later Ages concerning this Gofpel. I have now only left to make fome Reflections upon the whole. Accordingly I obferve ; Ob -s. 1. That the Gofpel of the Egyptians was certainly an Apocryphal Book. This appears, 1 . by Prop. IV. // not being found in any of the an- *¦ Effay on the Conftitut. c. i." ' Hift. Eccief. L. s. c. 17. p. 37. ' p. n, &c- 1 tient 2 5 2 The Egyptians Gofpel Apocryphal. Part II. tient Catalogues of facred Writings*; z. by Prop. V. as 'tis net cited in any of the old Records of Chri ftianity, but rejected as Apocryphal by Clemens A- lexandrinus, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanius, who are the only Fathers who have mention'd the Name of it. This is evident as to the three laft, and may be eafily collected from the PafTages of Cle mens above cited, as I Shall undeniably Shew pre fently i 3- By Prop. VI. it not appearing even to have been read in the Chriftian Affemblies. 4. By Prop. VIII. as it contain'd Things contrary to known1. Truths. Of this Sort I believe every one will rea dily allow the Doblrine of the Unlawfulnefs of all Marriages, which, 'tis certain from the PafTages of Clemens, this Gofpel afferted. Of this Sort- muft needs be our Saviour's declaring, he came into the World to put an End to all Marriage, i. e. in Effect to the Race of Mankind ; which 'tis plain, by the whole of Clemens's arguing, as well as by the Paffage it felf, was declar'd as Spoken by Chrift in this Gofpel. Laftly, of this Sort Epiphanius-. reckon'd the Sabellian Herefy, which was evident ly contain'd therein ; but from hence I conclude Nothing, it being at this Day defended by fome : But a moft undoubted Inftance of Falfhood is, that Salome in this Gofpel is introduc'd, as applauding herfelf for having born no Children (fee the Place above out of Clem. Alexand. p. 4f 3.) whereas it is certain, that Salome was the Wife of Zebedee, and the Mother of James and John, two of our Lord's.. Apoftles ; for fhe, who is by Matthew call'd the Mother of Zebedee'* Children, c. xxvii. f 6. is by Mark, c. xv. 40. exprefly call'd Salome : That thefe Children were John and James, appears from Malt. iv. 21. x. 2. and many other Places, f. It Was evidently Apocryphal by Prop. XI. feeing it relates thofe Things as fpoken by Chrift, which are direfitly oppofite to his known Style and Manner of Speaking ; for whereas that was perfectly clear, ^eafy, Ch.XVI. Not cited by Clemens. 253 eafy, and familiar, the Sayings here attributed to him are each of them myftical, involv'd and per plex' d, and more like the foolifh ambiguous An- fwers of the Delphick Oracles, than the rational and plain Difcourfes of Jefus Chrift. To inftance only in one, when Salome ask'd him, When the Things. '¦which fhe enquir'd about fhould come to pafs ? He is made to anfwer, When you fhall tread under Foot (or defpife) the Covering of your Nakednefs, and when two fhall become one,' and the Male with the Female neither Male nor Female. It feems therefore very unaccountable, that the Authors above-mention'd, viz. Grotius, Du Pin, Father Simon, and Dr. Grabe, fhould have thought fe highly of this Gofpel, and reckon it of a different Sort from the Books of Hereticks, and not to be refecled. I leave it to the Reader, after what is now faid, to judge, whether the five Arguments I have offer'd to prove it Apocryphal, don't alfo evidence it to have been the Compofure of fome monftrous and filly Hereticks, as Origen and Je rome exprefly fay, and confequently to be rejected as an impious and ridiculous Forgery. O b s. II. Clemens Alexandrinus never faw the Gofpel of the Egyptians, never made one Citation out of it, but on the contrary refecled it as an Impious, Heretical, and Apocryphal Book. This Obfervation is of very confiderable Im portance in this Matter, becaufe the Want of it induc'd the learned Criticks juft nam'd irito their erroneous and too high Opinion of this Gofpel. They imagin'd, it was appeal'd to and made ufe ot by Clemens Romanus and Clemens Alexandrinus in their Writings, and therefore concluded, it ought not to be meanly thought of. It is cited by St. Clemens of Alexandria, ( faith Du Pin m ) Clemens m Hiftor. of the Cinon ofthe New Teft. Vol. %. c.6. § 3. 1 Ro- j 5 4 The Egyptians Gofpel Part II. Romanus, (faith Dr. Grabe*) or whoever was the Author of the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, un-i doubtedly moft antient, made ufe of it. And again, Clemens Alexandrinus doth not rejeSlHt, but fe far approve of it, as to endeavour to explain its myftical and obfcure Paffages. But as I Shall hereafter prove abundantly, that Clemens of Rome never made any Appeal to this Apocryphal Gofpel ( viz. in the Appendix ) fo I fhall endeavour here to prove the Same of Clemens of Alexandria. My Obfervation confifts of three Parts: viz. that he never fiaw it, nor cited it, but rejected it. I fhall endeavour1 to prove the Truth of each feparately. I . Clemens Alexandrinus never faw the Gofpel ac* cording to the Egyptians. This I gather from what himfelf fays in the fecond Teftimony, viz. p. 4^2. above produc'd ; ^sgslax <^s, eijuou, sv tu xaT Atyinr- Tisr EuafysXiO), (pasi yag oil at/]©' «7rsv S&flnj, &c. Thefe Things (viz. the Difcourles between Chrift and Salome) are, As I suppose, to be found in the Gofpel according to the Egyptians ; for, they fay, that our Saviour faid, occ. From whence it is plain, that he was uncertain in what Gofpel thefe Difcourfes were, elfe he would not have faid, / fuppofe, they are therein. Had he read the Gof pel, or ever feen it, be#could not have been in this doubting Uncertainty. Befides, from the next Words 'tis evident, he only cites by Tradition from others, They fay, that our Saviour faid theft Things ; which implies his own Dubioufnefs and Ignorance in the Matter. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus never cited or appealed to this Gofpel. This indeed does neceffarily follow from the former Head, but will more clearly ap pear, if we confider, that all the feveral Frag ments of ir, that are extant in Clemens, were, pro- ' Spicileg. Patr. T. 1. p. 34, duc'd Ch. XVI. not appeal 'd to by Clemens. 255 duc'd by the Hereticks, againft whom he is difiputing, not by him, as will appear by a bare reading the Places cited : So the firft Paflage, p. 445*. he pre mises tnrefla xat efyarge-nrrsov ai/lsr rat, wir mflwi qigyfxwa efWXuovlar a>^e tto)?, t») ZaXtt/xyj o Kug/©», &c. Now, I muft overthrow and confute the Things urg'd or cited by Them out of the Gofpel of the Egyp* tians, See. So likewife in the next Paflage, p. 4yz. Ot 0% avlflaayofjavot rt\ tCliset ts ©es — xaxava Xe- yscri Ta ir^s SaXa/itjv agnjm^ua, ) IlauX©' \tyu ; and TertuUian expounds the Paffage in Timo thy % The Apoftle, fays he, writes againft them who forbad Marriage, 8cc. But befides the Apoftle's mentioning this, we find it in the Writings ofthe firft Fathers continually fo ; in the Epiftle under the Name of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, we read, If any one call lawful Marriage and the be getting of Children Corruption and Pollution, or think any Sort of Food abominable, fuch Perfon has the Apoftate Dragon dwelling within him1: Tho' tis obfervable, that in another Part of that Same E- piftle f, the Author gives no fmall Encomium to the Fir gins in the Church of Philadelphia, who were like Elijah, Joftma, Melchifedeck, Eliftni, Jeremi ah, John Baptift, Timothy, Titus, Euodius and Clement, who liv'd all their Days in Celibacy. Irenaus, in his Account of the Herefy and Fol lowers of Satuminus, tells us, it was their Op£ nion, that Marrying and begetting Children was firm the Devil, that they abftain' d from living Creatures^ and by their pretended Sanblity and Abftemioufnefs i»* due'd many to follow them t. The fame he affer# was the Doctrine of the Encratites1', who fprang from Marcion, and Satuminus of Tatian, and his Followers w. TertuUian affirms the fame of Mar cion often x. Clemens Alexandrinus has wrote a Whole Book againft this Doctrine of the Marat* * P. 447. See alfo p. 461. * Ibid, c 30. q De Monogam. c. 1 $•. » Ibid. c. 3 1. 'P. 101 . Edit. Uffer. Oxon. ' Lib. I. adv. Marcion. c. 19. p- 97. 98. & 1. ,-. adv. eund. c. 7 . ' Adv. Hxref. L, 1 . c. 2 z. mta Ch. XVI. a ¦ prevailing T>ot~lrine. 259 sites and Gnofticks, viz. that in which, the Gofpel of the Egyptians is mention'd. In Short, we find this Doctrine profefs'd not only by the foremen^ tion'd, but the Manichees y, Apoftolicks or Apo- tablicksz, Origenians a, and moft of the Hereticks of thofe primitive Times of the Church. I will only add, that in the fpurious Book, call'd The Confutations of the Apoftles, there is alfo frequent Mention of this Doctrine b ; all which laid toge ther will fufficiently Confirm the Truth of my Ob fervation, that there were in the Infancy of Chrifti anity many Perfons call'd Chriftians, who denied the Lawfulnefs of Marriage. Secondly, Thefe Heretical Opinions prevail' d in a very remarkable Degree in Egypt. This I gather 1. From the common Opinion of the< Antients, that the Therapeuta or Eftenes ( for it cannot be reafonably doubted^ but they were the fame Per fons ) of whom and their Opinions Philo has wrote a whole Book, were no vther than feme imperfebl' Chriftians. Eufebius has largely attempted the Proof of this, and that 'by no contemptible Ar guments c. He firft pofkively afferts, that after St. Mark had preach'd up and down in Egypt, and even planted Churches in the City of Alexandria, there were immediately a great Number of Converts who enter' d upon a rigid abftemious Life. This I take as a Fact moft certain, becaufe it is by him fo pofitively afferted, 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 Eftenes in Egypt, and their various Sentiments, endeavouring to Shew, they were no other than Chriftians, and that their antient facred Books were the Prophets of the Old y Epiph.Haa-ef. 66. " See Lib. cf,-Grdflr\s (the Name by which Philo calls them) i. e. a Saviour, or Phyfician. Whether thefe Ety mologies are right, I need not difpute : Fuller, Serrarius and Scaliger, have difputed it fufficient ly s : The Fact I contend for is fufficiently plain, that Epiphanius thought thefe Eftenes at Alexan dria to have been the firft Chriftians there. I might here farther add the Judgment of other antient Writers to the fame Purpofe, as Cedrenus, Sozo- men, Nicephorus, &c. but it is needlefs in fo evi dent a Cafe. It has indeed been very much de bated, whether their Opinion in this Matter be right, or no ? viz. whether the Effenes in Egypt were Chriftians, or not ? Scaliger h, Fuller \ God win*, Valefius\ Le Clerc m, and generally all the Proteftants, have rejected the Authority of the Fathers in this Point, and believe Philo's Eftenes were not Chriftians ; on the other Hand, they of the Roman Church generally hold the affirmative, fuch as Bellarmine*, Serrarius, who has wrote ve ry largely about it °, and lately the learned Morlt- fauconv. I will not here enter into fo large a Dif pute ; for my own Part I believe neither of the contending Parties perfectly in the right, nor their Arguments on either Side conclufive. I Shall only deliver my own Conjecture concerning the Mat ter, which I think my felf able, when there is Oc cafion, to fupport by good Arguments : What I * Vid. Serrar. Trihseref. L. 3 . c. 1 2. in fine. c. 1. p. 1 08. & Scaliger. Elench. ' In Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 2. Trihasref- c. 16. p. 461. Fuller c. 17. Mifcell. Sac. L. 1. c. 3. L.2. m Prolegom. in Hift. Eccl. c. 3 . & L. 4. c. 3. Sect. I. c. f. p. 28. * Prolegom. in Lib. de E- " Vid. Serrar. Trihseref. L. 3. mend. Temp. §c Lib. 6. c. 17. ¦ Locis jam citat. ° Ibid. &c. * Motes, and Aaron. Lib. 1 . f Vid. Cleric. Loc. cit. S 3 mean 262 A great Agreement 'between the Part II. mean is a Sort of compounding the Matter thus, viz. i. That when Philo wrote foon after our Savi our's Rcfurrection, there were a great Number of Jewifh Effenes at Alexandria, and though at that Time Chriftianity was not yet Spread in Egypt, (and fo Philo could not mention the Name of Chrift or his Apoftles) yet foon afterwards it was very much receiv'd in Alexandria. 2. That tbe Jews were generally the firft Con verts that were made to Chriftianity, in every Place where the Apoftles went. This has been al ready prov'd above 9. 3. The Principles of the Effenes there were fuch as would be likely to influence them above all 0- thers to become Chriftians. This is plain out of Philo, v efpecially if we fuppofe there were any of the Gnofiicks, or Difeiples of Satuminus, or their Followers, in Egypt, as we know Simon Magus, was, from whom they arofe. 4. It feems therefore probable, that fame of thefe receiv'd Chriftianity, and at the fame Time continued in their old Way of living abftemioufly. Who can prove, fays a late Writer1, that no Effenes embraced the Faith of Chrift, or that they could not do it, and yet retain their old Sentiments concerning Meats and Marriage ? f . Hence Eufebius knowing certainly there were feme fuch Sort of Chriftians in Egypt, might eafily be induc'd to believe, they were generaUy of the fame Sort, and confequently the fame of whom Philo wrote. But if after all, Eufebius Should not be in the right, nor the Fathers that followed him, nor my Conjecture be juft, it muft at leaft be certain, there was a very great Agreement between thefe Egyptian Therapeut* or Effenes, and the firfl Chriftians in Egypt, in their Cuftoms, and fo it 1 Part ?.c.a. 'Dr. y/Utby on 1 Tim. iv, 3 . Ch.XVI.EfTeries WEgyptianG&r$/<*».f,&c. 263 only remains neceflary to give fome Inftances of this. I need only mention one for my prefent Pur pofe, viz. that relating to their forbidding Mar riage ; and as I have abundantly prov'd this of the moft antient Hereticks, fo to Shew the fame of thefe Eftenes, or Therapeuta. Jofephus relates this concerning them in feveral Places {, ( tho' he indeed mentions a Sort of them that did marry) fo alfo did Pliny? and Philo feveral Times v. Concerning the Celibacy of the Egyptian Therapeuta, I fhall only recite one PaSTage out of his Book, De Vitd Contemplative, p. 8pp. SvviTiuvleu xeu ywtuxts, mv -arXecs-fltt yt^e/iiai •sra^- %ivoi Tnvayvaav, sx avaXm, xaflaTTEf max twv irac'EK- Juktiv ispawv, cPiaty vka%a- ccu fxaXXov, *i xa8' sxscri- cv yva)|x»]v, ] co/aCjsv asnttPacraaciu, twv trig) o-w/jta nc^ovwv nXoyq- cav, s flvifluv sxyovcov, «XX' a&avdlm o^f^ucon, Sec. Women alfo are admit ted to their Feafts, moft of which are Old Vir gins, who preferv'd their Virginity not by Com- pulfion (as fome facred ones among the Hea then) but of their own Accord, thro' their zea lous Defire of Wifdom, in the conftant Purfuit of which, thro' their whole Lives, they defpis'd all carnal Enjoyments, not defiring mortal and pe- rifhing Children, but thofe which are immor- ital. It appears therefore from the antient Opinion of the Egyptian Therapeute, that there were the fame Heretical Doctrines of the Unlawfulnefs of rAntiqu. Jud. L. 18. c. 2. & de Bell. Jud. L. 2. c. i». ; Natural. Hift. If. c. 17, 0 See Serrarius's Collections of their Dogmata. S4 Mar- 2 64 " Monks originally from Egypt. Part II. Marriage among the Chriftians in Egypt, as in o- ther Countries. 2. This farther appears probable from this Con sideration, viz. That Monafteries and the Monkifb Way of Life derive their firft Original from Egypt. It is not at all ftrange, that an -Abftemioufhefs, fo great as that of the firft Chriftians in Egypt, above defcrib'd, fhould influence many zealous Perfons to the like Practices, iind that thefe by Degrees Should add many other Things of the fame Na ture. Serrarius makes no doubt but they were the firft Beginners of1 the Monaftick Life; it is enough to my Purpofe to obferve, that the firft certain Evidences of this werein Egypt, in : the latter End of the fecond, or Beginning of the third Century, This Jerome tells usw ; // has been often a ^ueftim, 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 j- which is in Part true, for he was not fo much the firfl in this Way of Life, as the Means of propagating it ; for Amathas and Macarius, two Difeiples of Antonius, affirm, that one Paul of Thebais (in Egypt) was the chief Author of this Matter, which I alfo af fent to. Sozomenx follows rjie common Opinion, and deduces it from Antonius, but he alfo liv'd in Egypt ; but in a Thing fo well known I need pro duce no. more Authorities. An Account of their way of Living, and the Means that Paul and An tonius promoted it, may be read in the Places al ready cited, and the Writers of Ecclefiaftical Hi ftory in the third Century y. Now hence I argue it as probable, that the Egyptian Christians were w In Vit. Paul. Ere'mit. Par. L. 6. c. 29, ¦$. Tract, 8. de yit. contem. * See efpecially Spanheim. Epift. 37- Hiftor. Eccl. Secul. III. p. 802. * Hiftor. Eccl. L. 1. c. ii. 5c • r ??T Ch. XVI. The "Defign of this Goftel z6$ remarkable above others for their Abftemioufhefs, in the Time before this Paul; elfe it is not likely he Should have inftuenc'd fuch great Numbers as he did, in fo Short a Time, to become his Follow ers. 3. Perhaps it may not be abfurd to argue the fame from the Defign of the Third Book of Ck> mens Alexandrinus'* Stromata, which is principally to confute thofie Hereticks, who denied the Lawfulnefs of entring into a conjugal State. For inafmuch as we do not find this Argument infilled upon fo largely by any of the Writers of his or the pre ceding Century, it feems reafonable to conclude thefe Hereticks prevail'd molt in that Country and Place where he liv'd. This was Alexandria, the very Place where Philo liv'd, and where his Thera- peuta were in the greateft Numbers. They abound, fays he z, moft in the Provinces of Egypt, but efpe cially about Alexandria. Thirdly, The remaining Fragments of the Gofpel according to the Egyptians are all fuch as were urg'd out of it by thofe who held Marriages and. Procreation of Children finful, in order to countenance their Er rors in this Refpebl. This is evident from the Paf fages themfelves, and what has been abovefaid con cerning them. For Inftance, The Gofpel ofthe Egyp tians makes Chrift to approve Celibacy and a fingle Life: The Egyptian Chriftians forbad all Marriages as unlawful ; in the Gofpel of the Egyptians, Sa lome is introduc'd, as concluding from what our Sa viour faid, that fhe 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 Reafon affigned againft I De Vit, Contemplat. p. 802. bearing z6<> Not known'till the fourth Century. Part II. bearing Children, that they fhould nor be brought to Trouble and Death ? fo Philo fays his Ther a-, peutte, who were the Source and Pattern of thefe Egyptian Chriftians, defired not to bear Children, which fhould perifh and die, &c. I omit making the Parallel between the old Chriftian Hereticks and Philo's Therapeuta, in o- ther Inftances of their AbflemioufneSs, viz. their avoiding certain Sorts of Meats, tfjc. becaufe we have no Account of it in the remaining Fragments. of the Egyptian Gofpel, tho' I could eafily Shew, there was fuch Agreement. ; Laying therefore all thefe Things together, and judging with a due Impartiality, I think there is as- much Evidence as the Nature of the Subject will allow, that the Gofpel of the Egyptians was the forg'd Compofure of fome imperfect Chrifti ans in Egypt, with Defign the better to recom mend their plaufible Doctrines of Celibacy and Abftemioufnefs under the Names of Chrift and his Apoftles ; eafily percieving, that whatever was publifh'd under fo great Names would be more likely to imprefs and influence the Minds ofthe People. , I have only farther to add, that the foregoing Account feems to receive fome Strength from the Consideration of the Gofpel of the Egyptians, not being cited, nor even mention'd or known by any Chriftians before the very End of the fourth Cen tury, 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, becaufe it has been judg'd by many learned Men not only a moft antient, but valuable Gofpel, made ufe of by true Primitive Chriftians, and not by Hereticks ; but with what Juftice, let the Reader now judge. C HA P. Ch.XVII. TheABsoftheEbibmtcs. 267 Chap. XVII. The ABs of the Apoftles made ufe of by the Ebionites. A Fragment of them, Mr. Toland'5 unfair Dealing een- fufd. The Gofpel of the Ebionites. Num. XVII. . The ACTS of the APOSTLES re- ceiv'd by the EBIONITES. ALthough we have very frequent Mention in the antient Writers of fpurious Acts under the Apoftles • Names, yet I don't remember that any Writer has either mention'd this, or hinted at any fuch Things as it contain'd, befides Epi phanius. His Account we have Herefi. 30. N. 161 viz. After having feid, the Ebionites make ufe of the fame Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, which alfo Cerinthus and Carpocras did ufe, as alfo tbe Ails of Peter written by Clemens, he adds rigjtijHr irt aXXfl? xaXs- tfv AttdsoXwv hvou, sv CUS ¦wiXXa -mr atrtG&as atflw tiA-Bt'kia, sv&ev t« s T«peg- yoflr xafla Tn?aX«&et«? *av~ tsj- coTrXierotv. Av-xj3s x^fla T£ TS V(ZS %ai tuv Qvataiv, nala ts ts yrvposTXiV tco (Wio-tIh^co, %ai aXXa TroXXa xsvoipa>- viar s/jixXsa'cor xat ts TJav- Xs e/Wfla xalnyops/ltr 8** cu -/xn'lf©', xac eXX«- *"©* 'Ktflp©', avaf&tGriMVou ePt «r Is^oo-oXu/na xat ypQ- 11011 ex« jotsju^wixevou, etti- TE^u/jtnxsvou .o\ Suy«T«^j6 ts Iegecor trpjr yajxov ay a- y-itSrca, xoutsTs svsxa Trpo- «r»)Xi/]ev ysvEcSrat xou -zts- Part II. have there forg'd certain Stepc,and certain Speech es of James in each of them, in which he de clares againft the Tem ple and Sacrifices, and the Fire on the Altar, be fides many other Things, perfectly filly and ridi culous : For Inftance, they had the Impudence to accufe Payl- therein, by fome falfe* Stories forg'd by the Wicked- nefs and Deceit of their pretended Apoftles : For calling him a Man of Tarfus ( which he him felf is fo for from deny ing, that he exprefly owns it ) they falfly re- prefent him as a Gentile, concluding fo from that Place, where he truly fays, lam a Man of 'Tar fus, and a Citizen of no mean City. ( See Abls xxi. 3P.) Furthermore, they fay, he was a Gentile, and of Gentile Parentage on both Sides, and that when he went up to Je rufalem, and had Staid there fome Time, he had an Inclination to mar ry the (High) Prieft's Daughter, and on that Account became a Pro- felyte, and was circum- Ch.XVII. Mr.Tohad's unfair 1)e.aling. 269 g/l/xvnS-Tivac. EiTa |un Xa- (iovla xognv wgyi<£rac, xeu x«1« -nrs^TOfjinr yey^jicps- vat, xcm xala ts a-aSSala, xat vo/.to^£cnar. cis'd. But being disap pointed, and not obtain ing the young Lady, he was angry, and wrote a- gainft Circumcifion, and the Sabbath, and the Law (of Mofies). Part of thi* Fragment is produc'd by Mr. To land in his Original Plan or Scheme of Chriftianity according to the Ebionites y, both in Greek and En- glifh ; nor is it ftrange that a Perfon of Mr. To- landts Profession Should grace his Scheme with a Paflage fo much to. his Purpofe, I mean, of abo lishing the Doctrines of Chriftianity, which are agreed upon by all Chriftians, and introducing his moft ridiculous and impious Scheme of Nazarene, or Jewifh, or Ebionite, or Mahometan, or (which is the undoubted Truth) of no Chriftianity at all. Did Mr. Toland and his Friends in thefe their vile Attacks upon fo excellent and divine a Constitu tion not quibble and juggle, and prevaricate, as they upon all Occafions do, in their Citations out of the old Records of Chriftianity (,a Crime which they are ever forward to charge upon o- thers, who are much more clear of it) 1 fhould excufe myfelf and the Reader from the Trouble of any Remarks upon them, leaving them to their flavifh Infidelity : But when I obferve a [Perfon ranfacking and muttering together all the filly Trumpery of the antient Hereticks, grofly mifre- prefenting the Books he cites, only with Defign to fatisfy a bigotted Humour againft the Chriftian Religion, I am oblig'd, by my Regards to the Profeffion I make of the Name of Jefus, to lay open fuch vile Impofture. Of this I have given feveral Inftances already from Mr. Toland's Books.. ' Nazaren, p. jf. The 270 Mr. TolandV unfair 'Dealing. Part II. The Paffage I am now upon out of Epiphanius furnifhes me with another. He would perfuade us, the Ebionites or Nazarenes (a moft ridiculous Sort of Hereticks, who fcarcely deferv'd the Name of Chriftians, as I fhall Shew hereafter) were the only true and genuine Chriftians, confequently their Books muft be the trueft and moft genuine Accounts of the Chriftian Affairs ; and fo tor Inftance mutt thefe Acts, which we are now difcuffing ; becaufe it fo much vilifies St. Paul, and expofes his Doc trine. But as Dr. Mangey^ has juftly remark'd, This is moft infupportable Impudence in him to cite as genuine a wretched Forgery of the Ebionites. One can fcarce tell, whether his Intention of vilifying St: Paul, or the Method he ufeth to do fo, be the more deteltable : This forry unbelieving Critick governs his Skill by his wicked Principles, and has no other Way to judge of fpurious and genuine Books than their Oppofition to Chriftianity. Had this learned Writer examin'd the Paffage in Epi phanius, I doubt not, he, would have remark'd more of Mr. Toland's Infincerity in this Matter ; for that Father, who is the only Perfon that has mention'd this Apocryphal Book, does almoft in every Sentence reject it as a grofs and notorious Forgery. Hence we meet with the Words woXXa ews^Har ta-nfKta, utzroTiSsvlott, 7roXXa r.tvo^miat tix-ar\ta, sx oup/uvovIcu varnrhasois tici twv •LAxPx- wosroXcov xaxsgyiar, xat •arXavrts Xcyois ¦msiroinpfyjctti &c. which are all to this Purpofe ; that thefe Acls ofthe Ebionites were full of impious Opinions, forg'd, filly and ridiculous, counterfeited by the Impofture and Wickednefs of falfe Apoftles, &c. But all this Mr. Toland faw it proper to fupprefs. To have tran- fcrib'd Epiphanius's Account of the Book, he was well aware, would have fpoil'd the Credit of it, feeing he is the only Writer, as I feid, who has I Remarks on Nazarcn. c. jo* p. 83. men- Ch.XVII. The Ebionites ABs Apocryphal. 271 mention'd it ; befides, it would have fpoil'd his own Book, and fo have touch'd him in the tender Point of Intereft, if he had publifh'd this Judg ment of Epiphanius concerning the Ebionites and their Books. Tho' therefore his Defign againft Chriftianity be fo notorious, and his Method of executing it fo unfair, yet the Violence of the Temptation was great. But I leave him. Thefe Acts ofthe Ebionites were certainly Apo cryphal, being 1 . never heard of, nor read, nor re ceiv'd by any but thofe falfe Sort of Half, Chriftians, call'd Ebionites. Prop. IV. V- and VI. 2. It ap pears to have contain'd Things contrary to known and certain Truths. Such is the Reafon there given for Paul's Preaching againft Justification by the Go remonial Law, viz. his being exafiperated againft the Jews on Account of his Difappointment in a Mar* riage with the High Prieft's Daughter ; for if this be true, then the whole of Paul's Doctrine muft be falfe, as not proceeding from God, but from the revengeful Humour and Rage of a disappoint ed Lover. But this is contrary to the Substance of Chriftianity, which has been prov'd to be true, by- Prop. II. Coroll. 2. and the Book therefore A- pocryphal by Prop. VIII. and Corofl. Again, tho' I have not indeed yet prov'd the Truth of our Canon, yet what I have laid Prop. II. is fuffi cient to give a Credit to it fuperiour to this fpu rious Piece ; and if fo, 'tis certainly Apocryphal, becaufe it contradicts feveral Things therein, viz. When it ajferts Paul to be of Gentile Parentage, both in Refpect of Father and Mother, when as him felf exprefly declares the contrary more than once. So Acts xxiii. 6. I am a Pharifee, the Son pf a Pharifee. Rom. xi. 1. I am an Ifraelite, of the Seed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin. 2 Cor. xi. 22. Are they Hebrews ? fib am I : Are they Israe lites? fib am I : Are they the Seed of Abraham ? fo am I. And once more, more fully ; Phil. iii. y . / was 272 The Gofpel of the Ebidnites. Part II; was circumcis'd the eighth Day, ofthe Stock of Ifra el, of the Tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews ; which laft Words are a full Demon stration that his Parents were both Jews,' as Mr. Selden c has well prov'd, and the Greek Constructi on will moft properly beard. And this willlead me to another Inftance ofthe Spurioufnefs of thefe Acts, viz. that they reprefent Paul as becoming a Profelyte, and being circumcis'd on Account of ob taining the Prieft's Daughter, when as he was cir cumcis'd the eighth Day, and confequently never was a Jewifh Profelyte. Num. XVIII. The GOSTEL of the EBIONITES. 'T^HIS appears evidently to have been either --*¦ altogether, or very near, the fame with the Gofpel of the Nazarenes ; and therefore I Shall re fer the difcuffing it to its proper Place under the Letter N. where I Shall diftinctly confider its Va riations from, or Agreement with, the famous' Hebrew Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and produce all its Fragments. € De Jur. Natur. & Gentium, ficuntem /3aw»;u aifln cy\- IxaTa, aXXa Ta j.i)jp yt- Xafli wzTrornpfyja, sts£« c/*e xXau8/jis EfATsrXEa, oJ/cor ig twv a-nrafl scovcov ysyovs xafla vavla tpq-utov, T»r xaxiar YI ViroffuroQ^,' o^avlcu c^s a-nro /xoigaw /magrlug/eov, x" xat 07rs fav «r, syco sxet ajoti, xai sv a- •sracnv ei/xi scTTF-tip^o^- xai o&iv lav S-sXnr cruXXs- ysr fxs, 'sjxs c^s auXXeycoy saiflov cruXXsyar' 2-75 Serpent, they propagate their Principles, IJut as the Difeourfes of a Per fon in Drink, pretend ing to give Advice, are according to his giddy Fancy, not equal, but fome of them merry, o- thers melancholy, fo are the wicked Principles of thefe Impoftors. For they are led away with certain ridiculous Tefti monies and Vifions , which are in that Gof pel which they make; ufe of : They produce fuch as the following ; " / "- flood upon a high Moun- " tain, and faw one Man " very tall, and another " fhort (or lame.) And I " heard a Voice, as it " were, of a Thunder, " upon which I went " nearer to hear, and he " fipake to me, faying, I " am what thou art, and " thou art what I am, " (and again) I am what " thou art, and thou art " what I am; and where " thou art, there ant I, " and I am in all Places " and Things. And where- " foever thou wilt, thou " fh alt find ('gather) me, " and in finding me thou " findeft 'thy felf. " Be- T 2 XfW 276 ' The Gofpel of Est. Part II. xat co T/ir ts AiafcXs j hold, the Doctrine of e^iacrra-eeas ! | Devils ! I find no farther Account of this fpurious Gof pel among the Aritients, nor indeed is there need of any more to prove it both Apocryphal and a filly Forgery, as Father Simons and Mr. L>U Pin11 have already obferv'd. The Worlds of the for mer are, So^ie of this fame Seel (viz. the Gnofticks) that was divided into feveral Branches, had invented a Gofpel entituVd, EuafyeXiov Euar, The Gofpel, of Eve, wherein they featter'd their wild~ Conceits un der the Name of this Woman, whom tbey conftder'd as a per feci Gnoftick, who had received great Illu minations in the Conference that fhe held with tbe Serpent. Mr. Du Pin exprelfes himfelf thus con cerning it, The Gnofticks; had likewife another Gof pel, more infamous than the former ( viz. The Gof pel of St. Philip) which they call'd, The Gofpel of Eve, giving out, that from her they held the Name of rvwo-ir., which fie had learnt from the Ser pent. In which laft Words either Mr. Du Pin is, mistaken, or his Englifh Tranflator has mifrepre- fented him, which feems very probable both here and in many other Places of the Englifh Editions of thofe two Wtiters. From the foregoing^ Frag ment of this Gofpel out of Epiphanius it is evi dent, how juftly thefe French Criticks pronoune'd it Apocryphal : It appears plainly to be fuch by Prop. IV V. and VI. as alfo by Prop. IX. */ containing Things trifling and ridiculous, and plainly forg'd to ferve the Turn of thofe filly Hereticks, who fo much troubled the Church in the fecond Century. Nothing therefore can be more ridicu lous, than that Mr. Toland1 fhould, to grace his « Critic. Hiftor. of the New II. c. 6. § j. p. u6. Teftam. Par. i. c. 3. p. 13. \ Amyntor p. 33. h Hiftor. of the Canon. Vol. Cata- Ch. XVIII. A Forgery of the Gnofticks. 277 Catalogue of Books, which he would have re ceiv'd with the fame Authority as thofe of the {>refent Canon, place this among them, in the fol- owing pompous Words, Nor fhould we wonder at Judas'* being an Author, when we read of the Pro phetical Gofpel of Eve, whom the Gnofticks rec kon' d a Patronefs if their Opinions, &c. For nei ther does the 'Book appear to have contain'd any Thing which ^ook'd like Prophecy, nor did the Gnofticks themfelves pretend that Eve was its Au thor. T3 Chap. 278 The Gofpel of ^Hebrews. Part II. ,,n ;rV: . C H A P. XIX. The Gofpel of the Hebrews, The Book of the Helkefaites, probably a For gery of Elxai. Two Fragments of it. The Gofpels of Hefychius no other than ours interpolated. H. Num. XXI. The GOSTEL according to ~ the HEBREWS. ^"1HIS was without all Controversy the fame •viith'- the Gofpel according, to vhel Nazarenes ; I Shall therefore confider '.it utfder that Tide in the Letter N. Num. XXII. The BOOK ofthe HELKESAITES. TN the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books pro- •*¦ due'd Part I. I produc'd this Book as men tion'd by Eufebius ; which tho' indeed it be tme, yet it fhould rather have been recited among thofe tirhicn are mention'd liy Origen ; for Eufebius in the Place there cited takes his Account out of his Homily on the LXXXlI.Plalm •*; his Words are, (fpeaking concerning theHereticks caW'dHelkefaites) ' Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 6. c. 38, Ch. XIX. The Book ofthe Helkefaites. 279 Befides, they produce a certain Book, which they affirm to have fallen down from Heaven ; which Kat (SiCXov Ttva (psjscnv, »jv Xsysaiv e| s^avs xala- ¦nrsTrlcoxsvat' xai tov axn- xoola sxavnr xat Tris-ttiovla, acfscriv Xn-^/s^-at tcov a/*«£- T»i/jia^v,aXX»rv aipscriv 7rag' i)v Xg/s"©' Iiio-sr a(p»]xs. they who obferve and believe Shall obtain the Pardon of their Sins ; a Pardon different from that which Jefus Chrift beftow'd. Thefe Helkefaites were a moft ridiculous Sect of Chriftians, who feem to have deriv'd their Name from Elxai, or Elxaus (who liv'd in the Time of Trajan, viz. about the Year of Chrift, CXIV.) a falfe Prophet, who, according to Epiphanius, join'd himfelf with the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and form'd a Sect, entertaining the fame Principles with the Eft'enians and Sampfaans^. 1 Epiphanius fays, they were neither Jews, nor Chriftians, nor Heathens, but a Sort of Medley of each. Then- Principles are fo ridiculous, as not to deferve tran scribing ; Origen in the Place cited fuppofes them to have arofe not long before his Time ; and adds, they rejected fome Things of every Part of Scrip ture, but allow'd none of Paul's Writings. As to this Book, I doubt not, but it was the very feme of which Epiphanius fpeaks, that was writ ten by Elxai, becaufe, as he fays, it pretended to Infpiration, and Wifdom from God, Suvsyga-^/alo iSifXiov cfy&sv xala ir^y^nreiav, n car x«la tv&sov o-ofpiav. It appears to have contain'd a Sort of Syftem of his fhufling and foolifh Doctrines : I fhall only inftance in thofe which regarded our Saviour and the Holy Ghoft; by which it is eafie to judge of the whole Comppfure. * Confer. Hseref. 19. 01^3. T 4 Con- I so The Book ofthe Helkefaites. fart II. Concerning Chrift. It contains many fabu lous Things, fuch as the Defcription of Chrift^ viz. That he was a cer tain Power (/'. e. an in- vifible Body) whofe Di- menfions he afferts were as follow, viz. his Height was twenty four (Scha- nia) or Egyptian Leagues, i. e. about Sixty fix Miles. His Breadth twenty four Miles, and his Thickness proportionably wonder fui : So alfo his Feet, }with many other trifling Accounts. , Concerning the Holy Ghoft. j IloXXa ss-i Ta av% ijlv&o- "KoyYtixala — ehaygaipet A Xg/rov Tiva avat e^uvajziv, cu xat Ta {Xt\\^y 0T)/xaiV6f Eixcxn Tearafcov fjJjp woi- vimv to /mix©*., tor /sxiXiwv tvivnxovla t%, to ePt -srha- T©» i\ jutiXicuv axocn tjt- caemv, xat to ar^^©1 0- /utoicor T6£t/] and its being an Egyptiim Herodot. Lib. z. §6. p. 90. rally Ch. XtX. The Gt$eh vf HeTydrlus: 2 8 1 rally ofthfe Jewifh Nation, as Elxai himfelf their Founder was ; and therefore it is not Strange, they lihould have thus forg'd immediaite Revelations from Heaven. For about the Time of this For gery, Nothing was more common among the Jews than fuch Pretences. The Jewifh Writers commonly fay, There were three Svrts of Revela tions antiently among them ; The firft by Urim and Thummim, which was in Ufe from the EreSing if the Tabermcle 'till the Building vf the Temple ; the fecond, by the Spirit of Propbuy, from the Begin ning of the World, but mbfify under the firft Temffk± 'tiltithe Death vf Malachi under the fecond Temple ; the third by 'T Tip r~Q Bath Koi, i. e. toy Voices from Heaven, fmceeding the former, and continuing in Ufe thmceforwmd; concerning which it may be well worth while to read what Dr. Lightfoot*, and after him Dean Prideaux c have wrote. Num. XXIII. The GOSPELS of HESYCHIUS. 'T'HE Reafon which induc'd me' to mention ¦*¦ thefe Gofpels under a diftinct Title is, that I find them fo mention'd in the Decree of Pope Gelafius, among the reft of the Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament, tho' I think it very evi dent that they were no other than fome interpo lated Copies of our prefent Gofpels, as will appear from the Authors who have mention'd them, viz.. 1 . Jerome, who in the Preface, to his Transla tion of the Gofpels into Latin, after having fhew'd the Neceffity of it, adds*. * Hor.Hebr. in Mat. iii. ult. Par. i. B.4. j>. 328, &c. * Connect, of the Hiftory of f Prsefat. in Evangel, ad Da- thp Old and New . Teftarn. mas. -- '- - 1 Praeter- The Gofpels ^Hefyehius Part II: I take no Notice of thofe Books which go under the Names of Lucian and Hefiychius, and are e- fteem'd thro' the pep- verfe Humours of fome. For as they were not a- ble to make any Amend ments to the Septuagint Verfion in any Part of theOldTeftamentjfo nei ther were their Amend ments of the New ot any Value, feeing the former Tranftations ofthe Scrip ture into all the Lan guages of the World prove their Additions or , , Interpolations to be falfe, 282 Frcetermitto eos codices 10s a Luciano & He- irchio nuncupatos, pau- coruna hominum afferit perverfa contentio, qui- fjos utique nee in toto Veteri Teftamento poll Septuaginta Interpretes emendare quid licuit, nee in Novo profuit emen- daffe; ciim multarum gentium Unguis Scriptu re ante tranflata doceat fadfe effe quae addita font. 2% Pope Gelafius' s Words ares ; Evangelia quas falfavit Hefyehius Apocrypha. The Gofpels,which were interpolated by Hefiychi us. axe Apocryphal. From thefe Accounts it is manifeft, thefe Gof pels of Hefiychius were no other than our prefent Canonical Gofpels with fome Additions of his : For as Jerome renfures their Work, as containing ttfelefs Amendment^ and Additions, fo the Word fat- favit in Gelafius implies the fame. What thefe Interpolations' were, there is not any Poffibility of our conjecturing now, tho' I know not whether it be worth while to lament the Lofs of them fo much as Dr. Mill doesh : "¦ It is much to be la- " mented, fays he, that Jerome, who is the only « In Decret. J Prolegom. in N.T. § 718. u Pej> Ch. XIX . Only Interpolations of ours, 2 8 3 "Perfon that I know (befides Gelafius who tran- " fcrib'd from him). that has faid .any Thing of " this Forgery, has given us no more clear and ft full Account of this Matter. " I fee not any great Advantage it would have been, had thefe corrupt Copies been preferved. It is probable e- nough,' what he added was no more than fome idle Stories out of the Gofpel of the Egyptians, it being generally thought, with good Reafon, that this Hefiychius was that Egyptian Martyr mention'd by Eufebius1, whofe Greek Copies of the Old Teftament were, as Jerome fays, generally receiv'd in Egypt K This, however, is certain ; thefe falfe Gofpels were only reCeiv'd by fome few Perfons of perverfe Minds, and rejected by the main Body of Chrifti ans, and therefore to be efteem'd Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V- VI. but efpecially by Prop. XIV. 1 Hift. Eccl. lib. 8. c. 13. p. p. 108. 308. Confer Uffer. Syntag. de fc Epift. ad Cbromat. qua; eft Edit. LXX- c. 7. 8c Dr. Cave Prsefat. in Lib. Paralipom. Hift. Liter. Vol. 1. in Hefych. Chap. i »4 T&? JM 0/ James not the fame Part II. Chap. XX. The Book of James not the fame with the Prot - Evangelium under its Name. A common Opinion armn^ the Antients, that tbe Brethren of Chrift mention'd in the Gofpels wert Joieph's Children by a Wife before Mary. Other Books attributed' to James* which were the Forgery of Lentius Charinus. The ABs and Books of John. The Gofpel of Ju das Ifcariot. I. Num. XXIV. The BOOK of JAMES. UNDER the Name of this Apoftle there have been feveral fpurious and forged Pie ces, of which 'tis not now eafy to form a diftinct and clear Account. The Title of this now under Enquiry I have taken from Origen, who in his Commentary on thofe Words of St. Matthew, cc. xiii. ff. (/* not this the Carpenter's Son ? Is not his Mother caWd Mary ? and his Brethren Jamei and Jofes, and Simon and Judas ? ) has the fol lowing Paffage. Ch.XX. with the Prot-Evangevkm. 2*5 There are fome who fay the Brethren of Chrift (here mention'd) were Ts? d}t axT'thtytss Itits tyavt Tins wax in Trttfae/Wswr czi&wjjjfool ts t7riytygai& lifyfc rA}a FLtpoh Eoay- ysXis, n Tflf /3i£ft.s laxu- £s, tjisr IdJo-K)^ tx. -nr^TS- ^jt? yvvatx©' (TUV.fflHllXtpS' aulw xgq tju Magpr. the Children of 7^$ by a former Wife, who liv'd with him before Mary, and they are in duc'd to this Opinion by fome Paffages in that which. is entitul'd, The Gofpel of Peter, or The Book of James. Our learned Countryman Dr. Mill", after feve ral others, is ©f the Opinion,, that the Book of James here refer'd to is for the moft Part the feme with the Prot-Evangelion under this Apoftle's. Name, which is now extant, and which I Shall infert in Greek and Englifh in the third Part of this? Work ; but I think this can hardly be prov'd by any good Arguments, becaufe it does- not appear this Prot-evangeMw was extant 'tilLlong^ after Qri- gente Time, as I Shall Shew in the particular Dife cuffion of it. I confefs I have obferv'd in. this Rook an Account of Jofeph'* having Children by a former Wife ; • for he is introduc'd cap. ix. as an- fwering the High-Pricft urging him to take the • Virgin, Ttsr s^w, xou Trpiaftiflnc etyn, cti/ln o^t vtavis' Unirais tiro/jiat xdlaythas toij- IcrgouiK. / hatve Chilr dren, and am an Old Man, butfie is young, and, I fliall appear ridiculous in Ifrael. But notwithfland^ ing this, it is for the foremention'd Reafon pro bable, thefe two Books were not the fame ; be fides, Origen does not feem to have feen this Book of James, but was uncertain whether the Opinion he cites was in that, or the Gofpel of Peter"; and laftly, this was a very common Opinion among the *¦ Prolegom. in N. T, § 474., Antients, 286 Other Books of James. Part II. Antients, viz. That J ofevh had Children by a for mer Wifeb, and fo might very probably have been in feveral of the Spurious and Apocryphal Pieces : And this is no more than what Jerome c exprefly fays, Some fuppofe, by the Brethren of our Lord we are to underftand Jofeph'* Children by another Wife, following the idle Fancies of fome Apocryphal Books : However this be, we have the jufteft Reafoh to efteem this Book of James to have been a fpurioi^ Piece, and Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. VI. Num. XXV. Some other BOOKS attri buted to JAMES. £Piphanius, in his Account of the Ebionites*, after a large Confutation of their Principles, adds, Tcov c^s A-nroroXmv Ta ovo- fxala «r tj)v t&jv v\7ra%- fjfytiiv vsr- aulwv vret&u •BrpaaTrciriTaH eOs^oi/lat " /BifXsr Tf s^ ovo/j,afl©» av- tojv TrXaTaju^/ot avtyQcf.- •fyavlo, c^nflsv a-wo ¦n-^aia- ¦sm Iaxsfs, y.w. MalQouv, xc/x aXXaiv /jtaSrfl&iv, sv ois ovop.acrt xax to ovojxa Iai- dvva tv A-HroroXs syxafla- Xsysciv, iva ¦sra/la^o&fv (poi^flil yivrflca n ai/W avoia. Befides they have coun terfeited the Apoftles Names, for the better perfuading of thofe, whom they have delu ded ; for they have for ged feveral Books, and prefix'd their Names to them, viz. the Name of James, Matthew, and t>- ther Difciptea, among which is alfo the Name of the Apoftle John, that their Folly might appear every where the greater. See Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 2. in Loc. Eufeb. and Bilhop Pear- c. «. Epiphan. Ha:ref. 19. Na- fin on the Creed. Art III. p. aar. & 78. qua: eft Antidico- 174. &c. mar. and many other Antients cited to this Purpofe by Valef. c Comm. in Matth. xii. 4.9. * tteef. 30, N. 23. I Ch.XX. iVhetherLcvxtius the Author, &c. 2S7 I am not able to fay any Thing particular con cerning thefe Books, there being no Fragments of thefn now extant ; only, if I. may conjecture, I y/ould fay, they were the fame with thofe menti on'd by Pope Innocent I.e in his Decree concerning Canonical Books. Qui vero Libri recipian- tur in Canone Sanctarum Scripturarum, brevis an- nexus oftendit. Hasc font ergo quas defiderata mo- neri voce voluifti : Moyfi libri quinque, &c. Cae- tera autem. quae vel fob nomine Matthasi five Ja cobi Minoris, vel tub no mine Petri & Joannas, quas a quodam Leutio fcripta font, &C. non fomm repudianda, verum noveris effe damnanda. What Books are to be receiy'd into the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, the annexed Schedule will declare— Thefe are they, concerning which you defir'd to be inform-; ed, viz. The five Books' of Mofies, fcrV. But as for thofe which go un der the Name of Mat thew, or James the Lefs, or under the Name of Peter and John, which were wrote by one Leu- tius, know, that they are not only to be reject ed, but condemned. Whether thefe Words will prove that Leutius was the Author of thefe Books under the Name of James, or whether they only affert thofe af crib'd to Peter and John to have been written by Leutius, is not very eafy to determine. The for mer appear'd moft probable to 'Dr. Mill*, and perhaps not without Reafon, if we confider, that this Leutius was the Author of a great manv For geries under the Apoftle's Name, as will appear fully hereafter under the Letter L. Altho' there fore there is Nothing more particular known con- ; Epift. j. ad Exuper. c. 7. f Prolegom, in N. T. §. 3 }S. J. cerning 2 8 8 The-A&rofjefoa^ Sec. Part II. cerning thefe Books, yet from what is faid, it is plain, they were fpurious, and eonfeqaently Apo cryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. -ft may per haps be oojected, that Leutius cannot be foppofed? to be the Author of thefe Books, and confequently; that Epiphanius and Pope Innocent do not mean the fame, becaufe the former fays,, they were forg'd by fhe Ebionites, but it does, not appear that Leutiug- was one of this Sort. To which I Shall think it enough to anfwer, that: Leutius feems to have form'd his Books with Defign to be reeeiv'd by- all Sorts of Hereticks, and therefore mix'd the pe culiar Principles of each moft celebrated Party to gether in them ; whence, as the incomparable and moft excellent Writer among the Antients, I mean Photius, the Patriarch of Conftantinoplej obferves, his Forgeries are fuU of foalifi and filly Contradtifc' ons, and he may be juft ly efteem'd as the Source- or Author of every Herefy 8. Num. XXVI. The ACTS of JOHN the ATOSTLE. f\F thefe Spurious Acts there is frequent Men- *-' tion in the old Chriftian Writers, who liv'd within the Limits of my Time ; but inafmuch as they appear evidently to have heen the Forgery of Leutius, I Shall refer the Consideration of them to their proper Place under the Name Leutius in the Letter L. Num. XXVII. Other BOOKS under the NAME of JOHN. T^HESE appearing to have been compos'd by ¦*¦ the fame Perfon with the former, fliall be confider'd in the fame Place. 8 Ts/AM A x»i ffc«f;«s tfoAa«s, Tiairiui; n«*Xi from whence it is eafy to form a Notion of their Gof pel, and to fee Reafon to reject it. See Prop. IV. V. VI. and efpecially VIII. and IX. • "" He who has a mind, may ridiculous Kind, in the Places of read this, and more of the fame Irenaus and Epifkanmi laft cited. V i Chap. 292 TheASlsofhmdusi Part II; Chap. XXI. The ABs of' the Apoftles under the Names of Leucius, Lenticius, Le- ontius and Leuthon, prov'd to be me and the fame Book, becaufe thefe ¦ • were *all the fame P efforts Name corruptly written. They contaitffl the ABs of John, Andrew, Tho mas, Peter, Paul, James and others. Their Spurioufnefs proved. Leucius their Author liv '$ in the fourth Cen tury. His Principles and Tenets. A Remark on Dr. Mill'* Greek Te ftament. Leucius and Leonides the fame Name. ' Leonides prov'd to be a corrupt Writing in/lead of Leucius. Nexocharis or Xenocharis prov'd to he a corrupt Way of writing Cha- rinus the Sirname of Leucius. Num. XXIX. The ACTS of the ATO- ' hi STLES by LEUCIUS. Num. CH. XXI. the A[!ls of L&idus: 29 3 Num. XXX. The ACTS of the APO STLES by LENTICIUS. f ' Num. XXXI. The ACTS of the ATQ- STLES by LEGNTIUS. Num. XXXII. The ACTS of the APO STLES by LEUTHON. XXXIII. The BOOKS 0/ LENTICIUS. EACH of thefe differing Titles being to be found in the antient Writings, I thought it moft agreeable to my' Defign to prbduce them diftinctly, tho' they are unqueftionably only mifta- ken Writings ofthe fame Perfon's Name,w'z. Leu tius, I fhall, according to my Method, firft pro duce the Places, and then form the beft Judgment of them which I can. The firft is that of I. St. Auflin, who gives the following Account of the Acls under the Apoftles Names written by Leucius, receiv'd by the Manichees a. Multum apparet imperii tia veftra vel potius au- dacia. Attendlte in acti- bus Leucii, quos fob no mine apo ftolorum forfeit, qualia tint, quse accipitis deMaximillaux'ore Ege- Your Imprudence, or ra ther Impudence, appears very remarkable. Con* fider only, what Sort of Things you receive con cerning Maximilla, the Wife of Egeles, in the AUs of Leucius, which ; Libjde Fid. cont. Manich; c. 38. T. Opp. 6. p. f8o. V 3 he 294- tis ; qua; quum nollet ma- rito debitum reddere, 2uum apoftolus dixerit Jxori vir debitum red- dat, Similiter 8c uxor vi- ro; ilia fuppofuerit ma- rito fuo ancillam fuam, Eucliam nomine, exor- nans earn, ficut ibi fcrip tum eftj adverfariis leho- ciniis 8c fucationibus, &c earn nocte pro fe vicari- am fopponens, ut ille ne- feiens cum ea tanquam uxore concumberet. Ibi etiam fcriptum eft, quod cum eadem Maximilla 8c Iphidamia fimul iiffent ad audiendum apoftolum Andream, puerulus qui- dam fpeciofus, qiiemvult Leucius vel Deum vel certe Angelum intelligi, eommendaverit eas An drea: apoftolo,8c perrexei rit ad praetorium Egetis, 8c ingreffus cubiculum eorum finxerit vocem muliebrem, quafi Maxi- milhe murmurantis de dojoribus fexus fieminei, The Acls of Leucius. Part II. he wrote under the Apo ftles Name. How that when fhe would not ren der due Benevolence to her Husband, according to the Apoftle's Com mand (i Cor. vii. 3.) Let a Man render due Bene volence to his IVife, and likewifie the Wife to the Husband, She impos'd upon her Husband by her Maid call'd Euclia. For, as it is written there, She adorn'd her, and by artful Difguifes deluded her Husband, by placing her in the Night in her own Place, fo that he ignorantly lay with her as his Wife It is there alfo written, that when the fame Maximilla and Iphidamia went together to hear the Apoftle An drew, a certain handfome Boy (whom Leucius will have either to have been God himfelf, or at leaft an Angel) recommend ed them to Andrew the Apoftle, and having led them to the Palace of Egetes, went into their Bed-chamber, and feign'd the Voice of a Woman, like Maxmilla's,hcmoan- ing the Misfortunes of her Sex, to which Iphi- 8C Ch. XXI. The Acls of Leucius. 8c Iphidamia; refponden- tis. Qua; colloquia ciim audiffet Egetes, credens eas ibi effe, difceflerit. 29 5 damia replied ; which Difcourfes when Egetes heard, believing them to be really theirs, he went away b. II. The fame St. Auftinc, difputing with Felix againft the Manichees, urges againft him : Habetis hoc etiam in fcripturis apocryphis , quas Canon quidem ca- tholicus non admittit, vobis autem tanto grati- ores Sunt, quanto a ca- tholico Canone fecludun- tur. Aliquid etiam inde commemorem, cujus ego auctoritate non teneor, fed tu convinceris. In actibus conferiptis a Len- ticio, quos tanquam actus apoftolorum feribit, ha- bes itapofitum : Etenim fpeciofa figmenta 8c of- tentatio fimulata, 8c co- actio vifibilium, non qui dem ex propria natura procedunt,fed ex eo ho- mine qui per fe ipfum deterior foetus eft per fe- ductionem. This you have alfo in the Apocryphal Wri tings, which are not ad mitted into the Canon of the Church, but are indeed fo much the more efteem'd by you, as they are excluded the Canon of the Church. I fhall cite a Paflage thence, not that I regard its Autho rity, but for your Con viction. In the Acls wrote by Lenticius, which he writes as the Acls of the Apoftles, you find the following Words ; " The " fpecious Appearances , " and delufive Pomp, and " the Influence of the " Things that are fieen, " do not proceed from 'l Nature, but from that Man, who through his own Fault became worfe by Temptation. cc * Something of this is refer'd I to in the Life of Andrew. See Abdias's Hift. Apoft. in vit. | V And. c. 39. c AA. cum Felic. Manich. lib. i. c,6. PftJ- T.Opp.fi. 4 III, 296 Leucius,L enticius,Leontius,Leuthon Partll. III. The fame Father in his Treatife of Faith, or the Trinity of the Unity, produces the fame Paf- fege with no Variation ; only that the Author's. Name is there written Lepntius, and not- Lenticius, as in the Place laft cited : His Words are, In aSti- bus etiam confcriptis a Leontio, quos ipfi acci-piunt, fie ficriptumeft ;Et enim fipeciofafigmenta &c.d~ Whence 'tis evident, that thefe two Names denote the fame Perfon ; not that he was antiently known by both thefe Names, but thro' the Ignorance or In advertency of latter Scribes, when they found the Name Leucius contractedly wrote thus L. or Lus. according to the old Way in Manufcripts they. fubftituted either Leucius, Lenticius, or Leontius, according to their own Fancy. IV Jerome, or whoever was the Author of that famous Epiftle to Chromatius and Heliodorus uuder his Name among his. Works e, afenbes not only the Book of the Nativity of Mary, but that call'd The Acls or Pafifions of the Apoftles, to Leu- thon, as it is in my Edition, or as it is in others, Seleucus, who was the fame as Leucius, as has been. often obferv'd ; fee Gafaubon f, Fabritius s, and others; and fo Dr. Mill affures us, the Manufcript Co pies ftill have the Name Leucius, and neither Leu- thon nor Seleucush : So that I may now fet down the Words of the Epiftle under, Jerome's Name. Sed factum eft, ut a Ma nich xi Ditcipulo, nomi ne Leucio, qui etiam Gefta apoftolorum falfo But it is certain that this Book was publifh'd, &c. by a Difciplc pf Manir chaus, whofe- Name was d Lib. de Fid. cont. Manich. Annal. No. l f. p. 74, &c. c. j-. T. Opp. 6. p. 5-70. * Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teftam. c Epiftol. 82. Par. 2. Trad*, p. 157. Par. i. 6. fol. 14,0. ¦* Prolegom. in Nov.Teftam. f Exercit. ad Apparat. Baron. §336. fermone Ch.XXL and Seleucus the fame Terfon fermone concripfit, hie liber editus, 8cc. 297 Leucius, who alfo wrote a falfe Account, enti- tul'd, The Acls of the Apofiles. Hence it is evident, there were certain Acts, un der the Apoftles Names wrote by Leucius. It re mains now, that we more particularly make En quiry what thofe Acts were ; To me it feems certain, they were the very fame with thofe Apocryphal Acls which are fo often men tion'd by the antient Writers, as forg'd under the Names of John, Andrew, and Thomas, and per haps two or three more. I Shall make good my Affertion by thefe following Reafons. . i. From the exprefs Teftimony of Photius, that moft accurate and judicious Critick, who had read the Books, and afterts, that they manifefted Leucius Charinus to be their Author1. Aviyva&ri @i6\icv,cu. Xsyo- pfyjax tuv a7row e^s xcu o Ti]f tffH/.a-tm vrapjf. to sS-©* to «7roroXrxov tvaXXalTet %a- gtpriltZ, KfiU 1 TWV tv ax}~ Toif (psfojui^owv ¦arpyatgtcris ¦nrXas/ov ocov taj «X»)3'Sf cf>&o »*• *)/*eXr)jU#/aif, jtaHa. cTe to -nrXeis-ov ayo- paxois xat xsxaru/^uatr Kai x&tv ti\s ojaaXnr xat at/Tog/ec/W ^ywrsajf, xat T«r txafrev £/x(puT8 ^g/- t©1, xaS' nv o tuayyihi- x©> ts xat ttTros-oXix©" c/Wju.sjiAagfpGflai Xoy©'.,) ecA' lyy©" E/jKpatvcov. IV. (xe« c/Vxat /uitag/aj xoXXrjr, xat this- -nr^r som/Ihv ixa%ns xat fvavliwcscoj-. *t>/}cri y«£ «XXov avat tov toov Isc^ai- va! tov Mayov u-nn^s- t^v xaS'fyavai' aKKov c^e tov X^fs-ov, ov (pna-iv ay«- Sw xai (pujcov a-navla jtat o-'jy^swv, xaXst iouflev xat iralificf. xat tjov Xsya e^e juncA' svav^gcoTTno-at «Xn- S,a)f,aXXai/'o^at' xat -aroX- Xa xoXXa" ir (pavnvat toi? jua&ilTatf, vsov, Kat Trgso- Cutkjv traXiv, Hot waXTv The Style of it is irre gular and inconfiftent. He ufes Phrafes and Words fometimes,which are not mean, but for the moft part fuch as are bald and common. There is not in it tbe leaft Sign of an even free Style, or of that Beauty that attends Such a Natural Style, in which the Writings of the E- vangelifts and Apoftles are compos'd. It abounds with many foohfh and filly Contradictions. For he fays, That the God of the Jews, whofe Minifier Simon Magus was, was a bad God, and that Chrift was a different God from him, and a good God : And then again perverting and confounding every Thing, he calls the Fa ther and the Son One and the fame : But he adds, that Chrift was not re ally a Man, but only ap pear'd to be fo, and that he appear'd often in va rious Shapes to his Difei ples, fometimes as a Toung 7raicf.vis. IToXXas-cfs xat Ttrsgjt ts s"aups xsyoXoyi- as xat «T0-zjria?- avairXdJlei, xat tov Xgjts-pv /.tj] fay^co- &»va,i, aXX' sls^v avT ayHs, xat xa1«ysX«v c/Ya tsto toov s-ao^svlwv. Ta- /uss- cAsvo/jti/xs? a&STei, xat •araaav yeywo-iv -aroyn^av ts xat ts -arovngs Xe7«- ' "at srXarnv tmv Jcufxovwv tov ttXXov sxXnget' vex#,.fol. n I. For in that, Chriftis-faid-fometimesto We appear'd in the Form of a Boy. d This Paflage inclines me to conj.e&ure, that thefe Books were interpolated, feeing in the Time of Leucius, the Contra* verfy about Images was un known, it not arifing 'till the1 eighth Century. $ut perhaps Photius, living in the Time when this Difpute was hot, might i-- magine more than Leucius in tended. He only fays, Aox« S)t X i wX«ff 308 Other T 'laces, where TrXwf aiflfl n (Zi6r\Qj ixvya "xou.<^ap)cdo^r\ xat a-an9--ava xat x'axowXas-a nax ^AxPvi xat ixai^cf, xat aXXoir [xa- ¦yopfyia, xat aai£v\ xai d- &ia •in^jiya. y\v eivruiv Tir ¦araoT]? aipso-s&ir -cmynv xai txi\Tt(> (per haps to denote his ftrange Doctrines^ it being com monly us'd by the Fathers in that Senfe) or £svsr ; now an ignorant Scribe, ; not knowing the true Name of the Perfon therd fpoken of, might very probably join the Words gsv©* and ^TV together} and fo form the Name Hsvjr^ag/r Xenocharis, which muft afterwards be receiv'd as a true Name. This feems to me the more probable, becaufe i . I do not remember ever, befides here, to have feen this Name. . ji ' 2.. Becaufe it is certain, that in the *rment Way of Writing (as is evident by Manufcripts extant) there was no DiftinSion or Space between one Word and another, but the whole Line was written aS one continued Word. 3 . The Word £sv©J was very commonly prefix'd to Men's Names ; hence we read of feveral call'd Xe nophon, as thofe two who were the famous Difei ples of Socrates at Athens ; Xenocrates, a Philofo- pher of Chalcedonia, and two more remarkable Philofophers of that Name ; fo alfo Xenodvchus, Xenodorus, Xenodotus, Xenophanes, Xcrophates, Xe- - nophilus, &c- vid. Suid. The Word £gv*;§)» being fo frequently prefix'd, the Miftake was lo much the more eafy . 4. Such Miftakes are very common, efpecially in the propei Names of Perfons and Places. Chap. Ch. XXIL The f£fe Gofpels pf Lucianus. $ 1 1 Chap. XXII. The falfe Gofpels of Lucianus, a fa mous Critick and Martyr under Di- oclefian - who pufclifh'd an Edition ofthe Septuagint : A different Perfon from Lucanus, the Difciple of Mar cion. A Correction of a Place in Epiphanius. .The Commentaries un der the Name of Origen, upon Job, prov'd not to belong' to that Father. Num. XXXIV. The falfe GQSTELS ^/LUCIANUS. TO thefe I have for Method Sake given a di- .ftia6t Title, tho' they appear U have been only fome corrupted interpolated Copies of our prefent Gofpels. They are only mention'd by Jerome and Gelafius together witfi the falfe Gofpels of Hefiychius. The Places are produc'd above, Chap. XIX. Num. xxiii. •to which, and what is there faid, there feems No thing neceflary here to be added, but fome fhort lecount of Lucianus, their. Author. He was un doubtedly that eminent Critick, whofe Labours in correcting the corrupt Copies of the Septuagint Verfion haW made him famous. He was a Pref- byter of Anikch, and fujfer'd Martyrdom under X 4 Dio- 312 < Lucianus and Lucanus Part II. Dioclefian and Maximian, viz. about the Year of Chrift CCXCVI. He was fo remarkable in his Study of the Scriptures, that the Copies were cal led by his Name ; and his Edition of the LXX was the only one receiv'd in all the Eaftern Part of the World, except that which Hefiychius publifh'd in Egypt, and Eufebius and Pamphilus publifh'd from Origen1. That this was the fame Lucianus with him who interpolated the Gofpels, is evident from the ex prefs Teftimony of Jerome b, who fays, the fiamelie- lychius and Lucianus were employ d in altering the LXX Verfion, and the Copies of the New Teftament. Hence it is plain, that Dr. Millc is egregioufly miftaken, in fuppofing this Lucianus to have been the fame Perfon as Marcion's Difciple and Follower, mention'd by TertuUian d, and call'd Lucanus : For as it is certain, that Marcion, and confequently Lucanus, liv'd early in the fecond Century ; fo from what has been faid, it is no lefs certain that Luci anus fuffer'd Martyrdom in the very End of the third. It may not therefore be improper here to obferve, that the Hereticks call'd by Epiphanius* the Lucianifts, and plac'd between Marcion and Apelles, call'd fo from Lucian who was the Difci ple of Marcion, and Fellow-Pupil of Apelles, were either faltly fo call'd by Epiphanius, or elfe our printed Copies of that ' Author are corrupt, and we ought to read Asxavirot inftead of Asttravi?ei, i. e. Lucanifts inftead of Lucianifts, as preceding from Lucanus as he is call'd by TertuUian in the Place juft now cited, and alfo by Origen in his •Book againft Celfus*, though in the Old Latin Tranflation we meet with Lucianus, contrary to the * This Account I collected from ' Prolegom. in N.T. § 331. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 9. c, 6, d DePra:fcript.adv.Haa-etic, Jerome Catal. vir. illuftr. in Lu- c. 5-1, dan. ( & Prafat. in Paralipom. ' Hwef. 43, 44. ~ttn'd Suidas. in Lucian.' f Lib. 2. p. 77. '-'..* Prafat. in Evang. ad Damas. -i -'- Greek. Ch. XXII. two Terfons. 3 1 3 Greek. I have Nothing more to add here, but that by Accident I obferv'd a Paflage in the Com mentary under the Name of Origen, upon the Book of Job, where Mention is made of Lucianus, with a very glorious Characters ; but inafmuch as it is moft undeniable that Origen died long before the Time of ' Lucianu,s, viz. in the Year of Chrift CCLIII. under the Emperors Gallus and Volufia- nus\ there is no Queftion to be made, but thofe Books upon Job were wrote by fome Perfon long after Origen's Time. s Edit. Opp. Lat. T. a. fol. h Catalog, viror: illuftr. in xy. Origen. Chap. 3 1 4 Books under, the Name of Matthew. Part II; Chap. XXIII. Books under the Name of Matthew. The Gofpel of Matthias. The Tr ad ditions of Matthias. All its Frag ments produc'd. There never was any Book under this Title. The Sen timents of late Writers concerning; thefe Traditions. Some Books afcrihd to Matthias. The ABs of the Ma nichees. M. Num. XXXV. BOOKS wider the NAME 4 St. MATTHEW. EPiphanius, concerning the Ebionites, fays, they forg'd feveral Books under the Apoftles Names, and particularly under St. Matthew's. The Paflage is produc'd above, Chap. XX. Num. xxv. There being Nothing more faid by Epipha nius of thefe Books, nor indeed by him or any o- ther Author, of any fpurious Books under this Apoftle's Name, befides the Gofpel of the Naza renes, I have no more to fay concerning thefe Books, than that, as they are rejected by this Fa ttier as fpurious, fo for that Reafon they are Apo cryphal, as alfo by Prop. IV. V. VI. and perhaps what Ch. XXIII. The Gofpel of Matthias. 3 1 5 what he here means was no other than the Hebrew. Gofpel of the Ebionites, or Nazarenes'. Num. XXXVI. The GOSTEL of MATTHIAS. ALthough there be not any Remains of this Gofpel now extant, yet it is taken notice of by feveral of the moft celebrated Writers among the Antients, viz. Origen^ Eufebius, Ambrofie and Jerome, as alfo in fome Copies of Pope Gelafius' s Decree. Origen mentions it among many other fpurious Pieces thus3; Ecclefia quatuor habet evangelia: Haerefes plu- rima — Scio evangelium quod appellatur — *— jux ta Matthiam, &c. The Church receives on ly four Gofpels : The Hereticks many. I know one, which is call'd The Gofpel according to Mat thias. [ See the Paflage at large above Ch. VII. Num. v.] Eufebius ranks it among the Books publifh'd by the Hereticks, not receiv'd nor cited by any Ecclefi aftical Writer, but a mere Forgery, to be refecled as impious and abfurd. [See the Place produc'd at large above, Chap. XXI. Num. xxxiii.] Ambrofie in like Manner places it among thofe Spurious Books which the Church refecled as fuch. [See the Paflage at large above, Ch.VII. Num.V.] ie places it among the Books which gave Birth to the Herefies which troubled the Church, and I Homil, in Luc. i. in init, which 3 1 6 The Traditions of Matthias. Part II. which were wrote without the Spirit and Grace of God. [ See the Place above produc'd, Ch. VII. Num. iv.] Laftly, in fome Copies of the Decree of Pope Gelafius, we read Evangelium nomine Matthias apocryphum. The Gofpel under the Name of Matthias is A- pocryphal. From all this it is eafy to fee, what Judgment we are to form of this Book, and to conclude it Apo cryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. The learned; Dr. Grdbe^, and after him Dr. Millc, fuppofe this, Gofpel to have been the fame with the Traditions of Matthias, but with very little Reafon, as I fhall fhew prefently in difcuffing that Book. Num. XXXVII. The TRADITIONS of MATTHIAS. PrTs H E S E are only mention'd by Clemens Alex- •*¦ andrinus, . in whofe Stromata there are fome Fragments of them remaining, which the Here ticks made ufe of. They are collected by Dr. Grabe, and fhall be here produc'd, with the Addition of two or three more Places, where thefe Traditions are refer'd to. The firft is as follows d. Kac MaT&tas sv tocj -nra- (^o^oo-ia-i •nragaivcov, S-au- ixaaov T.a ¦wagjjvla, f&a&- fjtev tbIov irgcflov t«? S7rs- So Matthias advifes in his Traditions (faying) Ad mire the Things that are prefient,making this to be b Spicileg. Patr. Secul. II. ' Prolegom. in N.T. « a: 7. u7- t Lib. a. p. 380. . x«va Ch. XXIII. xava yvaiirstdf Fragment f of it UttTC-ll^ 317 1 the firft Step towards In- j create of Knowledge. The fecond is e ; Asyatri (NixoXa/lat) y'ouv xat tov MaflGiav s/lwf cV eta^at, tragxi jU$i /jia^si&at xat •araga^gn ; /or if his Conduk Haliith&n av aula tov 0i- ^ £**» agreeable toRea- ev xat o yeflav, m to pn fin (or the Word) his ajxapTav. Neighbour would have, re garded his Life fo much, as not to have fallen into the Sin. Toiv c/^e eupsersaiv at fXtv airo evo/jtal©' ¦w^o-ayoc>AiOvr\ax, gk « a-sro QuaXsvlivs, Wai MapHituvof, Kat BaenXao% Kat Trjv Mai Sis au^tocn c/^o^av. juia ya£ »i -aravlwv- yeyove tcov a-aroroXcov coo-- 5rsg eWacrKaXia, slw? ePi Wat vj xagac/Wir. The laft is h; Of the Herefies fome are call'd by the Name of their Author, as that of Valentinus, and Marcion, and Bafilides, tho' in deed they boaft of the Ofiinions of Matthiasjvfe. as favouring theirs. But as there was but one Doctrine deliver'd by the Apofeles, fo there xan be but one (true). Tradi tion. Thefe 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 Colleclion, but only fome Oral Traditions. II. That if there ever was any 'fuch Bpokf enti- tul'd The Traditions of Matthias, it was cer tainly apocryphal. I. That thefe Traditions of Matthias were not 're ally any Book, or written Colleclion, but mere oral Traditions. To evince this I obferve, Eodem Lib. p. j6f< t. That Ch. XXIII. Not a written Book. 319 1 . That, befides Clemens Alexandrinus in the Pla ces cited, no Writer of the four firft Centuries^ nor indeed any Mher antient Writer, has fo much as men tion'd the Name of. thefe Traditions of Matthias. This one can fcarcely imagine^ if ever fiach a Book were really extant ; for then it could not but have been frequently appeal'd to by the Valentinians, Marcionites, and Bafilides ; and confequently mini have beet} mentioned by Irenaus, TertuUian, or Epiphanius, in their Difputes Jagainft thofe Here ticks. z. This feems clearly deducible from the Paffages themfelves in Clemem Alexandrinus ; in no one of which he ufes either the Word $i?X©', ysypa-jflai, or any Word of that Sort, which will imply any Thing to have been written, but on the other Hand in each of thefe Places introducestiis Account with a plain Intimation, that he look'd upon them only as oral Traditions. So Page 748. Atyum cAs *v tm$ ^agac/Weo-t, i.e. They fay among the Traditions, i.e. It is a common Tradition, or commonly feid, that Matthias taught, &c. And for this Conftruction I have the Countenance of the Latin Tranflator, who renders Clemens thus, Dicunt autem in Tradi- tionibus, inferring a Comma after the Word Tradi- tionibus, to evidence, that Clemens did not there fpeak of any written Book. So likewife in that Place, Page 436. Aeyscrt y' ouv Kai tov MalSiav s- Twj Aoftojjjsu, &c. fThey, i. e. the Nicolaitans, fay, that Matthias taught fo, &c. Where, as there is no Mention of any written Book of Matthias, fo there is a plain Intimation, that this Saying attri buted to him by the Nicolaitans was a current Tra dition among them*, as from him, in order to fup- port their abominable Doctrine of the Communion of Women. Once more Page y6y, where he fays, feveral Hereticks, t*iv Malflis atrywi Jo^av, boafted of the Opinions of Matthias, as being agreeable to their-s, he raanifeftly fhews, they were only fome 1 tradi- 3 2,0 Not a written Book. Part II traditionary and fpurious Opinions of that Apo ftle ; for elfe I know not how to underftand that Oppofition he makes between AioWKaXia and xflgat/Wf ; the Words are pia i\ wavlm ysyove tom etxo?oXwv awirsg cAjc/WnaXia, ot/lw? <^e V-ai i\ 7raf>tp- e/Wir, i.e. The Doctrine ofthe Apoftles in their Wri tings, cannot be different from, dr contrary to, any tra ditionary Doctrines pretending to be theirs ; in which there is implied a good Argument againft thofe Hereticks, viz. That their Principles muft be er* roneous, becaufe they were only fupported by fome traditionary Doctrines, which, being contrary to thofe.which were written, muft of Neceffity be falfe, unlefs the Apoftles can be fuppos'd to have preach'd one Thing, and wrote another quite con trary. 3. It is a Thing very notorious in Chriftian An tiquity, that the Hereticks, not being able to main tain their pervetfe Tenets by the written Scriptures, nor to anfwer the Arguments brought againft thenj from them, continually applied not onlyvto Apocry phal Forgeries, but unwritten Traditions. By this Means the unhappy Jews were deluded into the' moft fatal Errors' : Thus the Chriftians were de-* eeiv'd into a Belief of the Neceffity of Judaifm, "as we read in the Synodical Epiftle from JerufaUmff Thus the Doctrine of the Millennium firft gairfd its Reputation from the credulous Papias, who was fo fond of Tradition1. ! Thus in a Word, a thoufand ridiculous Fables have receiv'd Credit in the Church, and even ftill are made ufe of in the Church of Rome to maintain the abfurdeft Doc trines of it, as may be feen in almoft every Wri ter againft Popery. From all which, with what is faid above, it appears more probable that thefe were fome unwritten Traditions, than any written Book of Matthias. fMar. vii.7., *A.• §*3>&337- 0 Amyntor p. 30. ' Eflay on Conftitut. p. 37- * Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. r Loc. cit. Y no £27, Not made befbre Fact II, no other Confutation than putting it in its proper Light : It Hands thus ; The Accounts of our SV viour's Life were compos'd out of the Traditions of thofe who few his Actions; therefore the Tra* ditions of Matthias were an Account of our Savi our's Life, or a Gofpel ; i. e. Chrift's Life was wrote by Tradition, therefore there were no other Traditions. This is ludere cum vocibus. But be fides^ as Mr. Fabritius well obferves £, the Con tents of thefe Traditions were not like the Con tents of a Gofpel, which are always fome Sayings- or Hiftories of Jefus Chrift, but the Fragments of thefe Traditions are of another Sort, as is evident by the moft curfory View of them. Dr. Millv follows Dr. Grabe, and fuppofes far ther, that it was one of thofe Books which St. Luke had refpect to in the Preface of his Gofpel,. compos'd and publifh'd in the following Manner. . Mihi fane videntur nza- gac/VereK iftce ex ore Mat thias in Judaea prasdican- tis initio exceptse fuiffe a Chriftiano quopiam, & in libellum redactas; cui ad majorem traditionibus iftis conciliandam aucto- ritatem apoftoli nomen prazfixit auetor, quifquis ille fuerit. Casterum quum libro ifti perinde ac cazteris ©"myuo-eo-iv inferta effent ex errore hnyr\%, qusedam hand aa-^akn, qu&datn ( item doctrinae chriftiana; minus confo- ' Lib. cit, p. 784. It feems to me, that thefe Traditions of Mat thias were taken from his Mouth, when he firft preach' din Judasa,^ fome Chriftian, and form din- to a little Book ;. to procure the greater Refipebl to which Traditions, the Au thor, whoever he was, prefix'd the Name of the Apofile. But as in that, as well as other Ac counts, viz. of Chrift, thro' the Miftake of the Author, feveral Things' were inferted , neither found, nor agreeable to the Chriftian Doctrine) Proleg.in Nov. Teft. §73. 11a, Ch. XXIII. St. Luke'* Gofpel. ni na, Quibus incaute ani- moque non malo fcriptis, abufi effent Bafilidiani, Valentiniani, aliiqj h«- retici, ad fuos errores fta- biliendos ; hinc pott edi- tionem canonicorum e- vahgeliorum in defuetu- dinem abiit, atq; etiam inter libros hsereticos nu- meratus eft. which, tho' unguardedly wrote, and without any ill Intent, the Bafilidi- ans, Valentinians, and other Hereticks, made a Wrong ufe of, to efta blifh their Errors. It be came difus'd after the publifhing of the Ca nonical Gofpels, and was reckon'd among the He retical Books. The fame learned Dr. in another Place w ima gines this Book of Traditions to have been interpo lated by Leucius, and to have receiv'd the Addition of many trifling and falfe Stories from his Hand. But as his Opinion about the Original ofthe Book is not only propos'd without any Attempt to make it fo much as probable, but appears by what has been above feid to be falfe and groundlefs, fo alfo is his Account of the Interpolations of it, as I fliall fhew Num. XXXVIII. Mr. Whiftonx difcoUrfing about Philo's Thera- peutte, whom he takes for Chriftians in Egypt be fore the Coming of St. Mark, fuppofes not only the Gofpel of the Egyptians, but alfo the Traditions of Matthias, to have been in Ufe among them : But of this Conjecture he has affign'd no Reafon ; 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 thefe Traditions were re ally a Book, they were Apocryphal, which is mani feft by Prop. IV. V. and VI. but efpecially by Prop. VIII. as it contain'd the Principles of the moft impious Hereticks, viz. the Nicolaitans, Car- ¦ Z Ibid. §. 337. * Eflay on Conftit. p. 37. Y i pocra- 3 24 Books under the Name 0/Matthias. Part II. pocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Bafiilidians, &c. I Num. XXXVIII. BOOKS under the NAME of MATTHIAS. N the before-cited Decree of Pope Innocent I. according to one Edition, we read y ; Caetera quas fob nomine Matthias five Jacobi Mi- noris quas a quodam Leucio feripta font non folum repudianda, verum noveris effe dam- nanda. Other Books, fuch as that under the Name of Matthias, or James the Left which were written by one Leucius-^ know, that they are not only to be rejected, but condemned. Dr. Mill'1, as I juft now faid, concludes from thefe Words of Innocent, that thefe were the Goft pel or Traditions of Matthias, quas falfis abfurdifq; narratiunculis paffim interfperfit hie ipfe impoftor Leucius, in which the Impoftor Leucius featter'd up and down feveral falfe and abfurd Stories ; on tbe Account of which Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome refecled it. But in this the Doctor is alfo much miftaken ; for Leucius, as has been prov'd, did not live 'till the latter End of the third Century', and confequently Origen could not reject any Book on Account of his Interpolations. Befides, the Words of Innocent are, that Leucius wrote a Book under the Name of Matthias, and not that he interpolated one already written ; from all which it is evident, he fpeaks of fome Book diltinct from the Gofpel of Matthias, which Origen rejected, and fo from the Traditions alfo, which, according to the Dr. was the fame Book with the Gofpel. It I were i Epift, ad Exuper. c. 3 . z hoc. denuo cit. • C. xxi. to Ch.-XXIII. The ASts ofthe Manichees. 325 to conjecture concerning the Books under the Name of Matthias here mention'd, I fhould fay, it) feems probable, They were fome Acls wrote by Leucius, under that Apoftle's Name, for thefe two Reafons, viz. 1 . Becaufe Leucius wrote the Acls of many other Apoftles, as may be above feen, Chap. XXI. to wards the Beginning. z. Becaufe in fome Copies of the Decrees of Pope Gelafius we find mention of the Apocryphal Acts under the Name of Matthias. Whatever the Book was, it was certainly fpu rious and apocryphal ( as Innocent determines ) by Prop. IV- V. and VI. Num. XXXIX. . The ACTS of the ATOSTLES made ufe of by the MANICHEES. SE E concerning this in the Acts of Leucius Cha rinus above Chap. XXI. where I have made it evident, thefe were the fame with thofe fpurious Acts compos'd by that notorious Impoftor. Y3 Chap. 326" The Gofpel of Marcion .~ Part II. Chap. XXIV. The Gofpel of Marcion no other than a Copy of St. Luke's Gofpel alter'd and interpolated by that Heretick. The Gofpel of Merinthus the fame with the Gofpel of Cerinthus. Num. XL. The GOSTEL 0/ MARCION. IT would not be agreeable to that Impartiality, which I would willingly evidence in the whole of this Work, if I fhould omit thedifcuflingany one Book, which has been pretended to be facred, and receiv'd as fuch in the firft Centuries after Chrift. Such the Gofpel of Marcion was, though really no other than one pf our prefent Gofpels, wretchedly cor rupted and alter'd by that filly Heretick. We meet with very frequent Mention of fhjs Work; 1 fhall only produce the Places where it is call'd the Gof- pel of Marcion, and of thefe I find only two ; one of TertuUian, the other of Epiphanius. TertuUian mentions it thus *.. Contra Marcion, evan- 1 On the contrary Marcion gelio ii. fuo nullum ad- \ prefixes rio Author's 3 Adverf. Marcion. I,, 4.. c. j, Ch.XXIV. Only <&. Luke's interpolated. forfeit auctorem,quafinon licuerit illi titulum quo- que affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipfum corpus evertere. A little farther : h Ego meum dico verum, Marcion foum: Ego Mar- cionis affirmo adultera- tufn, Marcion meum. 327 Name to his Gofpel, as if he might not as juftly have forg'd a Title, as have corrupted thewhole Body of the Book. I fay my (Gofpel) is true. Marcion fays, that his is fo : I affirm, Marcion's is corrupted ; he fays, that mine is. Epiphanius c calls it more than once EuayHXiov ¦Bra? Mapaiov©', The Gofpel of Marcion j Now for the better underftanding of this, we muft obferve, that Marcion is no where faid to have compos'd any new Gofpel, but only to have alter'd and chang'd fome other. That which he chang'd and corrupted was the Gofpel of St. Luke. -Of this we have, very large Accounts from the Antients, efpecially Irenaus, TertuUian, and Epi phanius. He took away entirely the two firft Chap ters of Luke, and many other Parts, as alfo infert ed a great many Things of his own, all which was defign'd for the propagating his filly Princi ples. But this Matter belonging rather to the Hiftory of the Text than the Canon, I fhall here wave it ; only obferve, that Epiphanius hath largely collected the Alterations and Interpolations which Marcion made ; concerning whom and this Work pf his he may be fufficiently inform'd, who will •confult the feveral Authors refer'd to in the Mar- * Lib. cit. c, 4. ' Haref. 41. in Prosem. Y 4 gin. J28 Merinthus and Cerinthus Part II gin A. I fhall only obferve farther, that any Thing that can be faid in Favour of Marcion's Copies of St. Luke above our prefent Copies, as far as they affect the Canonical Authority of that Gofpel, fliall be carefully difcufs'd in its proper Place, in the laft Part of this Work. Num. XLI. The GOSTEL of MERINTHUS. THIS is mention'd only by Epiphanius, as one of thofe fpurious Gofpels, which he fuppofes were written in the Apoftles Time, and refer'd to by St. Luke ci. i. as not being a true and genuine Account e. His Words are, 'E-7retJiiwtf> tetoXXo! sts^s- fno-av' iva nvar pfy> i-nri- %et£YiTaz Jletfy. (pn/jti c^e T»r xsg^ Kng/vfiov, y.omMn- g/v9ov, Hoc aXXsr. St. Luke, in the Begin ning of his Gofpel by thefe Words, foraftnucb as many have- taken in Hand, tfjc. does intimate, there had been many Un dertakers; among which I fay were Cerinthus,and Merinthus, and others. I think there is very little Reafon to queftion, but this Merinthus was the very fame Perfon with Cerinthus, of whom and whofe Gofpel I have above fpoken, Chap. XII. Num. x. for tho' Epiphanius feems in this Place, and in a few Lines before it, to 'make them two different Perfons, yet in the d Iren. adv. Haeref. L. 3. c. 11. 12. Tertull. adv. Marcion. Lib. 4. c.4. &c. Epiphan. Hae- ref. 42, Father Simon. Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Par. I. c. xi. Du Pin. Hiftory ofthe Canon. Vol. II. Ch. II. §. f. Dr. Mill's Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. § 306. 328. e Hsref ri. N. 7. Herefy Or. XXIV. the fame Terfon. 329 Herefy of the Cerinthians f he profeffes himfelf un certain, whether they were not really the fame Per fon. , -The Cerinthians, feys he, are call'd alfo Me- , rinthians, as we fee by the Accounts we now have j but whether this Cerinthus was alfo call'd Merin thus, we cannot certainly determine ; or whether there wa* fome other Perfon, called Merinthus, a Fellow-Labourer of his, God knows. Mr. Fabritius fuppofes, they were the fame, and that the Name Cerinthus was chang'd into Merinthus by way of Banter or Reproach, the Word fignifying a Snare. And of fuch Changes' he gives feveral Inftances, as Eudoxius call'd Adoxius, Phptius and Photinus call'd Scotinus, Vigilantius call'd Dormitantius, Faufius Socinus call'd Infauftus, tfjc. But I think it much more probable that this Diverfity of Name arofe rather from the Fault of fome Scribe, who read in his Copy MnyvS^ for Kh^vEKJm, i. e. an M. for a C. which Letters in the old Way of writing Greek were not fo much unlike, but that a Scribe may be fuppos'd to miftake them. I need not therefore fay any thing more con cerning this Book, than what is faid above, Chap. XII. ' Hsref. 28. verfus finern. N. 3. / C HA P. 1 3 o The Gofpel of the Nazarenes. Part II, Chap. XXV. The Gofpel of the Nazarenes or He brews ; the moft famous of all the antient Gofpels : Refer* d to by St. Paul, and many of the primitive Wri ters of Chriftianity. All the Placet where it is mentioned, and all the remaining Fragments of tt produced at large. Several Hiftories concern ing Chrift, and Sayings of Chrift, among thefe Fragments. N. Num. XLII. The GOSTEL according u the NAZARENES or HEBREWS. OF all the various Book* of the Catalogue in the firft Part, there is none which has been fo much treated of, either by the Antients or Mo derns, as this has. Many have wrote concerning it, and many not only of the Romifh, but Pro- ' teftant Writers, have exalted it to a Degree of Authority very near equal, I had almoft feid fu- perior to fome, or even any, of the Canonical Books of the New Teftament, now receiv'd. The difcuflmg this therefore is not only of the greateft Neceffity, Ch. XXV. The Gofpel ofthe Nazarenes. 3 3 f Neceffity, but requires the greateft Diligence and Exactness. I fhall attempt it with all the Brevity and Clearnefs I can, in the following Method. I. I fhall produce all that is faid of it by, and all that remains of it in, any Writer of the four firft Centuries. II. I will give as fuccinct Account as I can of the Opinions of later Writers concerning it. III. Prove that it was not receiv'd by any pri mitive Writers of the Church, as Canonical. IV. That it was really a fpurious impious For gery, and fo Apocryphal. . V. Give fome Account of its Nature, Defign, and Authors. N. B. Firttj I have above prov'd the Gofoel according to the Twelve Apoftles, the Gofpel of Bartholomew, and fbat of Cerinthus, to be the fame with the Gofpel of the Nazarenes; and therefore fhall not need here to produce the Teftimonies of the Antients concerning them, but muft defire the Reader to look back on Chap. VII. Num. v. Chap. X. Num. viii. and Chap. XII. Num. x. jV. B. Secondly, the Gofpel of the Ebionites, and that according to the Hebrews, appear fo evidently to have been in the greateft Part the fame with this Nazarene Gofpel, that as I have omitted faying any thing of them in their proper Places in the'Alphabet, fo I fhall here produce what is faid concerning them, promifcuoufly with tfiat which is faicT of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. This premifed, according to my Method, I I. En- 3 ? z Mention'd by St. Paul. Part II. I. Endeavour to produce all that is faid of it by, and1 all that remains of it in, any Writer of the four firft Centuries. i . St. Paul, Gal. i. 6. ©au/uta^co oil s1w ra^w /jtelatTifiscS's a-jro ts k vy.a; sv %a(fli Xg/rs, ar vn^yt AiaTye- Xipv. cxY- s?[v aXXd' « M" toss: effiv oi TagjtarovTES- u/jtctf ,H-at S-sXovlsf /ui^as-gss- i|/cu to &«y fsXiov ts Xg^?S- AXXa Kai eccv n/^etr, w ftyPsX©* sf Bg^tvs, su'ayfs- Xf(%flcu ujtxiv 7ra'f o tvnyfe- Xta-a/jtsS-a u/xiv, avaS^jua I marvel that ye are fo foon remov'd from him, that call'd you into the Grace of Chrift, unto an other Gofpel : Which is not another; but there be fome that trouble you, and would pervert the Gofpel of Chrift. But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gofpel unto you, than that we preached unto you, let him be accurfed. I have above1 attempted to prove, that St. Paul in thefe Words had Reference to the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and by a farther Acquaintance with thefe Nazarenes and their Gofpel, am abundantly confirm'd in that Conjecture ; as I perfuade my felf, every impartial Reader will alfo be, that fhall compare it with the following Accounts. 2. By Hegeftppus b, or rather Eufebius, fpeaking concerning Hegeftppus. He has alfo wrote (laid down) fome things con cerning the Gofpel ac cording to the Hebrews, E* eTs ts HaS-' ECgwss Aiayfthns, vox tu Sugia- Va, vai icfycor su. tyis ECg^ic/HS^ o^iaXsKTS, Ttva Par. I. Chap. II. p. 5 1 . k Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L.4. c. 22. Ch.XXV. Fragments thereof. ti&ijjjv, t[xtyouvm s| E- Cgaiow ctulcv irfwifdiM- VOA. 333 and Syrians, as alfo con cerning the Hebrew Lan guage, by which he evidences that he was converted from Judaifm to Chriftianity. 3. By Clemens Alexandrinus c. And it is written in the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, He who ad mires fhall reign, and he who reigns fhall be at Ka'v tw MaS-' EGpjuus 1- uaytthito, 0 &ou/txa 0 'Swing (f/ja-tv, AgTi ikagt fit w ix{\n% ixa, to ayiov -nrvo\j[xa, sv pia to)v Tg^cov juts, v. ox airr\- vtyHi ar to og©j to [xtya to ©afwp, 6cc. But if any one will re ceive the Gofpel accor ding to the Hebrews, in which our Saviour fays, The Holy Ghoft my Mo ther lately took me by one of my Hairs, and led me to the great Mountain Thabor, 6cc. y. By the famee tradtemus Age , aliter hunc locum, r— Scriptum eft in evangelio quodam quod dicitur fecundum Hebrazos (fi tamen pla- But let us treat this Place a little otherwife : — 'Tis written in a cer tain Gofpel, which is entitul'd according to the Hebrews ( if any one be c Stromat. L. 2. p. 380. d Tom. 2. Comment, in Jo- p an. p. 5-8. -I- ' Homil. 8. in Matth. 10. (m) 21. cet 334 cet alicui fufeipere illud non ad auctoritatem, fed ad manifeftationem pro- pofitae quaeftionis) Dixit, inquit, ad eum alter di- vitum, Magifter, quid bonum faciens vivam ? Dixit ei, Homo, legem & prophetas fac : refpon- dit ad eum, Feci ; dixit ei, Vade, vende omnia quae poffides, 8c divide pauperibus, Sc veni, fe- quere me. Ccepit autem dives fealpere caput fu- um, 8c non placuit ei ; & dixit ad eum Dominus, Quomodo dicis, legem feci & prophetas, quo- niam fcriptum eft in le ge, diliges proximum tu- um ficut teipfum ; & ec ce multi fratres filii A- brahse amicti font fler- core, morientes prae fa me, & domus tua plena eft multis bonis, & non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos. Et con- verfus, dixit Simoni dif- cipulo fuo, fedenti apud fe, Simon, fili Joannse, Fragments of the Fart II. pleas' d to receive it j hot as of any Authority^- but only for Illuftration of the prefent Queftion) A certain Rich Man (fays that Gofpel) faid to Chrift, Mafter, what good Thing fhall I do, that I may inherit Life ? He faid to him, Oh Man keep the Law and the Prophets i He anfwer' d him, That I have done ; he faid tit him, Go fell all things thou haft, and diftribute among the Poor, and come and follow me. The Rich Man hereupon began to f cratch his Head, and was \ difpleas'd ; and the Lord faid to him, How can you fay that you have kept 'the' Law and the Pro phets, feeing it is written in the Law, Thou fhalt love thy Neighbour as thy felf; but behold, many of thy Brethren, Chil dren of Abraham, are cloathd with Naflinefs, and ready to perifh for Hunger, while thy Houfe abounis with all Sorts of Delicacies, and No thing is fent out of it to them. And turning a- bout, he faid to his Dif ciple Simon, who fat by him, Simon, Son of Jo-> facilius Ch. XXV. Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ facilius eft camelum in- trare per foramen acus, quam divitem in regnum CCelorum. 335 anna, It is eafier for a Camel to pafs thro' the Eye of a Needlej than for a Rich Man, &rV . I have not obferv'd any other Places befides thefe two, in Origen's Works, Where this- Gofpel is men- tioh'd, tho' the former Paflage is indeed cited elfe- wheref ; and Jerome fays', Origen cited this Gof- Eel often s ; but in this either he was miftaken, or e means in feme other Books of Origen's not now extant. 6. By E ,u ebius ' Enumerating many of thofe Apocryhal Books which he calls voter, i. e. fpurious, or Forgeries, he adds H(/*»| CT-'iV TSTOIf TJVS? Y.OX to y.aiy Ef^jiisj &sayTt- Xiov xaTsXs^av, w fxa- Xira E££j«wv oi tov Xgf- yov 7raQCf,o^i^aixiVo: yax- In this Number fome have plac'd the Gofpel ac cording to the Hebrews, with which they of the Jews, who profefs Chri ftianity, are very much delighted. 7. By the fame', fpeaking of the Ebionites. EuayfeXia c^e jnovu to) xafl' EC^yusr Xsyo/^yta ^g&i- jU^UOI, TMV XoCSXCdV ffjXl- x*ov sra-ois/lo Xoyov. f Homil. xv. in Jerem. 8 Catalog, vir. illuftr. in Ja cobo. They made ufe only of that which is call'd, The Gofpel according to the Hebrews, very little c- fteeming any others. h Hift. Eccl L. 3. c. if. 'Ibid. C47. r- 8. By 3 3 6 Epiphanius'* Account ofthe Part II. 8. By the famek, fpeaking of Papias. E)t1s0«1o« Je aXXnv i?o- Pjav, sn^j yuvatx.©' vasi to-oXXouj- aixapliaxs Jia- /BX-flS-eioTir s-nri tu Kug^a, nyTona^' E/3^«ar <&iayfs- Xiov Trsg/s^ec. He mentions another Hiftory concerning a Woman accus'd of ma ny Crimes, before our Lord, which is con tain'd in the Gofpel ac cording to the Hebrews. This Paffage is generally underftood as though Eufebius had faid, that Papias made ufe of this Gofpel ; fo Ufher, Simon, Pearfon, Grabe, &c. But that this is a Miftake, I fliall fhew hereafter. o. By Epiphanius, who has preferv'd large Fragments of this Gofpel ; moft of which,. are collected by Dr. Grabe. I fhall endea vour to produce all the Places. The firft is1 Ej£g(i sriv « ?retv, oil WLal&ouos jwov©> E^goari xatECgaocoirye*/*- ixdaiv sv t« Kacv»] cfya&nx*] vmovt[t<« xnguy- according to Matthew- For this both they and the Cerinthians make ufe of, and no other. They call it, the Gofpel accord ing to the Hebrews ; for the Truth is, that Mat thew is the only one of the New Teftament Writers, who publifh'd his Gofpel and Preach ing in the Hebrew Lan guage, and Hebrew Cha racters. 1 1 . By the fame ". Ev toj yav irao* aiflois djafyiXin ftala MalS-awv ovo/ut«^oju^w, s* oXu d't Tir\r\{>tfa1a) , aXXa vs- vo&djfjfyjai v.ax w%of\r\p)aG- jU^UOJ, Efgcuxov cAs TBTO xaXscnv, t[X(pt§ilcU, OTl s- yivflo Ttr avng ovojxalt In cus, mom ow]©» cur /1»V Tgjl- anbvla, or s^eXs^alo njuar. Kat sX&cov ar Katpa^vas/ji ao-nXS-sv «r tuv oiKiav 2i- jutaiv©' ts t7rt>iX»]$'fvrl©> IlsTgy, Hat avoi^ar to ro/ixa outs, a-srs' 7raesp^o/.(^u©' In that Gofpel which they (i. e. the Ebionites) have call'd Srtfe Go/p;/ ac cording to St. Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, but Corrupt ed and curtailed , and which they Call, The Hebrew Gofpel, it is writ ten ; " That there was « a certain Man call'd " Jefus, and he being a- " bout thirty Years of " Age made Choice of " us. And coming to " Capernaum, he enter'd " into the Houfe of Si- " mon call'd Peter, and " opening his Mouth, « faid; When I pafs' d by ¦ Ibid. N. 13. z -ar, *e$ Fragments of the Part II, " the Lake of Tiberias, " fchofie John and James, " the Sons of Zebedee, " and Simon, and An- u drew, and Thaddeus, " and Simon Zelotes, " and Judas Ifeariot ; and " thee Matthew, fitting " at the Receipt of Cu- " fiom I call'd, and thou " didft follow me. I will " therefore that ye be my " Twelve Apoftles for a " Teftimony to Ifrael. " And John the Baptifi ' " was baptifing, and the* j " Pharifee s went out to " him, and were bapti-J " fed, and all Jerufalem^ " And John had his " Garment of Camels " Hair, and a leathern " Girdle about hisLoins, ' " and his Meat (accord- " ing to that Gofpel) " was Wild-Honey, the " Taite of which was " like Manna, or as " Cakes made with Ho- " ney and Oil. " Thus they change the true Ac count into a Falfhood, and for Locufts put Cakes made with Oil and Honey0. The Beginning of their Gofpel was this ; " It " came to pafs in the • They read the Word syxpJVs inftead of **«*&$> Mat. iii. 4. TOXi 338 ¦aragy t/iv Xtfxvnv Tifeg/- «c/*©J s^sXe^«/jiiov Icoavviiv xat IaKcoCov i^sr ZsfscAats' Kat 2t(jiwva, xat Avc/^sav, xat ©acWatov, xat Siptcova tov ZbXwtbv, xat Iscfyxv tov IaKa^foSlr\v, xat cn tov Mal&cuov xa&s'^oj^uov «7ri t» tsXcovis sltaXecnx, xat «xcXtr(War /moi. Tjuar vv fiaXoixax «vat o\x«cta ttTrojcXsr ar ixapTVfyov TiS Ic-£CM]X- KotsysvsTo Ico- cOvns /3a»Ti£o)v, Hot s|*)X^ov x^or oxitov (pag^aotoi, xat s^aTrli^no-aVjXai 7ratrals- pocroXufjia' xat et^sv 0 Ico- ^tvvnr atfvjxa awo Tfyypav Ka/utnXs, not £covbv c^g^a- TIV/JV WSg/ T«V OCT(pUV CWTS, v.ux to jSgwjaa atfls, (pn- trj, jgisXi ayQov, a « y<&- «-ir bv t» Maw«, cor syxg/r sv sXatco. Iva cfyS-sv /^stcc- s-ps^cdert tov TBr aXu&aar Xoyov ar ,4><4jc'Z©j, xat avli UV.PjJtoV -nrcine-cocriv syxgji- c^ar sv [XiKfli. H c\ ag^w ts crag' aciToir oliarye- Xts s^«. Oil sysvs'Io sv Ch.XXV. Totr tyxifcas HgcocAa Ta €a- triXswr TBr Iao^atar, bX&sv IwavVBr fa-arn^cov (ia-ar- Ti, avoiyBcravoi a- £avoi, xat aa\ to tsrv&iixa ts Sfm to ayiov iv acr-ei TrsgjrE^ar KaHsXflacrBr xat Bo-sX6ao-Br ar atflov. xat tjjjovn sysvsTo sx tk agava Xsys.o-a, Su ftiia o i}©- o flya-mrf]©', sv trot duo^oKb- ca, Kat -qraXiv, Ey« cnixi- gyv ytytvvnV-a ci. v.ox Sj- S>ur -nrsgjssXa/jfv^s tov to- ttov (poor [Xiya, cv tc/W, 9Bctv,o IcoavvBr Xsya oufloi, 2orir a, xug/s; Hot TraXtv Gofpel Of the Nazarenes^ 330 Days of Herod, the King of Judea, that John came baptifing with the Baptifm of Repentance in the Ri ver Jordan; who was reported to be "of the Family of Aaron, the High-Prieft, the Son of Zacharias and Eli zabeth, and all People went out after him. And after feveral other Things it is faid in this Gofpel, « That the Peo- " pie being baptifed, Je- " fus alfo went and was " baptifed by John ; and " as he afcended out of " the Water, the Hea- " vcns were opened, and " he few the Holy Spirit " of God in the Form of " a Dove defeendingand . " entring into him, and " a Voice was made " from Heaven, faying, " Thou art my beloved ll.\Son, in whom lam well " pleafed; and then ano- " ther, / have this Day" " begotten thee ; and fod- " denly there fhone a- " round the Place a great " Light ; which when " John few ( fays this " Gofpel) he faid to " him, Who art thou, " Lord? and then ano- 1 Cpcovrj 34© rptuvrj i% a,oavs ra-^ar a/j- rlov, Oo1©» sriv o V01 jxa o ayayrrfl^ sip' ovBUc^OX«ja xat to1s, (p/jcriv, o Icoavv/jr •w^a-!rt7(i>v oufloi sXsye, Ae- o/jta< era, Hughs' era /as fiaifiicov. O cOs txcoXusv oxHco, Xeycov, oil alcor ffi ¦Wf>z7tov TjrXnfcp^nvow.Travla. O^j. o*i tbv -arae' at/loir 7ra- {>fitvGroin]$pnv Txavlayo- •9-sv c/Wao-xaXiav, tow Tra/la. ^coXa, Xo£a, Kat vo^ifxiav o%&o1n1a tyoVTa O ^u ya% KBg/vO©' Kat KajTroxgar tw outco %PW~ fjfyoi cAqS-ev israf' aufoir dafysXico a-iro T^r ap-yns th xala Ma18atov dfjayfs- Xia o^ia TBr ysvsaXoyiar {BaXovlat waysav sxcrxsp- juial©' Ia)ffBi|) Kat Magiar avat tov JLpjsov.^ Ouloi 64- Loc. jam citat. & p. 17a. '. Annal. ad Anji.C". XXXIV. , autben- Ch.XXVI. theGoJpeloftheNazztencs. 355 authentick Text of St. Matthew, becaufe it was on ly made ufe of by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, Hereticks, and a Work full of Fables and Corrupti ons of various Sorts. y. Grotius fuppofes this Gofpel to have been made out of the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew, and that in it were fome Accounts not written by him, but fuch as the Nazarenes receiv'd by Traditi on, and by Degrees inferted into their Copies ; from whence the Difference arofe between the Greek and Hebrew Books e. 6. Father Simon has carried the Authority of this Gofpel to a very great Height ; and fpent two whole Chapters f in endeavouring to fupport it. The Subftance of what he fays is ; That St. Mat thew firft wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew ; that it was compos'd for the Primitive Ghriftians of Paleftine, call'd Nazarenes, who are not to be look'd upon as Hereticks ; that if this their Hebrew Copy were ex tant, it were to be prefer' d to the Greek Verfion which we now have ; thai it is not to be look'd upon as Apocryphal, or a falfe Book, nor to be compar'd with the Gofpel according to the Egyptians, the A5ls of Barnabas, the Prophecy of Cham, and other Books that have been forg'd by Impoftors, but really a Com- pofiure of St. Matthew ; and as for the Additions afterwards inferted in it, they are not falfe, but an' nexed by the Nazarenes, as what they had from good ¦and undoubted Teftimonies, and therefore not to be re fecled. He heartily wifhes, it were now extant, even with all the Interpolations of the Nazarenes and E- bionites ; and adds, that even thus it fhould not be reckon' d among the Forgeries of Impoftors, but as the moft antient AU oft the Chriftian Religion, and confe- ' Annot- in Titul. Matth- e Critic. Hiftor. of the New Teft.' Part 1. c. 7, o, A a quentty 3 54- Later Writers Sentiments conceming'P&Y.tlL quently preferable to our prefent Greek Copies of St. Matthew, which are not a very juft Tranflation. 7. Mr. Du Pins has very much the fame Sen timents with Father Simon, only with this Diffe rence (which is indeed every where vifible in the Writings of thofe two French Criticks) that he delivers his Thoughts with a more becoming Soft- nefs and Modefty. 8. Dr. Grabe11 feems to have treated the Subject with more Accuracy, and fuppofes, that the Gofpel of the Nazarenes was not a Forgery of thofe Hereticks, becaufe it was not only tranflated by Jerome, but appeal' d to or cited by many of the old Chriftian Writers, Ignatius, Papias, Juftin Martyr, 6cc. That it was not any Gofpel of St. Mat thew'* alter'd, corrupted, and interpolated ; but an honeft Compofure of the Jewifh Converts at Jerufa lem, foon after our Saviour's Afcenfion, and fome Time before any of our prefent Canonical Gofpels were written ; that it afterwards had affix' d to it the Title of Matthew by the Artifice of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who knowing 57.' Matthew'* Gofpel was wrote in Hebrew, thereby more eafily impos'd their own upon the World, which was written in that Lan guage under his Name. p. Mr. Toland' tells us, the Ebionites or Nazarenes, who were the oldeft Chriftians, had a different Copy of St. Matthew'* Gofpel, and that this is by feveral maintain'd to be the Original of St. Matthew k. This Author has given us his Opini on more largely in a late difingenuous Tract againft the Chriftian Religion K Having defcrib'd his No- « Hift. ofthe Canon. Vol. II. ; Amyntor. p. 64. C. 2. §3. k Ibid. p. jj-. " Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. T. 1 . ; Nazarenus. p. if. &c, zarenes Ch.XXVI. the Gofpel of the Nazarenes^ 35 $ zarenes (who denied the Godhead of Chrift) as the original and only true Chriftians, and fuch as could not be miftaken, he mentions their Books01: Among others they had (fays he) a Gofpel of their own, fometimes call'd by Ecclefiaftical Writers The Gofpel of the Hebrews, and fometimes The Gof pel of the Twelve Apoftles,- but ignorantly mifta ken by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and others, for the Gofpel of Matthew interpolated. This Gofpel was publickly read in their Churches, as authentick, for 300 Tears ; which might very well be for the moft Part, and yet the other Gofpels be never the lefs au thentick alfo. It might be one of thofie many mention'd by St. Luke, as written before his own, and which he does not reject as falfe or erroneous, or for any 0- ther Reafon Diver fe pious and learned Men regret highly the Lofs of it — It was tranflated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who very often makes ufe of it, as likewife did Origen and Eufebius, not rejecting it as Apocryphal, nor receiving it as Cano nical, but placing it among what they called Ecclefi aftical Books, i. e. Books whofe Antiquity they were not able to deny, but whofe Authority they were not willing to acknowledge. Long before thefe, the Gof pel of the Hebrews was by Papias, Ignatius, Cle mens Alexandrinus, and others, alleg'd as a true Gofpel. So it feems to have been by Juftin Martyr. So it was by Hegefippus, 8cc. 10. Mr. Nye fuppofes" not only that the Ebi onites and Nazarenes were different Seels, but that they had different Gofpels. He blames Epiphanius for calling "the Things added in this Gofpel, Adul terations. That they are preferv'd by Eufebius, Je rome, Auftin, Photius (which by the Way is fo very falfe, that neither Auflin nor Photius have J" Chap. XX. ° Anfwer to Amyntor. p. j6, &c. A a 2 once 3 5 6 Later Writers Sentiments concerning Partll. once mention'd this Gofpel, nor Eufebius preferv'd one Fragment ) That it were highly to be valued, if extant. He adds a Conjecture concerning the Dif ference between St. Matthew's and the Ebionites Copies, more ingenious than well-grounded^ viz. That St. Matthew publifh'd two Editions of Ms Gof pel. In the firft he began at the Baptifm of John, which is now Chap. 3. In the fecond he began, as our prefent Copies, with the Genealogy. The Ebio nites made their Copies from the firft Edition, and thence proceeded the Difference. 1 1 . Mr. Richardson0. The Gofpel accord ing to the Hebrews was (as we may learn from Epi phanius and Jerome) the Gofpel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, but with feveral Interpolations and Addi tions of their own, though without making any Alte rations in what they found in the authentick Copies before. — The Ebionites corrupted the Gofpel of Mat thew in feveral more Particulars than the Naza renes, who only added fome hiftorical Paffages from Tradition , feveral of which might be true, and if not pretending to be wrote by St. Matthew, ought not to be call'd fpurious, or a Forgery. 1 2. Dr. Millp has borrow'd his Sentiments of this Gofpel from Dr. Grabe, viz. that it was not at all the fame with the true Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, but made before it by fome Jewifh Chriftians #/ Jerufalem. Only there feems this Dif ference, that as Dr. Grabe imagines it to have been abus'd by the Nazarenes afterwards, Dr. Mill fup pofes not only this, but feveral erroneous and hete rodox Things to have been in it at its firft Writing. 0 Canon vindicated Pag. 69, «" Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. &c. § 38. 13. Dr. Ch.XXVI. the Gofpel ofthe Nazarenes. 357 13. Dr. Whit by % attempting to prove that St. Matthew's Gofpel was originally wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew, concludes concerning this Gof pel of the Hebrews, That it was not the true authen tick Gofpel of St. Matthew ; that it was not a Co py of St. Matthew'* Gofpel free from Interpolations and Additions, but St. Matthew'* Gofpel tranflated out of Greek into Hebrew, with the fame Liberty as the Chaldee Paraphrafes of the Old Teftament, viz. with the Addition of feveral Things from Tra dition ; which Verfion the primitive Chriftians, who were ignorant of that Language, finding in their Hands, they from the Likenefis of the Thing, and the Pretenfions of the Jews, might think it an Original, written for their Ufe. 14. Mr. Fabritius1 cenfures Mr. Toland, for his having too highly extoll'd this Apocryphal Gofpel, as well as for the whole Defign of his Nazarenus ; and a little after adds f ; By all the Fragments of this Gofpel it is evident, that it was very different from the Canonical one of Mat thew, 1 5*. Mr. L e C l e r c c is of the fame Opinion with Dr. Whitby, as above. 16. Dr. Man gey v, fpeaking of the Naza renes, obferves, that they us'd not the Gofpel of St. Matthew, but a particular Gofpel of their own : And in another Place afterwards w, They pretended, in Or der to gain better Terms from the other Believers, to ufe an Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, ( which, by i Preface to the Gofpels, Harm, of the Gofpel, p. 604. p. 46, 47. * Remarks on Nazarenus , 1 Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. chap. vi. p. 35". Tom. 3. p.r4i. w Ibid. Chap. VIII. p. f 8, fP. f*6. S9- 1 Diflert. HI. anncx'd to his A a 3 the 358 Later Writers Sentiments, &c. Part II. the Way, probably caus'd the erroneous Opinion of that Gofpel being originally wrote in Hebrew) but this was a falfe Pretence ; for the Gofpel ac cording to the Hebrews, which they follow' d, was very different from ours of St. Matthew, as appears not only by the remaining Fragments of it, but from the Teftimony of Jerome, who affirms, that he tranf lated it both into Greek and Latin. -^ They fub- mitted not to the receiv'd PVritings of the Apoftles, but follow 'd a Chimerical forg'd Gofpel of their own. Thus I have collected the moft confiderable Q- pinions, if not all of any Value, that have been publifh'd by later Writers concerning the Gofpel of the Hebrews. Chap, Ch. XXVII. 3 59 Chap. XXVII. The Gofpel of the Nazarenes highly efteem'd by many Writers, becaufe they imagined it was cited by the pri mitive Chriftians in their Writings. This prov'd to be a Miftake. No Chriftian Writer of the firft four Cen turies has cited or appealed to this Gofpel, believing it to be of any Au thority. A notorious fnadverlency of many learned Men, whereby they fuppos'd that Papias cited it. A Cha racter of Papias. No Verfion made of the Nazarene Gofpel before that of Jerome. Another Miftake of]t- rome and other learned Men, in fup pofing that Ignatius us'd this Gof pel. HAVING given fo large an Account in the preceding Chapter of the Sentiments of learned Men concerning the Gofpel of the Naza- .renes, I proceed here to confider the real Value and Authority of it. I defign not ' to enter into any '. A a 4 large 36o The Gofpel of Part II. large Criticifm upon thefe various Opinions, nor yet to interpofe my own ; my Bufinefs being not fo much to do this,. as to fet forth its true Autho rity. I proceed therefore in the Method which I propos'd; viz. to fhew, III. That the Gofpel of the Nazarenes was ne ver receiv'd by any primitive Writer as Canonical, neither cited nor appeal' d to, as of any Authority, by any one Writer of the firfl four Centuries. I am very fenfible, that I here am about to op- pofe the Sentiments of many learned Men, who have unwarily been betray 'd into an extravagant Opinion of this Gofpel, by a groundlefs Prefump- tion, that the Fathers have cited it, without a due Enquiry into the Matter. Thus the learned Sixtus Senenfis fays, it was receiv'd by the moft antient Fa thers among other facred Scriptures, for tbe Edifica tion of the Church. See above C. xxvi. n. 2, Ba ronius and Simon judge it for the fame Reafon pre ferable to our prefent Greek Copies of St. Matthew. The moft antient Ecc'efiaflical Writers (fays Si mon") have cited it as the true Gofpel of St. Mat thew. Dr. Grabe was for the feme Reafon in duc'd to his high Opinion of it, viz. becaufe he thought it was cited by Papias, Hegefippus, Igna tius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and others, even for the Confirmation of the great Articles of Re ligion13. But no one has been fo extravagantly po- fitive, and unpardonably miftaken in this Matter as Mr. Tolandc, who tells us, It was read in the Chriftian Churches for 300 Years, not re jelled by Origen and Eufebius, but alleg'd as a true Gofpel by Papias, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Juftin ¦ Critic. Hift. of the New Page 14. Teft. Par. i. c.7. p. 61. « Naiaren. chap. xx. p. 78, » Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. T. 1. &c. Martyr, Ch. XXVII- the Nazarenes Apocryphal. 361 Martyr, Hegefippus, and others. This therefore being -the main Foundation of this GofpePs Cre dit, will require a more critical Enquiry ; and this I fhall attempt by fhewing, that not one of thefe Fathers receiv'd it with any Authority, but almoft e- very one exprefly rejebled it as Apocryphal. The firft is Papi a's, who is generally efteem'd by all thofe who have wrote on thefe Subjects to have made Ufe of the Gofipel of the Hebrews. Thus thought the learned Archbifhop Ufher A ; thus Dr. Grabe", Fabritius f, Bifhop Pearfon e, and others. Father Simon and Toland are more egregioufly mif- taken ; the former affertsh, That Papias, who liv'd with the Difeiples of the Apoflles, faith, that the Hiftory of the Woman accus'd of many Sins before our Saviour is to be read in the Gofpel that was call'd according to the Hebrews^. The latter*, that Papias alleges it as a true Gofpel. But in this thefe Writers are all plainly miitaken ; for there can be Nothing more evident, than that they did not rightly confider the Words of Eufe bius, which are the Foundation of their Opinion ; he ment jons indeed fuch a Hiftory as expounded by Papias, but then adds in his own Words k, It is contain'd in the Gofpel of the Hebrews ; and does not fo much as intimate that Papias took it thence. Nothing therefore feems more probable, than that this Hiftory was related by Papias, not out of any Book, but as what he had receiv'd by Tradition. To confirm which I obferve, 1. That he is call'd by Irenaus^, a Difciple of St. John, 'a Friend of Polycarp, and an antient Au- d In Epift. ad Smyrn. Ig- ep.p. 102. nat. Not. 2 2. p, 48. " Loc. jam cit. p. 67. * Lib. cit. p. 17. ' Loc. jam cit. ' Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teft. T. 1. fc Hift Eccl. L. 3. c. 39. in p. 35-6. fine. § Vindic. Ignat. Epift. p. i. J Adv. tjasref. L.r. c.13. thor, '362 Not cited £y Papias. Partly thor, and confequently might be very likely to re ceive many true Accounts and Hiftories of our Sa* viour, whictTare not in our prefent Gofpels, fuch, as his Mafter St. John fpeaks of, c. xxi. zf. z. Papias himfelf declares m, that he receiv'd his 'Accounts of Chriftianity from thofe ( tcov sxaveir yvca- ci[x- S>uj eafls rr\>av1o, y.cu imio- r&iaav, x.(>jf,&tv1is t« cragju eofis »a* tco Trvdj[xa1i. And when he came to thofe who were with Pe ter, he faid unto them, Take, handle me, and fee that I am not an incorpo real Damon ; and prefently they touch' d him, and be lieved, being convinc'd by his Flefh and Spirit. This is generally faid by the Criticks to have been taken by Ignatius out of this Gofpel. So judg'd'" Baronius1, Drufiusv, Valefius™, Dr. Grabe x, and many others ; whence they have form'd a more high Opinion of the Book. That which perfua- ded them to fuppofe it taken thence is the exprefs Affertion of Jerome to this Purpofe, ( See above, Chap. XXV. n. 28.) But this will appear very improbable ; for 1. Ignatius does not make any Mention of this Gofipel either in this, or any other Place of thofe E- piftles, which go under his Name ; and therefore it may as well be fuppos'd he cited what he had heard, as what he had read, efpecially if we conr fider him as one who liv'd very near the Apof tles Times, if not in them, and at this Time in a troublefome Journey under a Guard of Soldiers, and fo deflitute of his Books y. Can any one ima gine, that in this Journey Ignatius carried the Gof pel of the Nazarenes, wrote in a Language which r Epift. ad Smyrn. c. 3. w Annot. in Eufeb. Lib. 3. ' Apud Cafaub. Exercit. p. c. 36. 497- * Loc. fup. cit. v Obfervat. Sacr, Lib. 4. r Eufeb. Hift. Eccl Lib. h C 22. c. 36. he Ch. XXVII. Not cited by Ignatius: 365 he could fcarce underftand, along with him from Syria to Rome ? And if he did not, is it not more probable, he cited a Paffage which he had heard by Tradition, than quoted it out of this Apocryphal Gofpel? Nor am I alone in this Conjecture. The great Cafaubon in the Place cited, and Bifhop Pearfon7-, fuppofe the very fame, viz. That Igna tius did not take the Paffage out of the Nazarene Gofpel, but refer'd to fome unwritten Tradition, which was afterwards inferted into the Hebrew Gofpel attributed to Matthew. But if this be not fufficient,- I obferve, as what feems indeed moft probable ; 2. That the Paflage above produc'd is fo very little different from the Words of St. Luke, chap. xxiv. 30. that thefe feem to have been intended or refer'd to by Ignatius, and no other. This will appear by the comparing of them. The Words of Christ, as they are in St. Luke' j Gofpel. 1, 'si s Ta? x&ej-s M85 *<>" Tsr •uso&as yus, oil ctcf]©1 iya3 a/jti' •\*riha<$r\adlt [M, xott ic^ETe. oil 'jrvijixao'apy.a y.oj. oe-sa sx. i%et, xaSw i\xt S'tcogeiTs i%ov1a. The Englifh of St. Luke'* Words. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is my The Words of Christ? as they are in I g na* tius'* Epiftle. AaCels, •^riXatpno-flHs (it, Y.om ie/V7s oil SK. «/j» A«t- [xoviov affwfialov. The Englifh of I g n a- tiusV Words. Take, handle me, and fee, that I am not an * Vindic. Epift. Ignat. P. II. c. o. p. 103, 104. I felfi $66 Not cited by Ignatius. Part II, felf ; handle me, and fee, for a Spirit hath not Flefh and Bones, as you fee me have. incorporeal Spirit ( or Dazmon.) Thefe two Sentences are fo extremely alike, not only as to the whole Senfe and Defign of them, but even as to the very Words, that if there were no other Argument, this would of itfelf be fuffi cient to prove the Point I am contending for. But this will be much corroborated, if we con fider Firfl, That the Chrifiian. Fathers, efpecially the oldeft$ Were continually wont to cite the Scriptures memori- "i ter, i. e. by their Memories without confulting their Copies, and fib not exprefiftng the very Words of th Skcred Writer whom they cited, thought it fufficient to exprefs the Senfe or Defign of the Place. This is evident by a thoufand Inftances, and is very well utg'4 by Dr. Whitby3- againft' Dr. Mill, who has very unfairly made their memoriter Citations fio off en to be various Leclions, or to proceed from different Copies. Nor can it feem ftrange, that the Fathers did cite thus, when we fee the fame daily practis'd-- by the beft Writers. Befides, the Form of their Volumes was fuch, as occaflon'd much greater Difficulty to find any Paffage in them, than it now is in oursb. I might add feither, that they had not as yet their Books diftinguifh'd into Chap ters and Verfes, as ours now are, £i? c. SetondlyfTh&t Ignatius (as I have obferv'd^ was now on a Journey, under a flricl Guard of Soldiers, and therefore as he probe Hy had not his Books with him, it is not flrange he Jhoidd give only the Scfie of St. Luke'* Words, and not all the Words themfelves. ' Examen variant. Leftion. tient Ways of Writing and Form D. Millii. c. i. § i, z, See. of Volumes. Vindic.of St.Matt. ' * See my Account of the an- Gofp. c. ij. p. icr, &c. And Ch. XXVII. Not cited by Ignatius: ^67 And this he, who will be at the Pains to obferve, may perceive in many other Citations in the E- piftles of Ignatius. Thirdly, I obferve, the Epiftles of Ignatius are ftrangely corrupted and interpolated finCe their firft Writing. This is well known,and Archbifhop Ufher has abundantly prov'd it, and particularly in this fame Place c ; from whence I conclude, that the Words here were formerly perhaps more like thofe of Luke than they are now. To conclude, many learned Men have imagin'd all thefe Epiftles of Ignatius to be fpurious, and the celebrated Mr. Daille1 has endeavour'd, from this very Place, to prove that they are fo. c Edit. Epiftol. Ignat. in Pro- " Contr. Epift. Ignat. Lib, a. leg. c. 3, 4. c. 17. p. 330, 340. Chap. 368 Not cited by Juftin Martyr. Part II. Chap. XXVIII. A particular Proof, that neither Juftin Martyr, Hegefippus, Clemens A- lexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, nor Jerome have appealed to the Gofpel of the Nazarenes as of any Authority, hut on the contrary rejected it, as not Canonical. ' TH E next who is fuppos'd to have taken any Thing out of this Gofpel is J u s t i n Mar tyr a, viz. an Account of a Fire kindled in the River - Jordan, when Chrift was baptis'd. Thus thought a learned Friend of Mr. Dodwell's, whom he has mention'd in his Differtations on Irenaus\ But of this there is fo little Probability, no Gofpel being nam'd by Juftin, nay the Paffage in Juftin being different from that in the Nazarene Gofpel, that I think it needs no farther Notice, than to be confider'd among thofe uncertain Sayings and Hiftories of Chrift, which will be collected in the Appendix to this Volume. Hegesippus (an early Writer of the fecond Century) is the next who is fuppos'd to have us'd a Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. " Diflert II. §9. p. 106. p. iij-. It,, Ch.XXVIII. Not cited by Hegefippus: 36*0 it) and, according to Dr. Grabe, to have had fre quent Recourfe to itc; and Mr. Toland A to have al leg'd it as a true Gofpel. This they gather from a miftaken Tranflation of thefe Words of Eufebius, En c/*e ts xa8' EjS^ts? &)ayU\ix, y. j 80 The Gofpel of the Nazarenes Part II. Compellation, with which our Saviour addreffes himfelf to James (in that Paffage oi Jerome, Num. xiv. ) Mi Frater, My Brother ; a Title not known to be given by our Saviour , nor in thofe early Times when St. Matthew wrote, but afterwards very common among the Chriftians. Thus much may fuffice to prove the Gofpel of the Nazarenes Apocryphal ; I fhall conclude with a fhort Account. V. Of what feems moft probable to me, of the Nature and Defign of this famous Book, with fome fhort Account of the Hereticks who receiv'd it. ¦ I take it to have been an early Tranflation of the Greek Gofipel of St. Matthew into Hebrew, with the Addition of piany fabulous Relations and errone ous Doblrines, compos'd in the Name of the Twelve Apoflles, by fome Convert or Converts to Chriftianity among the Jews, who with their Profeffion of Chrift retain 'd their Zeal and Affeclion for the Law of Mofes, with the moft prepofterous and abfurd No tions concerning Chrift and the Chriftian Religion. The feveral Parts of this Hypothefis will ap pear by the following Aphorifms. I. The Gofpel of St. Matthew was originally, written in Greek, and not in Hebrew. This 1 hav ing fo largely prov'd in another Book fhall take here for granted. See Vindic. of St. Matthew's Gofpel, Chap. XVII. XVIII. XIX. 2. That the Nazarene Gofpel was compiTd out of St. MatthewVf is very evident, becaufe it is fo fre« quently call'd by his Name (as above) which can not be imagin'd to have happen'd upon any other Suppofition, fince there was another Gofpel ex tant under his Name. One Remark I have made out of a Fragment of it in Epiphanius, Chap, praced. Num. xi. Ch.XXIX. made out of St.Matthew's. 381 Num.xi. which feems to me to demonftrate, that it was made out of St. Matthew's Greek. For whereas in this we read, c. iii. 4. That John the Baptift's Food in the Wildernefs was axycflts xcu /jh\i ayoiov, i. e. Locufts and Wild Honey, inftead thereof in the Nazarene Gofpel we read, his Food was fxt\i ayot- ov ov n y&xris nv th Mavva ok eyxg/r, Wild Honey. whofe Tafte was like Manna, or Cakes made with Honey and Oil. Now forafmuch as it is certain, that Locufts were a very common, Food in thofe Eaftern Countries; as is undeniably prov'd by Bo- chart1, and fuch Food feems very agreeable to the reft of John's Way of Life, it is but reafona- ble to conclude our prefent Greek Reading ( viz. a*(>fo*is) to be the true and authentick one ; and if fo, then it is evident, that this Nazarene Gof pel was a Tranflation of St. Matthew's Greek, and that the Tranflator read tyxyd^is inftead of a-toid^t?, and being a Jew, accuilom'd to the Ufe of the Septuagint Greek Bibles , very probably was led thereto by the Septuagint Tranflation of thofe Words, Exod. xvi. 31. To cAs y&ipa wo% as tyyimz §v lAtkflt; or as it is in Num. xi. 8. Kat »v tj »jJ*ovjj aults wcra ydi[xa iyxpj: £? sXacs. And this by the Way feems a very demonftrative Proof, that St. Mat thew's prefent Greek was not a Tranflation out of Hebrew, feeing there was no Poffibility of fuch a Miftake in reading the Hebrew Word, as to tranf- late it axyfts, where it ought to have been tranf lated tyxpj&is. 3. That it pretended to be made by the Twelve Apoflles, is evident from its bearing that Title;, as alfo from a Paffage of that Fragment in Epiphanius, (which is above, Num. xi.) where we read, There was a certain Man nam'd Jefus, about thirty Tears 1 Hierozoic. Par. 2. L.4. c. 7. See alfo Sir Norton Kmtcblu^s Annotations on that Place of Matthew. Of 384 Why call'd that ofthe i z Apoflles. Part II. of Age, who chofe us to be his Apoftles : Where it is plain the Writer fpeaks in the Name of thcrri all, or at leaft of feveral j juft as in the pretended Conftitutions of the Apoftles, we continually read of Exhortations and Commands given in the Name of all the Apoftles. Nor do I know any Reafofl for difputing, whether it bore this Title; fave on* ly that Beda is fuppos'd to diftinguifh between the Gofpel of the Hebrews, and the Gofpel according to the Twelve Apoftles, in the Place above cited, Chi XXVI. Num. i. See the Paffage at length in Sixtus Senenfts m : But upon a ftrict Enquiry I do not perceive that Beda has at all diftinguifli'd them, but rather that Dr. Grabe11, and Mr. Fabritius*} are miftaken in fuppofing he did. 4. That it was a very early Compofitre, I make no Doubt, from the early Mention we have of it. It is not improbable (as I have faid) that it was refer'd to by St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Gala tians, which was written about the Year of Chrift, LVII, or LVIII. It was undoubtedly extant in the Beginning of the fecond Century ; tho' No thing feems more abfurd than Dr. Grabe's Opinion, that it was written before St. Matthew wrote his; It is like fuppofing the Child born before his Fa ther. f. That it had in it many idle and fabulous, as well as falfe and erroneous, Relations ; is largely prov'd already. Thefe are fo many, and fo very notorious, that I wonder how Father Simon could have fo high an Opinion either of thefe, or the Gofpel that Contain'd them. s Can any one unpre judiced give the Preference to fuch a Heap of Fa* ¦ Biblioth. Sane*. L. 2. p. 64. " Cod. Apocrypha Nor. Te(!< • Spicileg. Patr* Secul* I. T. Par. 1. p. jri* l. p. 16. bles Ch.XXIX. Full of fabulous Stories. 383 bles and Contradictions, above St. Matthew's plain and confiftent Accounts ? But becaufe that learned Writer was fo far preju- dic'd in Favour of this Hebrew Gofpel, as to prefer it to the Greek of St. Matthew, even with all thefe Differences ; I would argue a little upon his own Hypothefis againft him. Suppofe then, our Greek Copies of St. Matthew were really a Tranflatiort out of the Hebrew, in which that Apoftle firft wrote; how came it to pafs, that the Greek Tranf lation fhould be fo very different from its Original, as it is in every one of the remaining Paflages ? This Difference cannot be fuppos'd to have happen'd but upon one of thefe two following Accounts ; viz. either, Firft, Becaufe the Verfion was made when the flebrew Original was more pure, and that thefe Ad ditions were made by the Nazarenes afterwards; or, Secondly, Becaufe the Author of the Greek Ver fion epitomis'd it, and alter'd it according to his own Mind. Father SimonV, according as it ferv'd his Pur pofe, fuppofes both thefe, tho' moft evidently conr tradictory to each other, feeing the Difference could not proceed from both Caufes. But which* foever of them we fuppofe true, will overthrow his Hypothefis ; for // we fay the firft, viz. 'that the Greek Verfion was made before the Nazarene Additions, it follows, their Gofpel muft now be efteem'd Apocryphal, becaufe the Alterations and, Additions were fo great, as not to have left fcarce any Thing of St. Matthew remaining : For there is not one of all the Fragments now extant, but dif fers from St. Matthew's Greek ; which, according to the Suppofition, is pure and perfect, being made before the Nazarene Alterations. If he fiay. the latter, viz. that the Difference proceeds from tbe r See his Crit. Hift. of N. T. p. $7, and 81. Fault 3 84 Made by fome Convert Jews. Part II. fault of the Greek Tranfiator ; then I anfwer, that this fuppofes the Things in which the Nazarene Gofpel differs from St. Matthew's Greek, to be good and ufeful; which is contrary to what has been above prov'd. 6*. This Hebrew Gofpel, or Tranflation of St. Matthew's Greek into Hebrew, with the foremen tion'd Additions and Interpolations, feems to have been made by fome Convert Jews, to favour their No tions of mixing Judaifm and Chriftianity- together. That there was very early fuch a Sort of Perfons ofthe Jewifh Nations, who were for uniting their old Religion with the new one of Chrift, is evi-. dent from a great Part of St. Paul's Epiftles ; three of which feem purpofely to be written a- gainft them ; viz. That to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That thefe were principally delight ed with the Gofpel entitul'd, According to the He brews ( co txa\isa EC^ctiaiv ei tov Xgjrov Trapjio^t^a- pfyoi ^ouqho-i) we are exprefly affur'd by Eufebius 1, as well as by many other antient Writers. Of this Gofpel they had fo prodigioufly great an Opinion, that for the Sake of it they contemn'd and rejetJed all others, and only made Ufe of this : So we are told by Irenaus1, Eufebius f, and others. Now hence it feems undeniably to follow, that there were in this Gofpel feveral Things which favour'd their peculiar Notions, and confequently that it was made by fome Chriftianis'd Jew, or rather Judaifing Chriftian1. That which remains is only to give fome brief Account of the Nazarenes, who us'd this Gof pel. q Hiftor. Eccief. Lib. 3. ' This would probably ad- c. 4 f. mit no Doubt, if more of it * Adv. Haref. L. i. c. 26. had been preferv'd. f Eccl. Hift. L, 1. c. 27. They QlXXIX. Concerning the Nazafenes, &c. 3 8 5 They are faid by Epiphanius to < have arofe from fome Chriftian Jews,' who went from Jerufalem to Pellav. It is very uncertain why they were call'd by this Name. He who has a mind may fee a plaufible Account in Dr. Mangey' s Anfwer to Mr. Toland' s Nazarenus, c. viii. Out of thefe fprang the Ebi onites, who had in a great Meafure the fame Opi nions with the Nazarenes w, and yet are made two diftinct Sects by Epiphanius. The Truth is, they are fo confounded by that Father, that one can fcarce tell how to give any clear Account of them. But to do it in the beft Manner I can, I fhall give the Reader an Abftract out of Irenaus, Eufebius, and Epiphanius, in the following Manner. , Concerning the Naza- RENES. 1 . They maintain'd the perpetual Obligation of the Law of Mofies, and differ.'d only from the Jews, in that they profefs'd the Name of ; Chrift, and urg'd, as ne- ceffary, the Ufe of Sa crifices, Circumcifion , ' 2. They denied the Divinity of Chrift, af ferting him to be a mere Man ; fo we read in The odoret, that they .look'd * Haref. 29. N.7. See alfo Eufeb. Hift. Ecclefiaft. Lib. 3. c. f. I Epiph, I-fcsref. ao, N. I Concerning the Ebio nites. 1 . They oblig'd them felves to the Obfervation of all Things command ed in the Law of Mofies, fuch asSacrifices,Circum- cifion, rjfV. profefs'd Ene mies to St. Paul and his Writings, becaufe he wrote fo warmly againft the Law v. 2, They all look'd up on Chrift as a mere Crea ture ; fome afferting him a mere Man, born, as o- ther Men, of Jofeph and * Id. N.7. y Iren. adv. Hseref. Lib. 1. c. 26. Eufeb. L. 3. c. 27. E- piph. Hsr. 30. N. 1, 2. C c upon 3%6 apon him only as a juft and good Man. Her. Fab. L.z. c.l.z The Nazarenes and Part II. Mary*. Others confef- fed him 'to have come from Heaven, but made1 before all , and being a fuperangelical Creature, had the Dominion of allb; 3. They us'd the Gof pel according to Mat thew in the Hebrew, moft entire, according to E- piphanius, who adds, that he was uncertain, whe ther they had taken away out of it the Genealogy from Abraham to Chrift, or no c. 3. They made Ufe of St. Mathew 's Gofpel a- lone d, and that in He brew e, but according to Epiphanius, not entire, but corrupted and adul terated f, and took away the Genealogy from it% and began their Gofpel with thefe Words; And it came to pafs in the Days of Herodh, See. It is plain therefore, that there was a very great Agreement between thefe two antient Sects ; and though they went under differeht Names, yet they feem only to differ in this, that the Ebionites had made fome Additions to the old Nazarene Syftem; for Origen exprefly tells us1, Koct HGiovouot ^nali-1 yscrc 01 airo IscPowwv tov Ir\j,et\ov \ that he did not know whether they had taken away the Genealogy as the Ebionites had done, i.e. having never feen the Nazarene Gofpel, for ought he knew, it might be the very fame with that of the Ebionites, as indeed it moft certainly was. k See this Conjecture in his Critic. Hift. of the New Teft. Exercitations againft Baronius, Par. i. c.7. p. 6"j-. Fabrit. Cod. ad Atsn.Chri/HXXXlV.N.iCf.- Apoc. N.T. Par. 1. p. 369. p.486. It is rejected by Simon, ' Hxref. 29. in fine. C c z Chap. 388 The ASls of Paul, Sec Part. II. Chap. XXX. The Acts of Paul and Thecla extant in the Bodleian Library, and pub lifh'd by Dr. Grabe. Ads of Paul a different Book. Thefe falfly fup- pos d by Dr. Mill to be wrote by faithful Chriftians , A. D. LXIX. tofupply the Defetfs of Luke's Hif tory of the Apoftles Ads. A fil ly Forgery rejeBed by all the Anti ents who name it. The Preaching of Paul and Peter one Book. A Book under the Name of Paul. The Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul generally thought to have been two- Books. ¦ A ridiculous Blunder of Mr. Toland'*, relating to it. Prov'd by feveral Arguments to be only different Titles of the fame Book. A Con- jeBure concerning a Paffage of Ter tuUian, wherein he refers to this Book. The Title of a Revelation Ch. XXX. Paul and Thecla'* Afls. 3 89 under the Name pf Paul now extant in a Manufcript in the Library of Merton-College at Oxford. Num. XLIII. The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA. THESE are mention'd by TertuUian, and from him by Jerome, and afterwards by Ge lafius. 1 . T e r t u l l 1 a n a, in his Treatife of Baptifm, mentions it thus. Quod fi qui Pauli perpe- ram fcripta legunt, cx- emplum Thecla: ad li- eentiam mulierum do- cendi tingendique defen- dunt, fciant in Afia pref- byterum qui earn Scrip- turam conftruxit, quafi titulo Pauli de fuo cu- mulans, convicttun, 'atq; confeffiim, id fe amore Pauli feciffe, loco difcef- fiffe. But if any read the Apo- cryphal Books of Paul, and defend the Right of Wo men to preach and bap tife, by the Example of Thecla, let them confi der, That a Presbyter of Afia, who forg'd that Book, and adorn'd his Performance with tbe Title of Paul, was con victed ( of the Forgery ) and confefs'd, that he did it out of Refpe£t to Paul, and thereupon left his Place. 2. J e r o m b in his Life of Luke b. Periodos Pauli & The- j The Acls of Paul and clae, & totam baptifati I Thcc\a,and the whole Sto- ' Cap. 17. J1 Catalog, vir. illuft. in Luca, Cc 3 leonis leonis fabulam inter apo- cryphas fcripturas com- ¦ putamus. Quale enim eft, ut individuus comes apoftoli inter cseteras e- jus res hoc folum igno- raverit?-Sed & Tertulli- anus, vicinus eorum tem- porum, refert prefby- terum quendam in Afia, axrisJarnv, i. e. amatorem Pauli, convictum apud Joannem quod auctor ef- fet libri, & confeflum fe hoc Pauli amore feciffe, v& loco excidiffe. The ASls of Paul and Part II. ry of the baptis'd_Lion, I reckon among the Apo cryphal Scriptures ; for what Sort of Thing muft it be, which the con usant Companion of the Apoftle fhould be igno rant of, and no other Thing which he did ? But TertuUian, who liy'd near thofe Times, relates, that a certain Presbyter of Afia, an Admirer of Paul, being, convicted by St. John, that he was the Author ofthe Book, con fefs'd that he did it out of Love to Paul, and fo left his Place. 5 . Gelasius, in his Decree. Liber qui appellatur actus Theclas 8c Pauli apocry phus. The Book, which is cal led The Acls of Thecla and' Paul, is Apocry phal0. I need not be at much Pains here in making any critical Remarks on this Book. The learned Dr. Grabe has lately publifh'd, out of a Manufcript in the Bodleian Library, a Book entitul'd, Mapliiyov ¦m? ayias &ou evc^o^s 7r£cjjflofji#(f)u£©>, kou amoso'kts BvChas. The Martyr ology or Acls of the pious and celebrated firft Martyr, and Apoftle Thecla . jo.') has theGoodnefs to refer lis to a Place in Sr. Auftin, and another in TZpiphanius, where thefe A&s arc mention'd, but I muft do him the Juftice to tell him,, there is no luch Book mention'd in either Place* d Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. T. I. p. or. U Cti.AAA. ~liiec\a now extant. 391 he believes6 to be the very fame with the A£ts, of Paul and Thecla, mention'd by TertuUian, Jerome, and Gelafius ; and indeed, there is this good Ar gument to fupport his Opinion, that what Tertul- lian faith was urg'd out of thefe Acts, viz. the Ex ample of Thecla, to countenance the Praclice of Wo men's Preaching and Baptifing, is to be found in this Manufcript which he has publifh'd; See p. 1 14, 1 16, 6?r. I muft therefore look upon this as a Book extant, and fo fhall defer the Confideration of it to the next Volume of this Work, where I defign (God willing) to produce tb.is and other fuch Pie ces now extant, in their' Original Languages, with an Englifh Tranflation. • -• • Num/'XLIV. The ACTS of PAUL. ipOncerning this old Apocryphal Pfoce, we have ^ but very little that is certain now left. It is mention'd ; >» 1. By Origen, giving a Defcriptiori of Chrift f. Unde & recte mihi dictus "vicjetur fermo ille, qui in ' (Actftms Pauli foriptus ' eft, Quia hie eft verbum, * animat vivens. Wherefore that Saying' feems to me right, Which is written in the Acls of Paul, That this is the Word, a living Animal. 2. By the fames. 'Ei tu H qwK.01/ uraga- 1 But if any one pleafe to , par.um 498. ab initio, cap. a. . Cc 4 i cilf 392 OK VTI'0 ScOTKlg©' HgtflJJuoV, AvcoS-ev /.xtXXco ?«iyp8^'at. 7*/&jjJz&.s sv avaptyi- "Kt/loie wagaXvjipa. As for that Book, which is entitul'd, The Abls of Paul, I have not found it among thofe of un doubted Authority. 4. By the fame '. Ev Toisvo&oisy.aloLlflaxQto jtcu tcov rtwXs -nrgjc^fcov n yey^i &c. The Atls of Paul are to be rank'd among thofe Books, which are fpu rious. f. By Phil astriusK Habent Manichari 1 The Manichees have alfo actus Pauli pariter apo- 1 the Acls of Paul, which cryphi, Sec. ' are apocryphal. Thefe are the feveral Places, where thefe Acts are mention'd. I readily agree with Dr. Grabe1, they were not the fame with the Acts of Paul and Thecla in the laft Number ; but muft utterly dif- fent from him in faying, that Eufebius places it in the Catalogue of Books, which were doubted of only by fome : Whereas Nothing can be more plain, than that he ranks it with the voS-ctr, or fpurious Books, which are in the worft Clafs. Nor is it lefs abfurd in Dr. Millm to fuppofe, that thefie Acts " Hift. Eccl. L. 3. c. 3, • C. ar. * Haeief. Apocrypha qux eft 87. See it above in this r»rt, ¦ Chap. XXI, 1 Lib. cit. p. 86. m Prolegom. in Nqv. Teftam. 130. of Ch. XXX. Refected by Eufebius. 393 of Paul were compil'dby fome faithful Chriftians a- bout the Tear of Chrift LXIX. to fupply (as he calls it) imperfectam hiftoriam Pauli quam tradiderat Lucas, i. e. thofe imperfetl Accounts which are con tain'd in the (now receiv'd) Acls of the Apoftles which were written by Luke. For befides that he offers no Manner of Argument for his Hypothefis, it is fufficient to deflroy it, that Eufebius reckons it among the fpurious Books, and Philaftrius among thofe filly Books, which contain'd Abundance of ftrange Sto ries, about Dogs and Beafts fpeaking,fkc. and for that Reafon, that the Souls of Men were like the Souls of thofe Animals. Altho' I cannot but here own, that perhaps Philaftrius may fpeak of thofe Acls of Paul which are mention'd by Photius*, and attributed to Leucius Charinus by him. As to the two Paffages taken out of thefe Acts by Origen, it is plain he appeals to them, and the Book whence he takes them, not as being of Au thority. Accordingly he introduces them thus ; The Saying feems to me right, and if any one pleafe to admit that which is written in the Acts of Paul,' &c. which are Forms of Speech he would 'never. have us'd concerning any Book, which he thought to be of undoubted Authority. Befides, to fay Nothing of the firft of thofe Paffages, which is moft obfcure and unintelligible, to fay no worfe, viz. That he is the Word, a living Animal; the lat ter is borrow'd from a moft ridiculous Hiftory, which is ftill extant in the fabulous Lives of the Apoftles under the Name of Abdias (viz. in the Life of Peter, c. 19.) The Stpry in fhort is, " That " after the Decree of Nero to apprehend Peter at " Rome, he was at length prevail' d upon by his " Friends, contrary to his own Inclinations, to en- *J deavour his 'Efcape ; accordingly having in the " Night fled as far as the City-Gates, he faw Chrift I Cod. CXIV. See the Place at large above, Chap. XXI. I " coming 3 94 ?aul md Peter' j T reaching. Part II. " coming to meet him : To whom he faid, Lord ! " Whither art thou going ? Chrift anfwer' d, I come « to Rome to be crucified again : (which are the " Words of the' Paflage in Origen) Peter under- >u flood this as an Intimation that he ought to fujfer, " and thereupon return' d, and was crucified. Upon the whole then it is reafonable to conclude thefe Acts of Paul Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. VI. and IX.. and therefore that Mr. Whifton is much miftaken, when he fays it is to be look'd up on in fome Senfe as a facred Book °. Num. XLV. The ^reaching t>i\Tisgyias e/jcxXsov, co Mat 01 TvosiV-oi \iyoi*ivoi %£ttv1ou, 0 AvaGalixov Tlauku Kakuai, ti\v tt^- tyamv Ajcqv^is aino th Xs- ytiv tov the Monks of the fourth Century were much de lighted with the Revelation of Paul, therefore it ' Prolegom. in Nov. Tellara. d Locis fupra allegatis in hoc § 364. Capite. was Ch.XXX. of Paul ApocryphaL 40 1 was made then : They us'd it, therefore they forg'd it. Sozomen indeed relates a fabulous Ac count of this Revelation being found in the Time of Theodofius the Emperour, in a Marble Chef, hid under Ground at the Houfe of St. Paul, at Tarfus in Cilicia, to which they were1 directed by God ; but he adds, that he was affur'd by a Prefibyter of Tarfus, who was very old, that this was not Fatl, but he fuppos'd the Book forg'd by the Hereticks. He far ther fays, it was a Book much commended by the Monks e ; but there is Nothing in this Story that will prove it a Forgery of that Time 5 for the Book may be fuppos'd extant long before, but by this Artifice of the Monks impos'd upon the .World, as more valuable and extraordinary. The Anabaticon therefore, and the Revelation of Paul, being one and the fame Book, it only re mains now, that I endeavour to prove, it Apocry phal : And that it is fo, is evident by Prop. IV. V. and VI. I add alfo by Prop. VIII. as the whole Defign of it was contrary to a known and undoubt ed Fact. 2 Cor. xii. 4. £?V. St. Paul there fays, he heard unutterable Words (agprfla enjxala a 'ax i\o1 avSvTm-arco XaXno-ai ) which it was not in the Power of any Man to declare : Which if it be true, (as the Book it felf fuppofes) then they attempted in Writing what was utterly impoffible to be wrote, and fo unhappily blunder'd, as that the whole De fign of their Work was a mere Contradiction to the Title. ( See Auflin above. ) TertuUian* has a Paffage in his Book againft the Hereticks, which (if my Judgment do not much fail me) may be very juttly applied to this Revela tion of Paul ; and if it may, will afford a good , Argument to prove it Apocryphal : He is treating ! Hift. Eccief. L. 7. C. 19- f De Prsefcript. adv. Haref, c. 24. D d con- 402 ATaffageof TertuUian. Part II. concerning the Harmony of the Apoftles Doctrines, and then adds s Sed 8c fi in tertium ufq; ccelum ereptus Paulus, 8c in paradifum dclatus, au- diit quaedam iW'ic; non poffunt videri ea fuiffe, quae ilium in aliam doc- trinam inftructiorem pras- ftarentj cum ita fuerit conditio eorum, ut nulli hominum proderentur. Quod fi ad alicujus con- fcientiam manavit nefcio quid illud, 8c hoc fe ali- qua hasrefis fequi affirmat, aut Paulus fecreti proditi reus eft, aut 8c alius poft- ea in paradifum ereptus debet oftendi, cui per- mifTum fit eloqui quae Paulo mutire non hcuit. Yea, and though Paul was taken up to the third Heavens, and being brought into Paradife, heard fome certain Things there; they can not be thought fuch, as would make him capa ble of preaching any new Doctrines ; feeing they were of that Sort, that they could not be re- veal'd or communicated to any Man. But if any one imagine he have the Knowledge of thefe ftrange Revelations, and there be any Sort of Hereticks, who declare they will be go vern' d by them (let them confider) that either Paul muft have been guilty of betraying the Secret committed to him, or elfe they mutt produce fome other Per fon, who has fince been taken up to Paradife, who had Permiffion to fpeak thofe Things freely, of which St. Paul durU not utter a Word. s Loc. cit. Nothing Ch.XXX. A Revelation of 'Paul extant. 46^ Nothing can be more probable, than that thefe Words have a Reference to the written Revela tions we are treating of. It is certain by the Paf fage, that there were fome who pretended to know what St. Paul faw in the third Heavens, and that there were a peculiar Sort of Hereticks, who goyerrt'd themfelves according to them. How little different this is from what Epiphanius above fays of the Gno Hicks and Caianites, every unpreju- dic'd Reader will acknowledge, who compares the Places. In this Interpretation I have the Sa tisfaction to agree With Pamelius^, whd remarks on thefe Words of TertuUian thus : Tou fee there have been fome who affirm' d they both knew, and read in a Writing of St. Paul'* own, the Secrets he: heard in, Heaven, affirming that he both preached themj and committed them to Writing. This learn ed Writer afterwards cites the Place of Epipha nius concerning the Anabaticon^ that of Auflin and Gelafius concerning the Revelation-, as all fpeaking of one and the fame Book. Upon the whole then, it is evident it was a fpurious Piece 5 and that as neither Paul did nor Could write it, fo neither could any one elfe give any true Account of what that Book pretended to, I only add, that Dionyfius t Alexandrinus, a noted Writer early in the third Century, affures us1, flawXa o*ia twv s-zzas-oXwv uxoCp/ivavl©' ti xa* srtQj. tW «t7roitaXu-4'£Wv aula, a: a* aviy^j-\n k«9' aulas. That. though Paul in his Epiftles has made fome Mention of his Revelations, yet he ntver committed them to Wri ting ; and that as Mr. Du Pin fays, the Egyptians boaft of having this Revelation by them to this very Dayk; fo Dr. Grabe1 tells us of a Manufcript in * Annot; in toe. Tertull. * Hift. of the Canon, Vol. It p. ifr. c. 6. §.6. p. 130. ' Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccief. ' Spicileg. Patr. T. i. p. 8/. Lib. 7. c.zj. D d x thi 404 A Revelation c [fPaul now extant. Part II. the Library of Merton College in Oxford , entitul'd thus, The Revelation of Paul (containing what pafs'd ) in thofe three Days ; when upon his being call'd and converted by Chrift, he fell upon the Ground, and faw Nothing ; being an Account of the Reve lations he had from St. Michael, concerning the va rious and dreadful Punijhments of Purgatory and Hell, and who it- was that firft prevail' d upon the Lord to grant Reft to the Souls in Purgatory on eve ry Lord's Day afterwards, to the End of the World. But neither of thefe were- the old Revelation, of which I have been treating, but much later For geries. Chap. Ch.XXXI. The AcJs of Peter. 405 Chap. XXXI. The A&s of Peter ; or. The Tra vels of Peter, and The Recogni tions, of Clemens, differing Ti tles of the fame Book now extant. The Preaching and Doctrine of Peter the fame Book. The Qofpel of Peter. Mark'* Gofpel formerly afcrib'd to Peter • and the Reafons of it. Peter's Gofpel not composed by Leucius, as Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill fuppofe, but a Forgery of the Hereticks call'd Doceta?, and per haps the fame as the Gofpel of Ba filides. This prov'd probable by fe veral Arguments. Num. XL VIII. The ACTS of PETER. UNDER the Name of this Apoftle I find Mention among the Antients of feveral fpurious Pieces ; and particularly by feveral of certain Ails; viz. D d 3 I. By 4Q.6 The AcJs of Peter. past 11. i. By Eusebius'. Toys \ftp TCOV S7T[Ks)tX)]- jjjyjm Ilsrps -nr^^scov ac/^oXcof sv TOK ICaS'oXlK.O!? 10-pi^c/ ¦ara(3a.(^i ys c^s cruvre^y/ify>©' caflco \oyos wsg/ tss \tyo- pfyx nala Ilslgov AjayFz- XtSj ov ¦m-i,7roiY)lajt. airihsy- ycov Ta •\|/<4jc'Vor sv aula agnju^a o^ia Tivas iv t» xalaPcocxrov xa^ixicCjXfo-, <$a • Eyco yaj ysvotityj©> -zirag' V/xiv uts-s- vosvTsr xai/lar op&n wirec TrfCjO-fpfgec&cM, xcm /xn cAjsX- S-cov to ux' outcov ra-^tps- pqjll^yov ovo/JtaTi FIstos <&ayfsXtov, «7rov, c7i a T8% s?i fxovev to cPoxxv vpiv wags^etv /uu>i£o-n|/u- j^iav avayivcocrH.scS'co. Nuv c^s /jia^kov, oil aipsra rivi o vas avT&v evsfpcoXosv, sx tcov Xs^S'svlcov /xoi, anrs- c/Wco -wahiv yivtobcu. x£j)f u/jcaf- cos-s ac^sX(poi Troaa- c^oxals /xe sv Ta^«. H- jutetr c^s ac^sX(J)o( ftalaXa- €ojjJ)/Jsi o-sroiar «v a/.pscrscor © Mapxiav©' Hc« sok/Ico PartIL may not be improper to produce "fome few Paf fages of it, in which he declares what his Senti ments were of that Book*. He writes thus, " We, " Brethren, do receive " Peter and the other " Apoftles even asChrifl} " but the fpurious Pieces " under their Names, as " well knowing them, " we rejeil, having good " Evidence that we have, " receiv'd no fuch Things. " For when I was among " you, I fuppos'd that " all were Believers of " the true Doctrine, and " fo not reading over " the Book which they " brought me, under " the Title of the Gof- « pel of Peter, I faid, If " this be the only Oe- " cafion of your Con- " tention, let the Book " be read. Butnowper- " ceiving by what I am " to\d, that they had fome " fecret Herefy in their tc Minds (viz. which " they had a mind to " fopport by this Book) " I will fpe'edily make " another Vifit to you. " But we, Brethren, '• know,what theHerefy " of Marcianus is, who svav- Ch.XXXI. nyavliislo, /un veco» a sXaXet, a na&nat£ri e|cov v[xiv sy^ctcpn. EJvvn&njjfy ya% isa^ aXXcov tcov acrKjicrav- Icov ouflo Tiflo to 4jayfs- XjOV, T8J tsi xa^ct TCOV cftacA^cov tcov xaflaf£a- /J$tov cwflsj-ar Aoxrilar xa- hxp/ft ( t« yaf -ZB-Xaova (jj^cjvn/jiala skhvcov ss-i t*ij iricr'ao~na\tas) ^gncrau^uai Tjrag' ac/lcov c^csX^av, xat Ageiv Ta jjvyJ xXaova ts cp&s Xoys ts 2ctfl»ip(0',Ti- va c^s x£C;(TcP[Es-aX/j($Ja, a Kat vir{la%afjjyj Vfxiv. Kat ¦Tcwla /$> TsSs^a-artcov©'. 7i&/ Gofpel of Pet^r. 4.X x " is not confiftent with " himfelf, not underr " Handing what he faid, " as you may perceive " by what has been writ- " ten to you. For we, " prevail'd over thofe o- " thers, who make Ufe " of this Gofpel, *'." e. " over thofe who were " his (viz. Marcianus's) " Succeffors, whom we " ca\\ Docetas (for they " have in their Scheme " of Doctrine a great " Variety of ' Senti- " ments ) and having " borrow'd ( the faid " Gofpel) of them to perufe, found out ma ny Things rightly. fpoken of our Savi our, and others as bad, which I have " fubjoin'd to this E- " piftle ". So far Se- rapion k. 2. By T E R T U L L I A N '. Evangelium, quod edi- dit Marcus, Petri adfir- v " I imagine there is fome Defeft in the Greek of Eufebi us, in the, latter Part of this Pa ragraph, not only becaufe the Tranflators mffin, Chrippherfon, The Gofpel,which Mark publifh'd, is affirm'd by fome to be the Gofpel of and Vale/ius prodigioufly difi- gree, but becaufe it is fcarce capable of a juft Verfion. 1 Lib. IV. adv. Marcion. c. 5-. metur, 412 matur, Marcus. The Gofpel of Peter. Part II. cujus interpresl Peter, whofe Interpreter Mark was. 3. By Origen' Tsr o*s ac^sXfpaf Iwcrs and that if it did not, cither ic and the Word ap pellatur muft be both quite ufelefs, or elfe there muft have been an etiam, or fome fuch Particle in- '. ferted : So that inftead of tranflating it, as he c Hift. Liter, in Petro. p. 5-. ° Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. * Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. §-136. E e 1 would 422 "Dr. Grabe'* Conjecture Part II, would have it, The Book which is call'd, The Shep herd or Hermas, which is call'd, The Two Ways, &c. which every one muft fee to be an abfurd Way of Speaking it ; is very naturally, and ac cording to plain Conftruction, to be tranflated thus, The Book which is call'd the Shepherd or Her mas, That (Book) which is call'd the two Ways, &c. Befides, had Ruffin defign'd to have exprefs'd the three Titles of one Book, he would have in ferted the Particle vel before Dute Vi. Mill' j Opinion refuted. Part II. and therefore, feeing Ruffin and Jerome both fpeak of a Book call'd The Judgment of Peter, and Je- . rome fpeaks "of The Judgment and Preaching of Pe ter fo very diftinctly as in the Place above, calling one the Third, the other the fifth under Peter's Name, I conclude this Judgment to have been re ally a diftinct Book. Thirdly, Dr. Mill has a Conjecture much lefs probable than the former, concerning this Judgment of Peter, viz. that it was the very fiame with the Revelation of Peter (of which hereafter, Num. liii.) and as it was firft call'd Apocalypfis by the Greeks, afterwards being by the Latins tranflated, was call'd by them Judicium, or Judgment, becaufe it treated of the Judgments of God denouncd againft, andftortly to be inflibled upon, the Jews. But againft this Iurge, i . That it does not appear, that the Revelation was written on this Subject. z. If it really was, the Title, Judicium Petri, would not have been given to it by any one who un* derftood the Latin Tongue ; for tho' the Word Judg ment be us'd in this Senfe in our Language, viz. for the fame Idea as Vengeance from God, yet in this antient Time the Word Judicium was feldofo or never us'd in this Senfe. Befides, if it had, fhe Book muft have been entitul'd, Judicia Dei, and not Judicium Petri, viz. The Judgments of God, not the Judgment of Peter. But of this enough. C HA P. Ch. XXXIII. Peter andPanYs Treaching. 42 5 Chap. XXXIII. The Preaching of 'Peter andVxiX. An antient Epiftle under the Name of Peter to James, relating to it, pro duced at length in Greek and Eng lifh. Several large Fragments and Tejlimomes of the Antients concern ing $t. Num. LII. The TRE ACHING of PETER and PAUL: Or; The 'DOCTRINE of peter: THE Reafon of thefe different Titles has in Part been already affign'd above, where I have prov'd, that the Preaching of Paul and Peter were the Titles of- one and' the fame Book3. As for the Title here given it, viz. the Doilrine of Peter, it will fo clearly appear to belong to it in the Se quel of this Differtation, that I fhall fay no more concerning it here. This Book is not only a very antient one, but has been of very confiderable Repute, generally I See above, Chap. XXX. Num. xiv. Z fup- 42 and be caufe the Epiftle it felf does wholly relate. to this Book of The Preaching of Peter, and has been fup pos'd by fome to have been a Preface to itb, I fhall think it not improper to infert it all, with an Englifh Tranflation here ; though, were it not for this Reafon, it ought more properly to have been defer'd to the third Part of this Work. Wherefore I fhall not here enter into large critical Enquiries concerning it, only make fiich few Re marks as fhall be neceflary to the forming a better Judgment concerning the Apocryphal Book we have now under Confideration, viz. The Preaching of Peter. b See Mr. DodwelFs learned VI. §. to. p. 44,1. The Epiftle Diflertations on Irentm:, DifT. was firft publifli'd by Cotelerius. Eras- Ch. XXXIII. Peter to James. 427 EIIISTOAH IIE- TPOT tupos IA- K&BON. ITsTp©' IaxtuCw, tu w p^ft) KOU «-5rI0-K07TW t?k ayias sHxXno-ra?, uto ts twv oXwv rictTe©' <^i« Lio-y Xg/rs tv eigtivn Tra/lsls. 1. T?L/W £T£, aJthtyt «¦—' jut», et? to xoivn ?ra- triv *i(jtiv crujutCpe^pv dgn^n, tcIe cuflai nala tov ayayqv •ma^j.- dxvax, YaSr-' «v >tou Torr iQ^oirn'ovIa 0 Mwuo-nrxa- £Sc/We TOtr T1\V KaS-S^^CV c«*T8 •nrapsjX»iv ypa(pwv i%oa, as vefx(^, fxia (Kiris. An Epiftle of Paw II. hitherto fuccefsful. And the People of that Na tion (viz. the Jews) wherefoever they be, ob- , ferve the fame Rule of Monarchy c and Con duct ; nor have by any Means been induced by thofe Scriptures (which contain various Things) to entertain other Senti ments, or turn afide. For according to the Rules deliver'd to them, they endeavour to regulate the Difagreements of the Scriptures ; but if any one happen to be igno rant of the Traditions, he is to fay Nothing of the Oracles of the II. Iva ysv to c,ueiov y.oj. Trap' ri^Ktv ytviflcu, tcis iScroiJ.nx.ofl a y^oiv, aoW- Prophets, which have various Significations. Wherefore they permit no one to teach, unlefs he have before learn'd, how the Scriptures ought to be handled. So that among them there is one God, one Law, and one Hope. II. In order therefore that the like may be a- mong us as the Seventy Men, and our Brethren,' c Cotelerius tmnfatcs it Eandem normam de unitate Dei & vkae inftitutione. CpOf?) Ch. XXXIII. Peter (poir, Tar |3i£Xsr us toov Knguyualwv o\>r [xfla ts ou.ois T«r aycoynr uurn- £/s, Kat Tsr 0sXoufy>sr to t»k c^ic/WnaXtar avacf^- a^Jac uspoj, s!pocA[)]£a>o-(v. E7th sav ut) ST«r yivrflai, «r ttroXXar yvcbuar o tus aXnS-sar nuaw ol^agsSTi- relou Xoy©>. Tslo J*s sx wr o 7rpcp(j}yflr\s wv £t«ns"a- "«t* aXX r)o\) owts t* xaxs t»iv af^nv o^oav. Ti- nsr yag tkv a-aro E&Vfuv to Ji eus vo\xi'iJi.ov a-KiJo- KiHaa-av Knjuyua, ts ej£- S'gs avSvmjxs avo/JLov Tiva xcu ^XuafWcfti w^ocr»xa- pfy/oi cPicraaxaXiav. Kat Toula -iTi us •nrtPtofltQ* tvt%eipwav Tivsr, tD-oisti- Xcur tiuiv spunvstatr Tsr sjxsr Xoysr uslaq/nuali- £«v «r t»jv ts vous K^a- Xuo-iv, wr Kat sus atHs situ JU^U (p^ovs/l©-, u« sft waj - g»]iTiar cAe Kiijguaro/Ior. 07rsg at yv\ Txaphdjeovlou, iul« ev, H pa j«e^»<» » f"f sr«^)j aaro ta vopi. T«to fe «- gfjxtv, iv* t«s ar«vT« yiv»j- T«t. Oi Je, ssk o«<^* war tov Epv VSSV EZ3-«yfEAA0f<)ijp», o «y« ^6V *v£3'u" pj&ijy. Ei sot P'6- Aaf pjJevi pnxSwou, prre IIl.That therefore none of thefe Things may happen, I have earneftly defired and intreated you (in the Beginning of my Letter) not to deliver the Books of my Preach ing, which I have fent Mat. v. 1 8. ep* Ch. XXXIII. Paul to Peter. opuAw, p7e atkotyvAco 7T(>0 &&(>»$. «AA' e«v ti? Joki- pxo9-«r «|*or 6tgg9-»jr tote «o/Ta) xa/a t>jv MwufMf «y&>- y>jv "ma^ Sxvcu, x«9-' jjk toi? s/3eTopixovT« 7T«§ej TOV T>K #A>j.&ei<*? xavova wa^oiSoo- eiv, egpvdt/ovrer t« srai/Ta TTfiOS T>)V zsra^Joiriv tjpuv. Kcu p Ott/TOI U7TO «jwa9-««s xaT«(T7r«fJs«o;, two twv icara tijv 4,u&1|' fo^osff-pDV «r srAavijv eAicofi^/oi, «AAsr «f tov op/ov Tijy aTtwK&xs sveyKOKriv (3o9-uvov. Kss* t« /$> ep* Jo|avT« Jta&.&)? OT>Jp*V# CO/. TO ^£ iro* Jo- wjv, xug/e pjj StrgesrovTW sttiteAh. Ef§ftnro. )'ou, 431 either to any one of our own Country ( a Jew) or Gentile, 'till you have firft prov'd him (or are acquainted with him} ) and then, if after Trial he be found worthy, to deliver them to him after the fame Manner as Mofies deli ver'd his Doctrine to the Seventy Men who were his Succeffors > that fo they may keep the Faith, and every where deliver the Rule of Truth, in terpreting all Things ac cording to our Traditi on } and left, being themfelves perverted through Ignorance, or drawn afide by the Con jectures of the Mind in to Errors, they fhould be the Means of leading others into the fame Pit of Destruction. And thus I have honeftly gi ven you my Sentiments j but you, Oh my Lord, do whatfoever you fhall think moft convenient. Farewel, x. Bv 432 Fragments of the Part II. 2. By Heracleon. He was an early Heretick of the fecond Cen tury, and liv'd (as I fhall fhew hereafter) about the Year of Chrift, CXXX. That he made Ufe of this Book, we are inform'd by Origen in the following Words (Tom. 14. in Joan. p. 211.) Qifietv eunov ug Hn(>% or tJalavT©-, p Jetv x«&-' EA- A)jvar 7r§ojr v- Aijr arg^j/psra, x-jrofe^a- f$W jcaa AcCT^diovrxg |u- *0I? Y.01A Ai9-oi?, pTE xdla. lts£ouxs wrov, Aocr^djovlig xyiiAoif, kxi pv/, X«t CEAlJH}. He (viz. Heracleon) ur ged that Peter taught, that we ought not to wor- jhip as the Gentiles, pay ing Refpeil to material Things, and adoring Wood and Stones ; nor as the Jews worjhip'd the Dei ty ; for they, pretending to be the only Perfons who know God, are ignorant of him, feeing they worfbip Angels, and Months, and the Moon. That this Paffage was in the Preaching of Peter is evident from that of Clemens Alexandrinus in this Chapter, Num. III. 3. By Clemens Alexandrinus. He fo often cites this Book, that I fhall have frequent Occafion to refer to his Citations, and therefore for the Eafe of the Reader fhall number them diftinctly. I. Strom. Lib. \. P.^j. Ev fe rca ner£« Kr,Qvyp.»lt 1 In the Preaching of Pe- otfici? av voy-ov %v.\ Atyw\ter, you may find the TOU Ch. XXXIII. Treaching of 'Peter.7 < 433 tov iwg/ov 5T£ojp» afTa. 0 ner^®- ev tw xngvyfAxri vopv jcou Ao- JrtJV TOV JCU£/0V 7r§oo*«2JV 7CXv\o)V iWOIYjffiV, XOU T£- A#r e|ko-;«V £%wv, xo* o ao- ^ftl@^, or t« aravra p.£2«. A^oi^t©-" or t* sravTa^a)- §«, «v£7ncf£>jr a t« arav7a twifeiTxt, %ou Si ov eriv" «x«T«A»)nrT@^, «£va@-,,aj? yvwrix>jr But that the moft excel lent Perfons among the Gentiles had not (any true ) Knowledge of God, but only fuch as was very general, Peter informs us in his Preach ing, (faying) " Know " that there is but one " God, who gave all " Things their original " Exiftence, and has " Power over their End j " who is invilible, and " fees all Things ; in- " comprehenfible, but " comprehends all ; not " wanting any Thing, " but whom all Things " want, and on whom c< all Things depend ; " infinite, eternal, im- " mortal, unmade, who " made all Things by 1" the Word of his Pow- " er,the knowing Word F f ygatyyg 434 y§a$>jr, tkt' i;i, m ifx. Ta- TOV TOV S-20V B-£6eo9-£, p K»- tx Tar EAAijvar, wg J'jjAovo?; TOV OA/TOV ijpV 0-£j3«VTWV &£- ov, >com t&iv srap EAA.tjo-1 jv»!?, cwT@r- feacaq-wei ilET^©- £Sr*<£E£WV, Oti aj/VOIOJ jv yvaiiriv t>jv rtAetuv, v,v iSaiKtv cu/TOig ti-xa-iag eig ^r,ov, %t>vwiug) Fragments of the Part II. " (Scripture) i. e. his " Son. This God wor- " fhip, not as the Gen- " tiles do ; even thofe " who were the moft " underftanding among " the Gentiles, who " worfhip the fame God as we do, but not " with a perfect Know- " ledge, as having re- " ceiv'd Inftruction from " his Son. " He does not fay, Do. not worfjpip the fame God whom the Gen tiles do, but after the fame Manner which the Gen tiles do,changing the Man ner of worfhiping God, but not declaring any other God (to be worfihiped). But what this means, Do not worfhip as the Greeks , Peter himfelf will ex-plain in what he fitibjoins . viz " Being " carried away in their " Ignorance, and not " knowing God as we " know him, with that " perfect Knowledge, " which he gave them " the Power of ufing, " but changing Wood and Stones, Brafs and Iron, Gold and Sil ver, from being mere Matter, which was all they were defign'd T<#. Ch. XXXIII. tx <5yA« T>jr usra^fewr as-, var-tja-avTEr o-eSovto*- kuu a fdWev aoroig ag fietaciv c ^e©", stet«v« tss as^©-1, 3txt T>jr S-xAxosqg tx vijxTa, %ou T>jr yvjg tx ij>-miTX, xou tx B-ygjx fl-uv xr^vecr* TST^a- •mafeig Ta ayhis, yxAxg te kcu pvg, cuAiipag te x«" xu- v«r, xaa sri3-»jxar, x^t t« i$ia figupxTX, figctiTotg $rv- jwos-ra Hrvxtriv, %ou viKgcp v£xgo*r sr§ojv jjk oftoiaig , tTTOicet sraAiv wfeitug, M^Je xaxa laJ'owar c-s£s<)9-e ' xa* ya^, sx«voi pvoi oio^ty;oi tov 9-e- ov yivaxrxeiv, ax £7r*r-«VTai, 'Preaching of Peter.7 43 5 " for, they have fo far " exalted thefe the Ser- " vants of Life, as to " worfhip them. Alfo " thofe Things, which " God gave them for " Food, the Birds of the " Air, and the Fifh of " the Sea, and the In- " fects of the Earth, " and the Beafts and " fourfooted Cattle of " the Field, and Wea- " fels, and Mice, and " Cats and Dogs, and ? Monkeys, and the " Food of Men^ they of- " for up in Sacrifices to " Men, and fo by thefe " Oblations of dead " Things to thofe who cc are dead, as AaTt>4javTig ayliAcig kxi ¦~-\ unto " Gods , they are " unthankful to the " (true) God, by this " Means denying him. And that it is thus, viz. that the Gentiles have ac knowledge the fame God with us, tho' not in the fame Manner, he farther fhews thus , ( faying ) " Neither worfhip as " the Jews doj for they, " pretending to be the " only Perfons who " know God, are igno- " rant of him, wor- " fhiping Angels and F f a ^%»y- 43 d" Fragments ofthe PartIL wxxyfiAm, pvi %cu ciAv- j " Archangels, and the v», kx* e*v pj j jTa- p$w* w^otf£ar*(p£^«. &>r£ xa< vpir oiriwr xow Jmcuwg y,xv- Swvovte.?, a ara^^iJopV vpy, i6. " and unlefs the Moon " appear, they do not " keep that Sabbath, " which is call'd the " firft, neither do they " ( for the fame Reafon) , " keep their New " Moon, nor the Feaft " of unleavened Bread, " nor their Feaft (of the " Paffover) nor their " great Day. " Then he concludes the Debate thus ; " Wherefore do " ye, religioufly and " faithfully learning " what I have deliver'd " to you, obferve it, " worfhiping God in *' this neW Way thro' " Chrift. For we have " found it in the Scrip- " tures, that the Lord (i has thus faid, Behold, " a New Covenant I " make with you, not " fuch as I made with " your Fathers in fio- « reb. " IV. Strom. L. 6. P. 636. e"«£to9-0" e|3i]Tar ) fex- Aextw 7rqoq>t)Txg xvxwcag, jguyp»T« 0 «7ro5-oA©- As sail/ not/A©-", A«6et£ xai Tas EAAijvixar /3i£Axr, ezjri)/- vwte 2i0uAAav, wj Ji)Ac* Eva 9-eov xom ia pAAovxa £0-£o9-«<. KoM^TOV TfatTTDjV A«/3ovrer avaj^vwTE, x«* dL- ^tjiriTi 7roA%tit.^A-a:Jtjyts'iPO]/ x,xt a-xQsstgQv yej/|ap«^oov € Cotelerius fuppofes, that Paid is here cited by Clemens on Account of his calling 'Epime nides a Greek Poet in his Epiftle to Titus , I. 1 a. and confe quently that the following Words are the Words of Cle mem, and not of this Apocry phal Book ; but in this he muft needs be miftaken, becaufe Cle mens adds the Word Asyax, which introduces the next Sentence, and evidences that it is a Cita tion ; befides, a little after Cle mens brings in fbme Perfon ask ing a Queftion, vimS-melai riftiuv, he asks us ; this can't poffibly mean himfelf, but fome third Perfon, who can be no other having raifed up fome of the moft excellent of the Gentiles to be Prophets to them in their own Languages, as they were capable of receiving the Kindnefs of God ; that he diftinguifli'd them from the Bulk of Man kind -, befides the Preach ing of Peter e, Paul the Apoftle Will make mani feft in what he fays, " Take alfo the Greek " Books, arcknowledge " the Sibylline Oracles " (and fee) how they " declare one God, and " (predift) Things fu- " tute. Take alfo and " read Hyftafpes, and you will there find the .c than Paul, whom he had juft before cited j and inafmuch as immediately both before this Citation of Paul, and after it, we have Citations out of the Preaching of Peter ; and this has been above prov'd out of Lac tantius to be the fame with the Preaching of Paul j I fuppofe, this obfcure ExprefTion of Cle mens will be beft explain'd, by fuppofing, that fome Part cf this Book contain'd The Preach ings of Peter, and others The Treadling of Paul ; and fo both were for this Reafon cited thus together. See Graf>.Sficil.Patr. T. 1. p. 66. Ff 5 TOIT 438 tov upv ts Sess* xcu HaSw ipacavTag to ovoy.a aura, xou rsr Trirsr cwth, xou. tijv V7ro^.ov/)V v.cu nov ira^naiav aura" e)T« svi Xoyco tcuv- Sw/sloa! „«/jicoy , OXor c/*s ^ O0-pt©J, X0M T« SV TO) XOlT" /UCt), TIV@', V%1 TS &SS J o^ia tsIo (pfltriv o rieTg©" etg>ixEVxa tov xug/ov Toir aTroroXoir, Eav \jff> sv Tir S^sXyio-fl t» Ip-^riX ixtTa- vontrcu- o^ia ts ovoixal^ /JlS XOU Tj'reljHV £7T[ TOV S'EOV, ctipsSvjorovlou owtci) o« a/xaf- Tiaf Metoc c^tocAsxa eta s^X^ete ar tov xoo-pv,1//!] Tir htto, ax njxsc-aju^u.— Fragments of the PartIL " Son of God more " clearly and evidently " defcribed , and that " many Kings would " endeavour to make " Head againft Chrift, " hating him, ,and thofe " who were call'd by " his Name, and his " faithful Followers ; " and alfo his Sufferings " and (fecond) Coming. Then in one Word he afks us, " Whofe is the " World, and all that " is in it ? Is it not " God's ? Wherefore " Peter faith, That the " Lord faid to the Apo- " files," If therefore any Man of Ifrael will re pent, and through my ' Name believe on God, his Sins fhall be pardon ed. After twelve Years, go ye out into the World, that no Man may fay, We have not heard. V. Strom. Lib. 6. P. 6^9. AUTIXCt EV TCO FlfTpS xnguy- fxctli o xu(oj©j cp/iert 7rpor Tag' ixa^Tag \xiTa ti\v a- va^aa-iv, E^sXe^«/xiov ujia;, c^ojt^exa na&irflai xg/var c.|isr ifiit. But in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord faid to his Diftriples after the Refurrection, I have cho- ' feu you twelve Difeiples, having judgd you wor thy. VI. Strom. Ch. XXXIII. Preaching of 'Peter. 439 VI. Strom. Lib. 6. P. 678. Km 01 ts1s yvu(y[jLOi, oi Hxigu^avltr tov Xoyov, car «ut©*, /xeT owlov to £nv TragE/BttXovlo. " Q&tv xo« 0 FlETg©' sv toj xnguyfxali 7te^ tcov a-Tros-oXoov XEywv (pncriv, Hjuar cAs avaiflv^av- Ie? Tar /3i£Xsr ar eiya\ffp tcov -ar^ocprflcav a pv tAia •nraga|3oXcov, a o'apfy> tw ^ew cAia twv , And the Companions of Chrift who preach'd the Word, as he did, after his Death, made ufe of Parables. W hence . Pe ter in his Preaching, fpeak ing of the Apoftles, faith , " But when we perus'd " the Books which we " have of the Prophets, " in which fome Things " are deliver'd in Para- tC bles, fome Things in " enigmatical Defcrip- '<¦ tions, fome Things " pofitive, and even the " Name of Jefus Chrift " exprefs'd in fo many " Words ; we found " alfo his Coming and " Death and Crofs, and " all his other Suffer- " ings, which the Jews " inflicted on him, and " his Refurrection, and " being taken up to " Heaven before Jeru- " falem was built? as it " is written. " Thefie Things are all what he ought to have fiuffer'd, and thofe Things which fhould 'be after 'him. " We " therefore, when we " perceiv'dthefeThings,. " believed in God, by f 4 y wm- 44©ysy^aHp^fJoiV ar o»tov xocx [xtTa oXiya S7r«pEga 7rah.1v, &eta -WQovoia ty\s j- guy/xali. The Law of the Lord is perfetl , converting the. Soul ; even our Saviour himfelf is call'd The Law and the Word, as Peter- fays in his Preach ing. f. By Origens. I thought it proper to cite Origen here, though the Place, I refer to, be the fame with that above produc'd in this Chapter, Num. z. concerning Heracleon ; only I have here to add, that after Ori gen had mention'd Heracleon's urging this Preach- ' In Eclog. feu Excerpt, ad Calc. Opp. Clem. Alex. p. 809. ? Tom. 14. in Joann. p. 809. mg Ch. XXXIII. Preaching of Peter. 44 r ing of Peter, he fubjoins a Promife in another Place to difcufs iroTtgyv -noli yvnciov «?», »j vo&ov, ij Pxtov, whether it be efteem'd as a genuine, fpurious, or mixt Piece. But this it does not appear he any where has done. 6. By the fame h- That which he calls in this Paffage, the Doc trine of Peter, is undoubtedly the fame with the Preaching, as will appear in the following Part of this Difcourfe. His Words are ; But if any one urge a- gainft us Teftimonies out of that little Book which, is call'd, The Doblrine of Peter, wherein our Sa viour feems to fay to his Difeiples, That he was not an incorporeal Spirit, I would anfwer to him firft, That that Book is not to be reckon'd a- mong the Ecclefiaftical Books, and make it ap- Si quis verb velit nobis proferreexillo libelloqui Petri Doctrina appella tur, ubi falvator yidetur ad difcipulos dicere, Non fit dasmonium incorpo- reurh ; primb refponden- dum eft ei, quod ille li ber inter libros ecclefi- afticos non habetur, St ollendendum, quod ne que Petri eft ea fcriptu- ra, neque alterius cujuf- quam qui Spiritu Dei fu erit infpiratus. pear, that it is neither the Writing of Peter, nor of any other Perfon who was infpir'd by the Spi rit of God. . By the Anonymous Author of a Book, con cerning Rebaptifation in Cyprian's Time *. Cyprian'. Eft autem adulterini hu- 1 But the principal Foun- jus, imo internecini bap- 1 dation of this falfe and b Prsefat. in Lib. de Princip. '• Edit, a Rigalt. ad fin. Opg. fol. (m) ii2. Cypr. tifmatis, 442 Fragments of the tifmatis, fi quis alius auc- r,or, turn etiam quidam ab iifdem ipfis hazreticis propter hunc eundem errorem confictus liber, qui infcribitur Pauli (Pe tri) praedicatio. In quo libro contra omnes fcrip- turas, 8c de peccato pro- prio confitentem inve- nies Chriftum, qui folus bmninb nihil deliquit, & ad accipiendum Johannis baptifma pene invitum, a matre fua Maria elfe compulfum : Item cum Part II. baptifaretur, ignem fu per aquatn effe vifum : ( quod in evangelio nullo eft fcriptum) 8c poft tanta tempora Petrum 8c Paulum, poft cdnlatio- nem evangelii in Hieru- falem, 8c mutuam alter- cationem 8c rerum agen- darum difpofitionem , poftremb in urbe, quafi tunc primum invicem fi- bi effecognitos. Etquas- dam alia hujufcemodi, abfurde ac turpiter con- ficta. Quas omnia in li- brum ilium invenies con- gefta. pernicious Baptifm is a Book forg'd by thefe fame Hereticks, to fupport this Error, which is call'd the Preaching of Paul (or Peter.) In which Book contrary to all the Scriptures, you will find Chrift (who alone was clear of all Sin) both con- feffing his own Sin, and being almoft unwilling to receive the Baptifm of John, was compell'd to it by his Mother Mary.. Al fo, that when he was baptifed, Fire was feen upon the River, (which is not written in any one of the Gofpels ) and af-. ter fome confiderable Time, that Peter and Paul (though they had before had a Conference concerning the Doctrine of the Gofpel at Jeru falem, and fome Difpute) did afterwards meet in the City, utterly unknown to each other before. And - fome other Things of this Sort foolifhly and bafely forg'd. All which you will find heap'd to gether in that Book. 8. By Ch. XXXIII. Preaching of F 'eter. 443 8. By Lactantius, Lib. IV. c.zi. Magifter aperuit illis omnia, qua; Petrus Sc Paulus Roras prasdica- verunt, 8c ea Prazdicario in rriemoriam foripta per- manfit : in qua cum multa alia mira, turn e- tiam hoc futurum effe dixerunt } ut poft breve tempus immitteret Deus regem, qui expugnaret Judaeos, 8c civitates eo rum folo adsequaret, ip- fos autem fame firique confectos obfideret. Turn fore ut corporibus fuo- rum vefcerentur, 8c con- fumerent fe invicem ; joftremo ut capti veni- rent in manus hoftium, 8c in confpectu foo vex- ari acerbiffime conjuges fuas_ cernerent, violari ac proftitui virgines, diripi pueros, allidi parvulos, omnia denique igne fer- roque vaftari, captivos in The Mafter (Chrift) explain'd all Things to them, which Peter and Paul did preach at Rome ; and that Preaching being committed to Writing, that it might not be forgot, con tinues (until now). Iii which, with many other ftrange Things, they al- fo have predicled the fol lowing Things, viz. That after a fhort Time God would fend a King, who fhould wage War againft the Jews, and deftroy their City to the Ground, and beftege them, 'till they were worn out with Hun ger and Thirft ; then it fhould come to pafis, that they fioould feed upon their own Bodies, and deftroy one another, and at laft become Captives in the Hands of their Enemies, and that they fhould fiee the great Difirefs of their Wives, their Young Wo men proftituted and de- bauch'd, their Children torn in Pieces, and their little ones dajh'd in Pieces, in a Word all Things de ftroy' d by Fire and Sword, and themfelves for ever 1 per- Eufebius and JeromeV Account: Part II. banifh'd from their own Country, becaufe they de- fipis'd the moft loving and excellent Son of God. 444 perpetuum terris fois ex- term inari, eo quod ex- ultaverint fuper amantif- fimum et probatiffimum Dei filium. o. By Eusebius, Hift. Eccl. L, 3. c. 3. Tote "kiyopfyov outs xn- goypia scA' oXcar ev xa- S-eXixeir io-j.tfyj ¦ara^cf.0^10^0- pfyov, cri fxnTE agxcaav, fjLYiTi tcov rta&' Hjaar Tir ixxXnoianx©' miylgjttpiiir Tour e| ok/ts o-uvs^gneralo [XaCTVQjOUS. But that which is call'd the Preaching of Peter is not by any Means to be efteem'd Canonical, in afmuch as none of the Antients, nor any of our Ecclefiaftical Writers have taken Teftimonies out of it. 10. By Jerome, Catal. vir. illuftr. in Petro, Libri autem ejus, c qui bus unus Actorum e- jus infcribitur, alius E- vangelii, tertius Prazdi- cationis — inter apocry- phas fcripturas reputan- tur. But thofe (other) Books call'd his, among which one is, his Acts, ano ther his Gofpel, a third his Preaching are reckon'd among Apocry phal Scriptures. Chap. Ch.XXXIV. 4+5 Chap. XXXIV. The Sentiments of later Writers con cerning the Preaching of Peter, ft has been generally very highly ef teem'd, hut upon very weak Reafons. The Doctrine of Peter the fame as the Preaching of Peter. It was Apocryphal, being never cited with any Authority. An Account of Heracleon and Theodotus, two antient Hereticks, and their Princi- pies. It contained feveral Things falfe, as that Chrift was a Sinner, and that the Law of Mofes was of everlafting Obligation, &c. A ConjeBure concerning the Epiftle of Peter to James. The Preaching of Peter Apocryphal, becaufe it makes Peter and Paul appeal to the Sibyl line Oracles for the Confirmation of Chriftianity. An Account of the Si bylla Prophecies. They were in a great 446" Sentiments of later Writers Part IL great Meafure the Forgeries of Chrif tians. Paul and Peter did not cite them. NOthing is more commonly the Occafion of the Miftakes, into which learned Men have fallen, than a fecret Refolution to make allThingsy if poffible, agreeable to their former pre-conceiv'd Opinions. This appears very evidently the Cafe, in Refpect of the falfe Notions many have enter tain'd concerning this Apocryphal Preaching of Peter and Paul. It had been a fettled Opinion that Clemens Alexandrinus cited and highly valued it. On this Account a favourable Opinion was entertain'd by many of the Book, and by this Means later Writers flitting, or at leaft not re garding the obvious Evidence that is to be brought againft it, have extoll'd it in a very unjuft and un reafonable Manner, as I hope plainly to fhew, and in Order thereto fhall firft produce their feveral Opinions. i. Sixtus Senensis3 difcourfing concern ing the Sibylls, tells us, that the Apoftle Paul ex horts his Difeiples to the reading of the Sibylline Oracles, referring to the Place above - cited of Cle mens, in the laft Chapter, Num. iv. whereby, tho' he calls it (recondita Scriptura) it is plain he meant the Book now under Confideration, and believed it to be the very Writing of St. Paul, and a little after adds, " And fo 1, according to the Advice of " Paul, fliall write fome Things concerning the Si- " bylls. " In another Place b, It was of Authority among the Antients, becaufe Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen have cited it. I Bibiioth. Sanft. Lib. 2. p. 113. \ Ibid, p.91: z. Cardinal Ch. XXXIV. concerning it. 447 2. Cardinal Baronius' endeavours to fup- port the Credit of this Book attributed to Paul, wherein he is made to refer to the Sibylls (See Chap, preced. Num. 3.) becaufe St. Paul has. in fome other Parts of his Writings, now receiv'd, ta ken Citations out of the Greek Poets. 3. Dn CAVEd, though he look'd upon it as fpurious* yet fuppofes both it and the other Apocry phal Pieces under the Name of Peter ter have been written either in the Apoflolick Age, or that which was next to it. 4. Dr. G r A b E e faith, All the Fragments of it are perfeclly Orthodox, and the Authors of it Ca- tholick Chriflians, becaufe Clemens Alexandrinus, and after him other Orthodox Fathers, have frequent* ly cited it ; that it was written fioon after the Death of Peter by fome of that Apoftle's Difeiples, ivho Wrote down what they had heard him preach, to communicate it to Pofterity — — And in another Place f, by the fame weak Argument as Baronius, fays, He knows not any Reafon, why fome Difciple of the Apoftles, who heard the Preaching of Peter and Paul, might not afcribe thofe Citations out of the Sibylline Oracles to St. Vaul,, feeing he cites Aratus, Acts xvii. 28. — Why then might not the Author of this Preaching rightly fay, that St. Paul made ufe of the Sibylls, and other fuch Sort of Prophecies? y. Mr. TolandS. The Seven Books, viz. the Epiftle to the Hebrews, that of James, the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, the E- 1 Apparat. ad Annal. apud e Spicileg. Patr. Secul. I. p.' Cafaub. Exercit. I. cont. Baron. 61, 6z. M+- ¦ f P- 66' d Hiftor. Literar. in Petro. f Amyntor, p. ;6, jj. pifth 448 Sentiments of later Writers Part II; piftle of Jude, and the Revelation, were a long time doubted by the Antients, particularly by thofie whom we efteem the fioundeft Part ; and yet they are receiv'd not without convincing Arguments by the Moderns : Now I fay by more than a Parity of Rea fon, that the Preaching of Peter, and his Revela tion (for Example) were receiv'd by the Antients, and ought not therefore to be refecled by the Moderns, if the Approbation of the Fathers be a proper Re commendation of any Books. 6. Dr. Mill11 thinks this Preaching was pub lifh'd not long after Peter'* Death, containing feve ral moral Inftrutlions relating to the Worfhip of God, which were taken from the Apoftle's Mouth, and com mitted to Writing by his Difeiples ; and that fiuch are the Fragments of it now remaining. 7. Mr. Whiston' would have it in fome Senfe to be look'd upon as one of the Sacred Books. Notwith Handing this Concurrence of Opinions, to elevate the Authority of this Preaching of Pe ter, 1 am not afraid to affert it a moft ridiculous, filly, and impious Forgery. To eftablifh which Affertion, I obferve, Firft, That Origen, the anonymous Author in Cyprian's Time, Eufebius, and Jerome have exprefly and plainly refecled it as a fpurious and Apocryphal Piece. This is evident from the Places produc'd in the laft Chapter, Num. 6, 7, 9, 10. Nor can there be any Doubt concerning this, as to eithef of them, except that Origen calls it Num. 6. The Doclrine of Peter, and not The Preaching of Peter : To which I anfwer, that thefe two were only dif ferent Titles for the fame Book, as is confefs'd' by h Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. | Eflay on Conftft. p. 24. §. 133. 1 Dr. Ch. XXXIV. Peter'.* Preaching a Forgery. 449 Dr. Cave and Dr. Grabe, in the Places juft now cited, and feems evident for thefe two Reafonsf 1 viz. 1. That a Paffage produc'd by Cotelerius out of the Preaching of Peter is by Damaficenus cited out of the Dotlrine of Peterk. z. As feveral Things feem inferted into the Preaching of Peter, which were in the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, (viz. that of Chrift conf effing his Sins, and being unwilling to be baptis'd by John 'till his Mother compell'd him ; fee Num. 7. in the fore going Chapter, and compare it with the Paffage in the Hebrew Gofipel above in this Part, Chap. XXV. Num. if.) fo alfo the Paffage produc'd by Origen out of the Dotlrine of Peter, concern ing Chrift's not being an incorporeal Demon (above Chap.preced. Num. 6.) fieems taken out of the Na zarene Gofipel as above, Chap. XXV. Num. 27, z8. The Preaching therefore and Dotlrine of Pe ter being confefs'd to be the fame Book, I argue againft Dr. Grabe, that Origen's rejecting the one is rejecting the other ; and therefore, tho' he do not in one Place determine, whether it be fpuri- * ous, genuine, ormix'd; (fee Chap, preced. Num. r, and Num. 2.) yet he doth fo fully determine the Matter here, by not allowing it to be fo much as an Ecclefiaftical Book, that we need fay no more of his Sentiments concerning it. I conclude it therefore Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. And whereas it may be objected, that tho' it be not cited but rejected by thefe Fathers, yet it was approv'd by Heracleon, Theodotus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Latlantius : I only anfwer as to the two firft, they were Hereticks of the worft Sort ; Heracleon Was indeed an early one, the Predeceffor of Cerdo, and a Companion of Valentinus, who were at Rome in the Time of Hyginus, the eighth Bifhop of * Vid. Crab. Loc. cit. G g that 4$o The Prcach'dgf of PartIL that Place , and confequently about the Year of Chrift, CXXX1. He had the fame Principles with Valentinus, and added feveral new ones m- He who will read Irenaus's Account of Valentinus111, and that in Epiphanius" concerning Heracleon, his Ogdoades, his Thirty jEones, his Two firft Principles of all Things, his Firft Man the Parent of all, whom he calls By thus, and declares to have been neither Male, nor Female, from whom the univerfal Mother of all Things, whom he calls Sige, arofie, will not think it any Credit to this Book that he receiv'd it. Theodotus liv'd towards the End of that Cen tury, a Heretick fo infamous, that he was excom municated by Pope Vitlor : He entertain'd the moft ridiculous Tenets concerning Chrift, as being a mere Man, the Angels being material Beings, and more or lefs fio, according to their refipetlive Digni ties ; That they were of different Sexes, commanded the Stars, which had fo great Influence upon human Bodies and Atlions, that Chrift came in our Nature, and fiuffer'd, to deliver thofe who believ'd in him therefrom? . Such were the Perfons who firft us'd this Preaching ; from whence it is not difficult to form a Judgment concerning the Defign and Tendency of the Book. As to the Paffages taken out of it by Clemens Alexandrinus and Laclantius, I fhall confider them prefently, and alfo in what Manner they cited them. Secondly, I obferve, that this Book was fpurious and Apocryphal, by Prop. VIII, becaufe it con tain'd feveral Things contrary to thofe which are certainly known to be true. 1 See Iren. adv. Haeref. L. i, " Adv. Hseref. L. 2. paflim. 4, &Lib. 3, 4. • ° Locis jam citatis. " Tertull. de Prefcript. adv. p Vid. Excerpt, ad fin. Opp. Haeref. c. 49. Epiphan. Hxref. Clem. Alex, per tot. & Epiphan. 36. N.2. aud Hseref.4i. N. 1. Hseref. $-4. Auguft. de Haeref. ad Quodvult. N. 1 6. T. Opp. 6. 1. Such Ch. XXXIV- Peter Apocryphal 451 Such is that of Chrift confeffing his Sins, and being unwilling to be baptis'd, in that Paffage, Chap. preced. Num. 7. This is contrary to the whole Defign of Chriftianity, as has been above prov'd ; (fee Chap. XXIX.) which fuppofes the Perfon, who was to make Atonement, to have been with out Sin ; and what is worth obferving, directly contradicts what both Paul and Peter (the pre tended Authors of this Book) have wrote elfe- where, 2 Cor. v. 11. Heb. iv. if. and 1 Pet. ii. 12. Not much different is the Story of Chrift's being compell'd by his Mother to fiubmit to John's Baptifm ; which implies him either to have been defective in Wifdom, not knowing what he ought to do ; or elfe in Duty, not being inclin'd to what he ought to have done, or both. Thirdly, I argue it of Falfhood or Contrariety • to known Truths, and therefore Apocryphal, by .Prop. VIII. becaufe it was intended and wrote with a Defign to fiupport the Dotlrine of the eternal Ob- ligation of the Ceremonial Law of Mofes. This is moft undeniably evident from the feveral PafTages in the pretended Letter of Peter to James (pro duc'd in the preceding Chapter, Num.i.) which, tho' evidently a Forgery, cannot be fuppos'd to have taken Things out of this Book of Peter's Preaching, which were not in it. Now in that Epiftle the pretended Peter, §. z. calls his Preach ing vojuiptbv, i. e. according to the Law ; and in the fame Place fpeaks in very hard Language of thofe who oppos'd the Obfervation of the Law, calling fuch Oppofition mifchievous ; and him, who was the Oppofer, an Enemy, and a Teacher of trifling Doblrines againft the Law ; by whom, without Doubt, the Author meant Paul, whom the Ebio nites ever efteem'd as their great Enemy, becaufe he oppos'd their Law, and therefore were wont to call him, An Apoftate from the Law, and fcanda- fis'd him, as being induc'd to this by a Difappomt- G g z ment 452 The Preaching of PartIL ment he met with in an Amour with the High Priefi' s Daughter. See above in this Part, Chap. XVII. Num. xvii. A little after, the fame Author blames fiome who expounded fiome Places of his Works, as countenancing the Dotlrine of the Abrogation of the Law, declaresj^ had no fuch Thoughts, and introduces Chrift as afferting the Neceffity of a perpetual Obfer vation of the Law. From all which it is moft clearly manifeft, the great Defign of the Book, call'd The Preaching of Peter, was to encourage the Judaifing Chriftians, viz. the Nazarenes and Ebio nites, in their Medley Religion of obeying the Pre cepts of Mofes, and believing in Chrift. But all this every Chriftian knows, is directly contrary to the very Principles of his Religion, which necef farily fuppofes the entire Abolifhment of the Mo- fiaick Oeconomy, and as one of the Foundations of which, he believes that not only Chrift, but St. Paul repeal'd the whole Syftem of Ceremo nies, as what neither the Jews nor Gentiles were to be oblig'd by. It would be fuperfluous for me to fay any more on this Head, it being agreed on by all Chriftians j only I cannot but remark here,. that though St. Peter was indeed for fome Time ('till he had his Vifion, Atl x.) an Obfierver of the Law, yet afterwards he was not wanting in declaring againft the Obligation of the Law, and in the Coun cil at Jerufalem calls it a Yoke, which neither the Jews nor their Fathers were able to bear, Atlsxv. 10. And in this Doctrine we fhall find the primitive Chriftians generally agreed, except only thofe cal led Nazarenes and Ebionites ; of whom the Catho- lick Churches had fo very mean an Opinion, that they always ftil'd them Hereticks, and reckon'd them to be Chriftians no farther than that they bore the Name of Chrift ; and hence Epiphanius^ tells us, they would not be call'd, nor call themfelves, * Harref.io, N.7. Chrifiians, Ch. XXXIV. Peter Apocryphal. 453 Chriftians, and were in all Refpetls Jews, only that they profefs'd to believe on Chrift. I confefs indeed, Mr. Toland has troubled the World with a Book, in which he would endeavour to prove, that thefie were the only true Chriftians, and therefore calls it Nazarenus ; but his Attempt is fo weak, and has been fo well anfwer'd by Dr. Mangey, that I fhall take no farther Notice of it ; only will be fo kind to tell Mr. Toland, that this fpurious Epiftle of Pe ter to James will be of great Service to him in a- ny farther Endeavours he may engage in to pro mote his Original Plan of Chriftianity. As to the Epiftle itfelf, I fhall perhaps have Occafion in the next Volume more critically to enquire into it ; in the mean time 1 only obferve, that it was made by fbme Ebionite, and confequently muft be an antient Piece ; for if I miftake not, the Ebionites did not continue in any confiderable Numbers, if at all, as a Sect after the fifth Century ; but whether it was the Preface of this Preaching of Peter, as Mr. Dodwell imagines1, or of the Recognitions of Cle ment, as Dr. Grabe conjectures f, is not material here to enquire, tho' I rather incline to the former Opinion. Whichfoever it was, it affords us a good Argument againft this Apocryphal Preaching of Peter. Fourthly, I argue the Preaching of Peter to be Apo cryphal, as containing Things falfe, becaufe it makes both Paul and Peter appeal to the Sibylline Oracles, the Books of Hyftafpes, and fuch like for the Con firmation of the Chriftian Religion. The Matter of Fact, as to Paul, is undeniable from that Frag ment in Clemens Alexandrinus in the preceding Chapter, Num. III. where he is in fo many Words jntroduc'd, as exhorting thofe to whom he wrote, ' Diflert. VI. in Iren. §. 10. r Spicileg. Patr. T. i. p- $> 60. Gg3 to 454 The Preaching of PartIL to acknowledge the Sibylline Oracles, and their Pre- diHions ; to read Hyftafpes, and obferve the clear Deficriptions he gives of Chrifl, his Sufferings, and the Oppofition he and his Followers were to meet with in the World : So alfo Peter is introduc'd ( Num. VI. ) cs faying, that he had perus'd the Books of the Prophets, in which were very particular De ficriptions of Chrift, his Coming, Death, Crofts, Suf ferings, Refurreclion, Aficenfiion, and even his very Name : To me it is evident, the Prophets here refer'd to are the fame with thofe mention'd in the foregoing Paffage, viz. the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. not only becaufe the Prophecy there is of the fame Sort with thefe, but becaufe we know of no other .Prophetick Books, containing" fuch Things. Indeed Dr. Grabe, in his Notes at the End of the Volume', fuppofes they were taken oiit of fome Apocryphal Book ofthe Old Tefta ment : But this is plainly a groundlefs Conjecture ; if he means any Book that pretended to belong to the Canon of the Jews. It is enough to anfwer, there never appears to have been any fuch Bootj if otherwife, then there is all imaginable Reafon to conclude this Apocryphal Author meant the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. The Fact therefore is cer tain, that both Paul and Peter in this Book made ufe of the Sibylls Oracles, and Hyftafpes, to confirm the Truth of Chriftianity : And who at firft Thought will not condemn this as a Falfhood ? Could there be any Neceffity thefe Apoftles,who had fo much better Arguments to convince the World, fhould make ufe of fuch abominable Methods as thefe ? Befides, it was quite contrary to their Prac tice -, we find them, upon all Occafions, appealing to the Records and Prophecies of the Jews to prove Jefos to be the Meffiah ; but never, befides 319. here, Ch.XX'XIV. Peter Apocryphal. 455 here, to any Prophets among the Gentiles. In all their Writings to the Gentiles, as well as Jews, no Mention, no diftant Intimation, is to be found. of their having feen or heard of any fuch Books. I might urge a Variety of this Sort of Arguments, but the Matter is fo plain, as not to need it ; I fhall only urge, that thefie pretended Prophecies were not in Being when Peter and Paul liv'd. The Truth is, the Sibylline Verfies, and the Books of Hyftafpes, Mercurius Trifmegiftus, ejJV. which fpeak fo clearly of Chrift, and fo highly of the Chriftian Religi on, were no other than the Forgeries of fiome more pious than honeft Chriftians in the firft Ages, de fign'd to gain Credit to their new Religion. This has been largely prov'd by many, and is the Opi nion of Cafiaubony, Daille w, Dr. CaveK, Span- heimy, Le Clerc2-, Fabritius*, and in a Manner all who have wrote of them. And indeed, were there no other Arguments to prove them fpurious, befides what may be gather'd from the Fragment under Confideration, it would be fufficient, viz. that they fo very particularly deficribe the Hiftory of Chrift, his Coming, Suffering, Refiurretlion, Aficen- fion, and even his very Name, as others of them do the whole Bufinefs of Chriftianity ; Omnia hujus generis quo apertiora, eo fieri (fays Cafaubon) fiuf- petliora. For befides that it is fo improbable a Thing in it felf, that the Heathens fhould have been favour'd with fuch prodigious Difcoveries, greater by far than any in the Law of Mofies, or the Prophets of the Old Teftament ; the Coming of Chrift, his Miracles, Doctrine, Refurrection, Afcenfion, Sending the Holy Ghoft, &c. are al- ' Adverf! Baron. Exercit. I. *> Spanh. Hift. Chrift. Sec. II. w Right Ufe of the Fathers, * Hift. Eccief. Sec. II. ad c. 3. p. 18, 19. ann. CXXXL p.j-98, &c. * Hift. Liter, in Voc. Sibvll. ' Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. p. 34. p. 300. Tom. i. g g 4 ways 456 An Account of the Sibylls. PartIL ways reprefented in the Scriptures as great Difico- veries ; hence the Difpenfation of the Gofpel is by Paul call'd a My fiery, which had been hid from Ages and Generations, but now is made manifeft to his Saints, to whom God would make known what is the Riches of the Glory of this Myftery among the Gentiles, which is Chrift, &c. Col. i. 26, 27. But how St. Paul could fay this, and believe the Wri tings of Hyflafpes, and the Sibylls Verfes, is im poffible to tell. I therefore conclude thefe Oracles to have been a Forgery long after Peter and Paul's Time, and therefore as they would not, fo they, could not appeal to them > and confequently, this Preaching of Peter and Paul was a Forgery too, and fo not only Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. as containing Things falfe, but alfo by Prop. X. as containing Things later than the Time in which the Authors, whofe Name it bore, lived. Under this Head I would farther obferve, that this fpurious Author makes the Apoftle Peter to owe his own Belief of Chriftianity to the Preditlions of thefie Books, (Fragment Vi. of Clemens Alexandrinus, Chap, preced.) calls them Scripture, and fayb, God really appointed them, which are yet farther Evi dences of its Spurioufnefs, and is fo abfurd, that I cannot but be furpris'd to obferve Dr. Grabe fo jumping in with that filly Writer, as to call them Scripture too ; and fo according to his Example, fpeaking of it as though it were really St. Peter's, urging us to prove every Thing by the Scriptures. Thus I have largely from this Inftance prov'd this Book Apocryphal} nor do I know any Thing that can be objected againft the Proof, unlefs it be what Baronius and the laft-nam'd Writer have faid for the Credit of the Book, That St. Paul did fome times make Ufe of Tc ft iconics from Heathen Au thors ; which, tho' it be indeed true, yet is very little to the Purpofe, it being one Thing to cite the genuine Books of a Moral Heathen for the Sup port Ch.XXXIV. The Sibylline Oracles forg'd. 4-57 port of a Moral Point, and another to make Ufe of Teftimonies out of Forgeries and fpurious Books, to prove the very Foundation of the Chriftian Revela- ¦ tion ; a Method, which tho' however much prac- tifed by fome of the Fathers, efpecially by Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Latlantius, is both unjuft in itfelf, injurious to Truth, and de rided by their Enemies. And hence we find Cel- fus objects it to Origen^, that they had corrupted the Books of the Sibylls, by infert ing many Things in Favour of Chriftianity ; to which Origen gives a very weak Anfwer in my Judgment ;> perhaps, be caufe he would not, or durft not give a better : And in another Place Celfus, with an Air of Wit, banters the Chriftians under the Name of Sibyl- lifts c, and even Latlantius d owns, that the Pagans were wont to obfetl, that the Verfies, which the Chri ftians cited under the Sibylls Names, were not really theirs, but forg'd by the Chriftians ; and Confiantine the Emperor e, after he had produc'd the famous Greek Acroftick concerning Chrift, attributed to the Sibyll Erythraa, adds, Ot tsroKKoi tuv av&pai- waiv awisxcri hoa toojSt', o/moXoyavTsj EguS-^ietv ytyt- vnofrai 2if uXXav ycavTiw, wwotttAmo'i crt Tiva toov ti\s nixiTt^y,? S'gna-xejctr, ¦srooiTixnr [tuans ax. aixoigov, roc *7rr\ TouTa •Ki-srom^vax, That Many Men did not believe it, though they confefs the Sibyll Erythrasa to have been really a Prophet efs, but fuppofe that thofie Verfies were made by fome one of our Religion, who had a Genius for Poetry, &c. I fhall conclude this Chapter with the Judgment of St. Auftin in this Matter, which not only is a fair Intimation of the Forgery of the Sibylls, but implies a very ftrong Argument againft the Preaching of Peter. Difcourfing againft the Jews, he ftarts this Ob- b Orig. contr. Celf. Lib. 7. * De ver! Sap. c. ij-. p. 368. * Orat. ad. Sana. Cast. c. 19. * L.f. p. 271, jection j 458 The Sibylline Oracles forg'd. PartIL jection : Perhaps it may be faid, that the Sibylline Prophecies are forg'd by us ; and anfwers, we have fufficient Prophecies without them in the Jewifh Books : And in the End of the next Chapter, dif- courting of thofe who arriv'd to the faving Know ledge of Chrift, who were not Ifraelites, he men tions only the Account in the Book of Job, and adds, That whatever Prophecies of others (viz. a- mong the Heathens, befides the Book of Job) con cerning the Grace of God through Jefus Chrift are produc'd, may be thought the Compofures of the Chriftians ; therefore Nothing will be more effeclual to convince any of the Heathens, or to eftablifh the Chriftians, if they think rightly, than urging thofe Prophecies concerning Chrift, which are in the Books ff the Jews f- f De Civit. Dei, Lib. 18. c 46, 47. Chap, Ch.XXXV. 459 Chap. XXXV. The Preaching of Peter prov* d Apo cryphal by other Arguments -, as viz. that it contain'd feveral Contra dictions and Falfhoods. Inftances af fign'd of both. How Lactantius cites it. How Clemens Alexandrinus cites it, viz. as a pious Forgery of fome Chriftians. WH A T has been already faid may be thought fufficient to prove the Spurioufnefs of this Preaching of Peter ; but becaufe it has been fo highly efteem'd, I fhall fubjoin two or three brief Arguments more, viz. Fifthly, I argue the Preaching of Peter to be Apo cryphal, from that Paffage in it cited by Hera cleon, (produc'd above, Chap. XXXIII. Num. 2. and more largely by Clemens Alexandrinus, in the fame Chapter, Num. III.) viz. where Peter com mands, that God fhould not be worjhip'd according to the Manner of the Jews, who, fays he, worfiip Angels and Archangels, and the Month, and the Moon (ft. This will afford us an undeniable Ar gument againft this Book ; to make which appear 46o The Preaching of Part II. I obferve, that among the Judaifing Chriftians, even in the Apoftolick Age, there was a Cuftom arofe of paying Worfhip or Homage to the Angels. This is fufficiently clear from thofe obfcure Words of St. Paul, Col. ii. 18. Let no Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility, and worfhip- ing Angels, &c. where it is plain by the Context he was guarding the Colofftans againft the Infinua- tionsof the Jews, about the Neceffity of their Wor fhip, as to Holy Days, and New Moons, &c. The Foundation of this Practice was partly their Opi nion, that it was too great Boldnefs in a Creature to approach to his Creator without fome Inter- ceffor, and partly becaufe the Law was given by Angels ; now this Praclice the pretended Peter in veighs againft , but therein contraditls fiome other Parts of his Book, wherein, as it appears by the Epiftle of Peter to James, ( Chap. XXXIII. Num. I.) the whole of th.e Ebionite Scheme was contended for. I conclude it therefore Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contain'd Contradictions. Farther, the Paffage forbids the worfhiping of the Month and the Moon, as the Jews did, which either means, that the Jews paid idolatrous Wor fhip to the Moon, as the Heathens did, or elfe their appointing their feveral Feafts by it, as they were ap pointed to do by the Law of Mofes. If we fup pofe the former, it will prove the Book Apocry phal 'by Prop. VIII. becaufe the Jews about the Tima of our Saviour were not guilty of any fuch Idolatry ; and therefore Peter, who knew them, could not charge them with it ; if we fay the lat ter, which is indeed moft probable, becaufe it was their known Practice, it will no lefs prove the Book Apocryphal, becaufe then it muft contraditl itfelf ; feeing the Defign of the Book was to fup- port the Obfervation of the Law of Mofies (as appears by the Epiftle of Peter to James juft now cited) Ch. XXXV. Peter Apocryphal. 461 cited) but the Defign of this Command is to ab rogate them : I fay therefore, it is to be judg'd Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contain'd Contra dictions. Sixthly, The fame Character feems juttly to be fix'd upon the Book from that PafTage cited by Clemens Alexandrinus twice (viz. Chap. XXXIII. Num.1. and Num. II.) and by Theodotus, Num. 4. where Chrift is call'd the No/ji©*, the Law, which feems to be upon no other Account than to eftablift) the Ebi onite Scheme of the everlafting Obligation of the Law, which has been fhewn to be the Intent of this Book. Apocryphal therefore by Prop. VIII. Seventhly, The Author ofthe Book about Rebap- tifation (above Chap. XXXIII. Num.7.) hasobferv- . ed a very evident Contradiction in it, viz. After the two Apoftles Peter and Paul had ctnfer'd together, and difiputed at Jerufalem, they afterwards met in fhe fame City as much unknown to each other, as if they had never fieen each other before. This feems either to argue, that both the Apoftles had Me mories exceeding treacherous, or elfe fomething (as the anonymous Author fays) very abfurd, i. e. contradictious to it felf, and therefore what proves it Apocryphal by Prop. VU- Eighthly, The Paffage (Num. IV. out of Clemens Alexandrinus, above Chap. XXXIII.) in which is Chrift's Command to his Apoftles, not to go out in to the World to preach the Gofpel, 'till after the Ex piration of twelve Years, will alfo prove it Apo cryphal. For tho' there be another Teftimony to this Tradition, viz. Apollonius, a Writer of the fecond Century a, yet it feems very contrary, not ¦ Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. f. c. 18. •+¦ only 462 The Preaching of ' PartIL only to the Defign of the Chriftian Religion, which was intended to be as diffufive as poffible, without any Diftinction of Perfons or Nations, but alfo to the exprefs Teftimonies of feveral of the Books now receiv'd ; as where our Saviour tells the Woman of Samaria, the Hour cometh, when ye fhall neither in this Mountain, nor at Jeru falem, worfhip the Father, &c. Joh. iv. 21. where he tells his Difeiples, the Gofpel was to be preach'd to all the World, Matt. xxiv. 14. and actually com mands them, without any Limitation as to Time, to go forth and preach the Gofpel to every Creature, and to all Nations, Mar. xvi. if. Mat. xxyiii. 18. Befides, if Chrift did give his Apoftles any fuch Command, if the Hiftory of the Acls of the Apo flles by Luke be true, they were difobedient to it ; for it is certain that in much lefs Time Peter had his Vifion, Churches were planted in Samaria, Antioch, &c. by the Preaching of the Apoftles : And therefore, after fo much Evidence I may ven ture to affert this a fpurious Account of Chrift ; and confequently this Preaching, which contain'd it, alfo fpurious. I confefs indeed, the Latin Tranfiator of Cle mens has given thefe Words another Turn, aqd putting no Point after the Word a/iajTjou, but a full Period after the Word st»j, makes the Paffage to fpeak thus, He that will repent and believe on God thro' my Name, his Sins fhall be pardon' d after twelve Tears. But this is more abfurd and foolifh than the former, and therefore I have chofen to follow Dr. Cave's Punctuation and Tranflation b. Laftly, I might argue this Book not to have :been the Compofure of Peter and Paul, from the great Difference there is in the Style of it from the J Hift. Liter, in Petro. known Ch.XXXV. Peter Apocryphal. '4.61 known Style of thofe two Sacred Writers, and fo prove it Apocryphal by Prop. XI. but this I fhall leave to the Judgment and Difcretion ofthe Read er, having faid fo much concerning the various Sorts of Styles under that Propofition. What remains farther is, that I add fomething concerning the Manner in which Clemens and Lac tantius have cited this Book. As to the latter, tho' he indeed produces a Paffage out of it, he does not cite it as of any Authority, nor in the leaft intimate that it was-wrote by thofe Apoftles. As to the former, tho' he indeed cite it feveral Times, which has been made the great Argument to fup- port its Authority, I fhall think it fufficient to ob ferve, 1 . That he never does cite it as Scripture, or under that Name. 2. That it does not follow from a bare Citation of it, that he judg'd it to be the Work of thofe Apoflles. Why might he not cite it as an Ecclefiaftical Book ? I, have above prov'd, that he did in like Manner cite a Paflage out of the Gofpel of the Hebrews, which yet himfelf rejected as not Cano nical j but 3 . Suppofe he did really appeal to it as a genuine Book, it will be a moft abfurd Inference, that therefore it was Canonical ; it is at moft but the Teftimony of one fingle Father againft the exprefs Teftimony of many others as good and proper Judges as himfelf, as well as againft a great many ftrong Arguments of its Spurioufnefs. But 4. To fpeak what I really think : Since it is certain the firft Chriftians did forge feveral pious Books to gain Credit to Chriftianity, as for Inftance, the 464 The Preaching, &c. Part II. the Verfies of the Sibylls, £2 V. out ofthe fame Prin ciple I fufpect Clemens made ufe of this Book un der the Name of Peter, juft in the fame Manner as he has very often in his Works taken Teftimo nies againft the Pagans out of the fpurious Verfes of the Sibylls. See P. 17, 32, 41, 223, 304, 323, 601, 604, 636, cjrV. Upon the whole I conclude this Preaching of Peter to have been the Forgery of fome Ebi onites in the Beginning of the fecond Century, and contain'd Things vaftly different from any Thing that ever the Apoftles preach'd ; that it pafs'd under various Changes, foffer'd many Inter polations, and was a molt filly and impious Im pofture. Chap. Ch.XXXVI. The Revelation of V tut. 465 Chap. XXXVI. The Revelation of Peter fuppofd £y Dr. Grabe equal to the Revelation of John ,- by Mr. Toland, as pre ferable to Seven Books of our pre fent Canon ; by Mr. Whifton; to have been a Sacred Book. Their Opinion of it groundlefs ,- for Cle mens Alexandrinus never cited it. The Book of Hypotypofes not written by Clemens, but anqther ; prov'd out of Photius. A Conjecture con cerning the Hypotypofes fupported out of Cafliodorus. The Excerpta Theodoti not made by Clemens. The Contents of thefe Eclogues, or Ex cerpta ,• and their Contrariety to the known Dotfrines of Clemens. They were not Part of the Hypotypofes, as Mr. V al efms fuppofes, nor Part of the Stromata. This fully prov'd. The Preaching of Peter not efteem'd Hh h 48$ The Revelation of Peter. Part II. by Eufebius. He does not contr adit~t himfelf in Relation to thffi Ed'ok, as has been generally fuppos'd. A Me thod of clearing him. Num. LIU. The REVELATION of PETER. y BESIDES the Gofpel, Atls, Judgment and Preaching, I obferve there was alto extant Wrftferly a Book call'd, The Revelation of Peter. ffht antient Writers who have mention'd it, are as follow} viz. - ft. Clemens Alexandrinus'. There was a Book formerly extant under his Name, but now loft, entitul'd, The Hypotypofes of Clemens ; and in this-fo made ufe of the Revelation of Peter, & Eufebius informs us b. Ev gAs rotr TxcfluTraitfeffi ¦^atftlY tk ivJiabtfiCs ygy- >)TSt« ^mymets, iwcPt Taj dvriiKiyb[Jpai TO-'apeXS'wv, ryjii Isd^fe, Xsy&i, not Tas XoVaras- KaS-dXixar ifrl^o- Xar, t/iv re ~$iapva€a, x.cu ty\v n«Tgs K%yojJpw A'tto1- xccXih^/tv. In the Books of his cal led Hypotypofes, he has s ¦smtoi-'i wrote fome fhort Com mentaries upon all the Books of Scripture, not 'omitting wen the contro verted Books, I mean that of Jude, and the other Catholick Epiftles j the Epiftle of Barnabas, and that call'd, The Re velation of Peter. * Lib. Hj-pohpos. J" Hift. Eccief. L.6. c. 14,. z, The- Ch. XXXVI; The RevtfntiM of Peter. 467 2. Theodotus0. Am xau TitT%(5p tv t» tttsrsxaXu^fej a itei^s, rboii-a ayfsXu Tvixihxyw «rayto*itAo<&'Btf, iva yvu- .jrscar jjLeT&kaf&otfla , Tils ttjUCHVOV©1 TU^fl J*OV>]£, 7Ttt- ^otfla-a toot iwa&iv nett iv ¦mifjiali */iVo\f^pa' Ta &% srt^t jfxonfl? T»ir o-wTViytir iiS'eifia, ktu jixivet av4i ne- X«ff£»r, -WIc yeg^f X#- are Prefently after, Peter fays in his Revelation, " That " abortive Infants " in the mofr. fi " Circumftances, that " they are committed " to a Guardian Angel, ' ." by which Means they " are fo inftructed, as " to obtain a more ex- " cellent Manfion, but " firft foffering what " they would have fuf- " fer'd, if they had con- " tinued in the Body : " But as for others, they " indeed find Mercy, " and obtain Manfions " of Happinefs for the " Injuries they have fiaf- " fer'd ; and thus in " this Condition they " fhall abide' without " Punifhment, receiving c Excerpt ad Calc. Opp. C&m. Alex. p. 806. d Lib. cit. p. 807. Hfai €o/\*. 46 s The Revelation fiovla. To crt ya\a tojv yvvcaHav gsov airo tuv (/ctruv ftou -srioyvuju^yov, $»)- env o risrg©' ev t« awoKa- Xo4/ej,yevvno"« Srn^ja \iir- 1a a-atyofaya, kcw ava- Tps^o/Ia eif v naS- n/aa? Tir •xxXiofnas-C''©' ffuyfjojs- ents, i. e. the Tradition of thofe who liv'd nearer to the Time when the Book? were written- This he urges againft this Bopk, aqd faith > that it was not deliver'd as Canonical, and that no Ecclefir aftical Writer has taken any Teftimonies out of it. But in this, fays Mr- Toland x, Eufebius is mifta.- &«* /w *ke contrary appears by the teftimonies [ Amyntor. p. /j, $4. mark'd Qh« XXXVI. r ejefted by Rnfefeius. j^ mark.'d in the Cytolo^e, wbdeh any Body may em- pare with the Originals. Falefius*, and after, him Father %«', Dr. Grabe", and others:, go fiu> ther, and charge Eufebius with cantradiging bim* felf; becaufe himfelf, fay thev, in another P]ac&\ (•viz. that above, Num. i.) ctwns, that Clemens Afexa,ndrinus cited it in the Book of hijt Hyppty*; pofes. Simon indeed attempts to fay Something itt Favour of Eufebius, adding, that perhaps, MuMjttf only intended, that no Ecclefiaftical Author had, pa* ted thefe Bqhk[s as divine a#d Canonical, And here^ fo he is foUow'd by Mr. Richaxdfm, in his Aufw.er to. Mr., Toland p. jf. But this is not likely, and I muft confefs, is no other than what we cqw~. monly call, begging the Queftion. Dr. Grah'eac^ counts for it thus, viz. that Eufebius, in tk$ B&* ginning of his Book had not fufficiently acquainted himfelf with thofe Things, and therefore faid, no Ecclefiaftical Writer had cited this Book, bat upon farther Enquiry into the ol4 B°°ks he found his Miftake, and fo own'd what before he denied. But this is a very precarious and groundlefs Suppqfi- tionj inafmuch as it is certain that Eufebius. hadj read the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus, and made large Ufe even of the Hypotypofes under h.i$ Namew, before he had wrote this, third Bpojk, where he fays, that no Ecclefiaftical Writer topk Teftimonies out of this Book imder, the Name of Peter. Befides, had Eufebius. thus in th$ fix.th Book perceiv'd the Miftake he was guilty of in the third Book,, (which Dr. Grab* fuppofes he did ) it was eafie for him tp have corrected its by erafing what be had wrote faltly in the former f Annpt. in Edsb. Hift- Eccl. * Spicileg. T. i. p. f 7, 5-8. L.j. c. 3. - * Vid.Hift.Eccl. L. 1. c. ia, • Sim. Crit. Hift. Nov. Teft. L. 2. c. 1, 9, if. Pars I. c. 3. p. 2 j. Place ; 476* ! Etifebius doesiik Part II. Plaqs > but he hot having done this, I conclude, he :was of the fame Mind, when he wrote both Books. And though upon this Hypothefis it may be thought, that Eufebius is chargeable with Con tradiction to himfelf, yet with Submiffion to thefe learned Men, I think the Charge moft unjuftly laid 5 for tho' he fays, no Ecclefiaftical Writer has taken Teftimonies out of the Revelation of Peter in one Place, he does not fay that Clemens Alexan drinus did take Teftimonies out of it in another : Aft that he fays is, that he wrote fiome fhort Notes itfton it (rjriTtlp.YijjJj{Jaf Jinyyirms -Grtiroiifloui) which is- a very different Thing from na£T\)(yous c-uve^n- cbflo, i. e. taking Teftimonies out of it, or appealing To' it as of any . Authority. Had the learned Wri ters above-nam'd obferv'd this, I am perfuaded Eufebius had not been fufpected of a Contradicti on ; after all which I may fairly conclude, there is Nothing to be gather'd from Eufebius for the Credit or Authority of the Revelation of Peter. IV. The laft Thing urg'd for this Revelation is, lthat Sozomen, a Writer of the fifth Century, fays, it was read in fome Churches of Paleftine once yearly, viz. the Day of Chrift's Paffion x. Mr. Toland^ refers to this Place of Sozomen in his Ca talogue, and Dr. Grabe z concludes from it, that it "was not a Book of the Hereticks, elfe it would not have1 thus been read. But ...inafmuch as Sozomen does' not mention what Sort of Churches, thefie were, whether of the Hereticks, or Catholicks ; it is-moft reafonable to conclude the former, not only becaufe of ' the known Heterodoxy of the Book, but becaufe Sozomen in the very fame Place tells us, that it was rejected by the Antients univer^ fatty, as a Spurious Piece. * Hift.EccI. L. 7. c.io, I Sp-cileg. Patr. T, 1. p. 72. ; ^-AnVyhtor. p. 25. Thus Ch. XXXVI. contradict MmfRlf. . 4.77 Thus I have largely confider'd this Revelation that went under the Name of Peter ..:..,» Whether it was a Prophetick Book concerning the mifierable State of the Jews, and the State of the Church, to the Tame of Antichrift, as Dr. Grabe* and_Dr..M//^b fuppofe, I fhall not now enquire ; only obferve that it was certainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. I add alfo the IXth, as it contain'd Things ludicrous and trifling, fabulous and filly Relations $ of which Sort thofe are, produc'd above, Num.ij 2. concerning abortive Children^ the Milk of Wo men producing Animals, Sec. I Lib. cit. p. 74. Proleg. in Nov. Teft. §.13$-. Chap. \7k Othtf&Mkt M&rVmt's tfdtote. P&rtll, c h a f." xxxvil Other B&ofa tttoder the Narhe of Peter, frig. The ¦ A'fts of Peter by Leucins Charinus. The Gofpel of Per fection, a Fofgery ofthe Gnofticks. A Conjecture concerning the Reafon of the Tttle, and the Contents of the Book. The Ada of Philip now ex tant in the YtttCftfi.'^ The Gofpel of Philip. ..f-A Fragment" of it. Its Cont^mif "md dtbmim^U Do&rines. A-M^ih iif Mr! Du Pin, * con* ceming it, -vf. v:'^^.p...> Num. LIV." Offier BOOKS under the NAME if PETER, -V •v I Have given thefe for Method Sake a diftinct Title, bcecaufe I find them fo mention'd by Pope Innocent I. * His Words are, Camera, quas fob nomine J But the other Books un* Matthaas Eve JaCobi • der the Name of Mat* I In Decret. five Epift, ad Exuper. Epifo Tiio]o£ c.jr. Minoris, Ch.XXXVH. TheGoplofTerfimon. 479 Minoris, vel fob nomine Petri & Joannis, qute a quodam Leucio fcripta font non folum re- pudianda, verum etiam noveris effe damnanda. fhew, or James the Lefs, or nnder the Name of Peter and John, which were written by one Leutius ; know, that they are not only to be rejected, but con demned. There can be no Reafon to doubt, but thefe were the fame with thofe Apocryphal Acts, of which I have largely treated above, as being forged under the Apoftles Names by Leucius Cha rinus, as will evidently appear from what is faid Chap. XXL efpecially from the Paflage of Pho tius. Num. LV. The GOSTEL of PERFECTION THE moft eminent and known Hereticks a- mong the Chriftians in the firft Ages were thofe call'd, The Gnofticks ; of whom Jrenxus fays, that they forg'd an infinite Multitude of Spurious and Apocryphal Books* ; and Epiphanius c, that they made many Gofpels under the Names of the Dif eiples. Among the reft of their Forgeries he men tions the Gofipel of PerfeSion in the following Man ner*1. AX.X01 Ji t| MTW) israKiv e&iT'hasov &aa.yviKiT-ar8 t» ayns ixa&iflx AtayfiXiov imr\acfj^pov , tTi which farther confirms my Conjecture J" H*ref. 16. n. f. I i l about 484 Philip's Gofpel Apocryphal. PartIL about the Contents of this Gofpel. It appears plainly to be Apocryphal, by Prop. IV. V- VI. VIII. and IX. and Mr. Du Pin0 imagines, it was the fame with the Gofpel that was made Ufe of by the Ebionites, Bafilides, and Apelles ; but however juft his Opinion may be, as to the two latter (though there is not, nor does he pretend to offer any Reafon for it ) yet fore I am he muft be miflaken as to the former, fince the Ebionites entertain'd no fuch Principles. " Hift. ofthe Canon, Vol.2, c. vi. §.j\ p. i2t>. C HA P. Ch. XXXVIII. The Gofpelof Scythianus. 48; Chap. XXXVIII. The Gofpel of Scythianus. He was the Author of the Manichean He refy. The Gofpel of the Simon i- ans. The Revelation of Stephen. Num. LVIII. The GOSTEL of SCYTHIANUS. THIS Gofpel is only confiderable, becaufe it was compos'd by him who was the Source and Author of the Manichean Herefy : It is men tion'd 1. By Cyrill of Jerufalem '. In a Difcourfe concerning the Herefy of the Manichees ; of which and its Rife ( feventy Years before his Writing) as alfo its Progrefs, he gives a very particular Account ; he afferts one Scythianus to have been the firft Founder of the Sect. Sxu&iavoj Tir nvivAiyur- TU 2«£^X)JV©' to ytv©>, There was a certain Per fon in Egypt nam'd Scy thianus, by Nation a Sa- l Catech. VI. p. 142. Ii 3 ScPs» The Gofpel of Scythianus. Part II. 486 isc/^sv xoivcavov »Te weos Iscfyitfo-jutev, isl t tt^s Xgt?i- avicrjuov n.EHTri|^y@' Ovlo; tuv AXe|av^g/av oixwas V-ax. tov A^s-olsXiHov /ju- fj.Yio-ai.ify©' (Ziov, T«aj-agas- f3i£ Xsr o-uvs1a£«, juiav xa- Xs'/^UflV AaylsXiov, ss Xg^rs "ivpcfeeis -n-tpjt^HJav, aXX' awXair /jiovov t»)v wpjo-r,- yofyav, occ. ra«», having Nothing .common either with the Jewifh or Chriftian Re ligion. When he liv'd at Alexandria, and con- form'd himfelf to the Rules of Life in the A- riftotelick Philofophy, he compos'd four Books y one call'd The Gofipel, not containing any Account _ ofthe Actions of Chrift, I but only taking its Title from him, &c. 2. By Epiphanius15. Ev ts/Ioi; ya% Tr0oetgr\- fjifyos 0 Sxu$hav(^* tu- (pXaSw Tnv criavoiav, Xa- f3wv ma^jf. YluSrayo^a Tar ¦ar^^ao-ar, STCor sfpgaivna-s' xat /3i6'Xsr TEco-agjss1 e*u- toj 7rXa£- VTBroXafiuy 0 TaXar, Kat ktsjc «ala nP,o /xsg©» e- tpavla^fio &K ti jusya su- £WV TO) /3lW xat TW OVT( Such were the Opinions of Scythianus, who was infatuated in his Judg ment, and borrowed his Principles from Pythago ras. Befides, he compo fed four Books ; calling one, The Book of Myf- teries ; the fecond, The Book of Principles ; the third, The Gofipel ; the fourth, The Book of Treafores ; in which he fuppos'd tWo equal Prin ciples and Perfons uni ted, in every Argument ; and by thefe Notions the Wretch thought he had made fome confiderable Difcoveries in Life ; but * Hsnref 66. n. i. ixiya Ch. XXXVIII. The ABs o/Sdeucus. 487 really he form'd that (Atya Ka^ov tu^flo tw£ku, HoS*' soots KatTOiv U7r' ao- ts wXavapjj/joiv. which was very destruc tive to Life, both in Re fpect of himfelf and thofe who are deluded into his Scheme. There is not any Thing more faid of this Apo cryphal Gofpel by the old Writers ; nor indeed is there any Need of it to prove it Apocryphal : He who will confider it as one of the firft Books that gave Birth to the Sentiments of the Manichees, and knows any Thing of that monftrous Herefy, will eafily be perfuaded to look upon it as an Apo cryphal Book, their Principles being inconfiftent with the very Foundation of the Chriftian Reli gion. I reject it therefore by Prop. IV. V. VI. VIII. and IX. The Manichees had fome other Gofpels, of which perhaps I fhall fay fomething below, Num. LXV. Num.LIX. The ACTS of the ATOS TLES bj SELEUCUS. CEleucus (as I have above prov'd, Chap. XXI.) " was only a different Name for Leucius; and confequently thefe are the fame Acts with thofe under the Name of Leucius Charinus, which have been largely confider'd in that Place, and prov'd Apocryphal, and therefore need no farther Dif- cuffion here. Since the compiling of the Catalogue in the former Part of this Work, I have obferv'd in Dr. Mill an Account of the Gofpel of the Simoniansc, as mention'd in the Arabick Preface to the Council of Nice, which is in Labbi*. That I might not * Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. d Tom. z Condi, p. 386. I i 4 omit 488 The ABs of Seleucusi Part II. omit any Thing of this Sort, I here give the Reader that learned Doctor's Account of it. The Simonians (he fuppofes) /'. e. the Followers of Si mon Magus, forg'd this Gofipel, which, according to the Number of our four Gofpels, they divided into four Parts ; and at length about the Time of Ire nseus, borrowing a Title from the holy Fathers of the Church, who wittily concluded there were four Gof pels, becaufe there were four Regions pf the World, ( or four principal Winds*) they call'd it, The Book of the four Corners or Regions of the World. Agreeable to this we read in the Book call'd The Conftitutions of the Apoflles f , that Simon and Cle- obius, and their Followers, compil'd Books under the Name of Chrift and of his Difeiples, in order to de ceive, &c. It is to be rejected by Prop. IV- V. and VI. Num. LX. The REVELATION of STEPHEN. T have not found this any where befides in the -*- Decree of Pope Gelafius thus : Revelatio, qua= appella tur Stephani , apocry pha. ' The Revelation under the Name of Stephen is A- pocryphal. Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. ' This we meet with in Xn- ridieul'd by Toland, Amyntor. mus adv. Haref. L. 3. c. 11. and p. yo, ft. f Lib. 6. c.16. Chap. Ch. XXXIX. The Gofpel of 'Tatian. 489 Chap. XXXIX. The Gofpel of Tatian. // was a com pendious Harmony of four Gof pels. He feems to have made Ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel of Matthew, or the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. Tlois prov'd by feveral Arguments. The Harmony now extant among the Orthodoxographa is not this Old one of Tatian. An Account of Ta tian, his Works and Principles. The Gofpel of Thaddeus. The Catho lick Epiftle of Themifon (menti on'd by Apollonius). He was a Montanift, and liv'd as early as Montanus. The Time ofthe Rife of Montanifm, about the Tear of Chrift CLXXIV. An Account of that He refy. A Digreffion concerning the Agreement ofthe Mahometan Scheme with that of the Montanifts and Mani- 49o The Gofpel of 'Tatian," PartIL Manichees. Mr. Toland'* Mif take in this Matter. Num. LXI. The GOSTEL of TATIAN. ALthough feveral antient Writers make men tion of a Work of Tatian, relating to the Gofpels ; yet I have cited none of them befides Eufebius and Epiphanius, becaufe no one elfe enti tles his Work A Gofpel. It is firft mention'd By Eusebius". XgUvlxi fjjp 8V VT01 VO/JtU xat •orgo(p»]']atr, v.cu djay- HXioir, icftcoj sp/xnvcljovTer tuv lEgcov Ta von/jtala y^jt- Sgs1at. They (the Encratites cr Severians) do make Ufe of the Law and the Pro phets, and the Gofpels, but expound the Sacred Scriptures according to their own Sentiments. They fpeak Evil of the Apoftle Paul, and reject his Epiftles ; neither do they receive the Acls of the Apoftles. The firft Author of their Sect was Tatian, who made I know not what Sort of a Harmony of tbe Gof pels, and call'd it, The Gofpel of the Four; which is even to this Day in the Hands of fome. ; Hift. Eccl. L.4. c.tj. By Ch. XXXIX. A Harmony of four Gofpels. 49 1 By EpiPHANIUSb. AsyETOt ePs to d'la Ttara- gtov diayUXiov xrsr' oojtu ytyivn&u , ow£g xafla E/3ga;af tive? xaXsai. They fay, that the Gof pel ofthe Four was made by him (viz. Tatian) which fome call, The Gofpel according to the Hebrews. From both thefe Places it is evident, that this Compofure of Tatian was no other than a Har mony of four Gofpels ; it feems to have been a Sort of Epitome of the whole Hiftory that is in our four Gofpels ; for Theodoret, a Bifhop of Cyprus c, tells us, that Many, not only of the impi ous Seel that follow'd Tatian, but of the Orthodox Chriftians (tbv rns eruv&nxnr xaxsgyiay &% tyvmolis, aXX' a-arXsjEgov w? -cruvrofuo too (ZiCXtu) ypnaaujhoi) not perceiving the Craft intended in the Compofure, innocently made Ufe of it as a more compendious Vo lume. This is fufficient Intimation to us, that there were in the Work fome heretical Opinions, or at leaft what that Bifhop thought fuch. Thefe, if I may conjecture, feem to have been fome Paf fages or Hiftories taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes, or Hebrews ; which I fuppofe Tatian made Ufe of in compiling his Harmony, as much or perhaps more than the Greek Copies of St. Matthew ; and this I am inclin'd to think ; 1 . Becaufe Epiphanius affures us, This Work of Tatian was call'd by fiome The Gofpel of the He*, brews ; and this cannot be fuppos'd to have happen'd from any other Caufe more probable. I know in deed Valefius d, and after him Mr. Fabritius e, bold- b Hxref. 46. n. 1. d Annot. in Eufeb. Hift.EceJ. c Hserct. Fabul. Lib. i. cap. L.4. c. 29. io. ' Cod. Apoc. Nov. Teftam. Par. 1. p. 34?. 492 An Account of Titian. PartIL ly afferts, that Epiphanius was miftaken, atjeaft that thofe he fpeaks of were miftaken, who faid that it was call'd The Gofpel of the Hebrews ; and the Reafon Valefius offers is, that the Gofipel of the Hebrews was much older than Tatian. But No thing can be more weak_than this. Does it follow, that becaufe the Gofpel of the Hebrews was be fore the Time of Tatian, that therefore upon Ta tian's making Ufe of it, and tranflating a good Part of it into his Harmony, his Work could not be call'd by that Name ? On the contrary, No thing is more probable, than that his Work fhould be thus call'd, upon that Suppofition. z. I argue it farther as probable, that Tatian made Ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel, becaufe as the Genealogy was omitted in that (See above, Chap. XXV- Num. il.) fo alfio it was in the Gofpel of Tatian, as is exprefly teftified by Theodoret in the Place now cited. 3 . Tatian was by Birth a Syrian, firft fipread his Notions in Mefopotamia f, and confequently well knowing, and probably well acquainted with the Gofpel of the Nazarenes ; as well knowing the Language of it, and probably himfelf one of that Sed. * 4. Ambrofie, in a Paffage wherein he undoubted ly refers to this Gofpel of Tatian, intimates, that it contain'd feveral heretical and impious Things : Many, fays he, have jumbled into one Book thofe Things out of the four Gofpels, which they found agreeable to their malignant Principles?. If this Account be true, we are to cdnclude it Apocryphal by the fame Arguments (at leaft ma ny of them ) as thofe by which I prov'd the He brew Gofpel of the Ebionites to be fo above, Chap. f See what he faith of him- Martyr's Works, and Epiphan. felf in the End of his Oratio ad H&ref. 46. n. z. Grtces, ax the End of Juft'm ' Comment, in Luc. 1. XXIX- Ch. XXXIX. An Account of Tatian; 493 XXIX. If it be not true, then it is only to be look'-d upon as a Compofure out of our prefent Gofpels. There is indeed now extant among the Ortho- doxographa a Harmony afcrib'd to Tatian ; but as has been well obferv'd by feveral learned Men, (Falefius\ Fabritius V Dr. Mill\ and others) // cannot be the fame with this, whiclf we are now difcuffing, becaufe it hath the Genealogy in it, which this 'had not, as appears from what is above faid. I fhall conclude this Section with fome Account of Tatian. He was, after having made a confiderable Figure as a Tutor of Oratory, a Difciple of Juftin Martyr, continuing an Ornament to the Church while he liv'd, but afterwards he fell into Herefy; he wrote a prodigious Number of Books, of which the moft valuable one is now extant, viz. That againft the Gentiles at the End of Juftin Martyr'* Works. Irenaus1 and Epiphanius m add fome Account of his Principles, as that he coincided with the Valen tinian Dotlrine of the iEones, denied the Salvation of Adam, held all Sorts of Marriage unlawful, and as criminal as Adultery. He is reported to have a- dulterated St. Paul'* Epiftles by changing their Phrafeologyn. He liv'd in the Time of Marcus Antoninus Verus, and Lucius Commodus ° ; but a more particular Account of his Age may be feen in Mr. Dodwell's Differtation on Irenaus, IV. §. }h 33- * Loc iam cit ™ Hseref- 40"- n" *• *• ' Lib cit. p "V " E»*b- Hift. Eccl. Lib. 4. * Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. c. 29. c ,-, " Hieronym. Catalog, yiror. > Ad'v.^seref. L. 1. c, 3 1. & illuftr. in Tatiano. l< 39- Num. 49+ The Epiftle of TnemiTon. PartIL Num. LXII. The GOSTEL of THADDEUS. OF this I know no more than that it is mention'd by Pope Gelafius in his Decree thus : Evangelium nomine Thaddaei apoftoli apo- cryphum. The Gofpel under the Name of Tloaddaus the Apoftle is Apocryphal. To be rejected by Prop. IV. V. and VI. Num. LXIII. The CATHOLICK E- TISTLE of THEMISON. THE Montanifts, though a very confiderable Sect, do not feem to have feign'd many Books for the Support of their Doctrines. Apollonius, who wrote againft them, as he fays, juft forty Years after their Rife, viz. about the Year of Chrift CCXI V, mentions a Compofure of Themifion, one of their Confeffors, refembling the Apoftles. His Words are, Etj o*t V.am ©sjuifo-av o tijv a% ioTt?ov TrXtovs^iav wptfpt- ectju^©', o /jh) (iasao-as tyis OjxoXoyia; to at\[xetov, aXXa wXYi&a xgnixofloiv aTto&t[jfyjj& Ta o^tTfjia' cAsov i-ari Ttflu Ta-aravo- ^>gov«v, wr ^tapTUj Kao^w- fl^O©', 5T0X/vl)]0-E jUI/Jl^^tJr But Themifgn, who was moft exceffively cove tous, had not the Evi dences of having been a Martyr, but by the A- bundance of his Money purchas'd Immunity. And when upon that Account he ought ra ther to i have been hum ble, he exalted himfelf as a Martyr, and was fo impudent as to imitate toit Ch.XXXIX. The Rife of ^Montanifts. 495 tov a7ro;-oXov, xaS-oXixriv qriva cvvla%ai)fyi@i vgjio- ToXnv, U.a%%etv jjfy) tus «jmavov aola Trs-ansvAixoTar" ffUvayuvi^EcS'at oOs tok T»r XEVofp&was- Xoyoir, /3Xaa- (pnfxna-at xat a? Kug/ov xat T»r a-nros-oXsf xat t»)V a- y»av tUKXnitriav. ffo Apoftle, and to com- pofe a certain Catholick Epiftle, pretending there by to give Inftruction to thofe, who were bet ter Chriftians than him felf, and contending for the ridiculous Dotlrine of the Montanifts, and fpeaking Evil of our Lord and his Apoftles, and the Holy Church?. This Book appears not only by its pompous Title, but the whole Defign of it, to have pre tended to Infpiration, which was at that Time the great Support of the Montanift Herefy. Of this Themifion, its Author, I find no Mention befides in this Place of Eufebius. He liv'd very near, if not in the Time of Montanus (viz. the Year of Chrift CLXXIV. according to the Chronicon of Eufebius) becaufe Apollonius, who wrote againft the Montanifts, and againft Themifion, wrote his Book but forty Years after the Montanift Herefy firft began, (as himfelf faysi.) Befides, it feems very probable (as Valefiius has well obferv'd1) from v Eufeb. Hift. Eccief. Lib, j. ci 8. « Apud Eufeb. Loc. cit. r Annot. in Loc. cit. Eufeb. I obferve, that Epiphanius. ex- pofing the Montanifts, becaufe their pretended Prophecies were notaccomplifh'd (Hxr. 48. n.i.) adds, that from the Time of their hang given out to the Time of his Writing, which, fays he, was in the twelfth Year of Valentinian and Cratian , there had pap'd «t« tuMiu n sA*', and many others affure us > and this f Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L.f. w Hseref. 48. c. 1 6. * Catech. VI. p. 1 47. • Apud Eufeb. L. f . c. 1 8. * Heref. 66. n. 1 2. * Apudeund. L./. c. 19. Ch. XXXIX. ThtmiCon Apocrfpkal A 4^7 I mention by the by, to propofe, for farther Dif- fcJur1' an °Pinion which 1 have long had, 'that the Mahometan Scheme was very much founded up on, orgat&er'dfrom, the impious, ridiculous Tenets of the MonMnifts, or Manichees, or both ; feeing it is a Thing, certain and well known, that Maho met's Followers among other Titles give him that of Paraclete, which is the Greek Word. us'd by St. John for the Comforter, made Arabick, as Dean Prideaux has well obferv'd z, and not taken from any Word in that Language, which fignifies fa mous or illuftrious, as Mr.' Toland with as mucK Ignorance as Malice fuggeftV. It is true, the Ma hometans pretend, that the very Name of MahoMt both here and in other Places of the Gofpel was exprefly mention'd, but that the Chriftians out of Malice have blotted it out, arid corrupted thofe holy Writings; and that at Paris there is a- Copy of thefe Gofpels without thefe Corruptions, in which the Com ing of Mahomet is foretold in feveral Places, with his Name exprefiy mention'd in themh : But No thing can be more ridiculous than Mr. Tdland's Account of this Matter, viz. that the Mahometans maintain, that the Original was Periclyte, fignify- ing famous, i. e. in Arabick, Mohammed, and not Paraclete ; for befides, that there is no Word like that in Arabick which fignifies famous, and an- fwers to Mohammed (which Dr. Mangey chal lenges him to prove c, and he durft not attempt, but intolerably fhiiffles over in his Anfwer d ) the Fact is notorioufly falfe ; the Mahometans, as has been faid, laying their Charge in this Refpect in another and more confifterit Manner, than he with all his Skill was able to do for them. But though x Life of Mahomet in the End. c Remarks on Nazarenus, c. 6. ' Nazaren. p. 13. p. 3f. b See Dean Frideaux's Life of ? Mangoneutetj p. 181. Mahomet, in the End. K k Mr. 49 8 Mahometans *»/Montanifts agree. PartIL Mr. Toland be fo wretchedly miftaken here, yet he again repeats his invidious Infinuation, p. 16. The, Mufiulmaris accufie our Gofpels of Corruption in the 16th and z6th pferfies of the fourteenth Chapter of John. But why Gofpels ? As tho' the Accufation when it only, at moft, affects the Gofpel of John} The Fact in fhort is no more than this. Mahomet in the fixty firft Chapter of his Alcoran hath thefe Words, " Remember that Je- *' fits the Son of Mary faid to the Children of *' Ifrael : / am the Mefifenger of God ; he hath fent " me to confirm the Old Teftament, and to declare " unto you, that there fhall come after me a Prophet, *6 whofe Name fhall be Mahomet. " On this Ac count his Followers found it neceflary to charge Corruption on our Gofpels in the Manner above- faide. I hope this Digreffion may not be unferviceable, nor the Hint above-mention'd of the Agreement between the Mahometans and Montanifts. * Thus well reafons the learned Dean in the Place cited. Chap. Ch.XL. The Ac~ls of Thomas^ 499 Chap. XL, The Acts of Thomas. Not the fame with thofe made by LeuciusChaf inus, 0 but much older. A Manufcript in the French King's Library under the Title of the A£ts of Thomas. An other tinder the fame Title in the " Bodleian at Oxford. The Gofpel of Thomas. There were undoubt edly two Gofpels under this Name, % The Revelation of Thomas. Books under his Name. Num. LXIV- The ACTS of THOMAS. THESE Apocryphal Acts are mention'd by feveral of the Antients, particularly, t. By Epiphanius3. feWl« eft ygafot? *e»- 1 They, i.e. tht'Encratites, Toruwwf To*? Xiyoufyous 1 principally make Ufe of 1 thofe Scriptures, which • Hseref 47- N-1* Klu An- "500 The Acts of 'Thonm PartIL Averts now. Icoavvs 7rfa|t- 01, Kat ®w/aa, xat a-ziro- xg»(J>oi? riffi, 8cc. are call'd, The ASs of Andrew and 7^«, and Thomas, and fome other Apocryphal Books, t$c-. 1. By the fameb. Oulor- cre-Tais Xeyeju^uacr 7T£«f sc*jv' Avc^gsis ti * xai ©alpta to '7rX«?ov Sf-a-jg- acrovlou, ^-Waflafraaa aX- Xo'lpiet ts Kavov©>TS eK- KXno-iar-rKs vwa^ovlts. They, /'. e. the Apofto- . licks, chiefly depend upon thofe Scriptures which were call'd The Atls of Andrew and Tho mas, altogether departing from the . Canon of the Church. 3. By Athanasius c. Ta Tii? v^a? c^aB^xnr av- ^iKtyopfpa Toufla, ' wsgfo- crbi Ttt\u, wt^oo^ot I»- avva, •uTi'pjOo^oi &oi]J.a , &c. The Apocryphal Books of." the New Teftament are thefe, The ASs of Piter, The Atls of John, The A&s of Thomas, 6?f. 4. By G 6 L A s r u s in his Decree. Actus nomine Thomse Apoftoli apocryphi. The Acls under the Name of Thomas the Apoftle are Apocryphal. There appears no fmall Difficulty in determin ing exactly Concerning thefe ASs. It is certain that there was a Book of ASs of the Apoftles, of which I have above treated, Chap* XXI. cprnpo-. fed by Leucius Charinus, containing the Acts not * Hicref. 61. n. 1. c Tn Synopf- See the Place at large above, Chap. XXI. only Ch.XL. The Atfs of Thorns 501 °"lyof P'ter, John, Andrew and Paul, butVlfo of Thomas ; and hence Mr. Fabritius A, Dr. Mill', C5 V. have thought the ^ftfr*/ Thomas, wherever they are mention'd, to be the fame .Book } but herein I fuppofe they are miftaken, becaufe thefe ASs of Thomas are mention'd by Epiphanius, as being us'd by fome SeSs of the Gnofticks, viz. the Encratites and Apoftolicks, _ who arofe from Ta tian in the fecond Century <,' even before Irenaus, and confequently long before the Time of Leucius, who liv'd (as has been' prov'd) in the latter End of ihe third, or Beginning of the fourth Century. And though I have above faid, Chap. V. Num. 1. thai it is probable the Encratites and Manichees made Ufe of the fame ASs, whence it would feem to follow, that they were the fame with thofe made by Leucius, "becaufe his were in great Requeft a- mong the Manichees; yet this Difficulty is eafily anfwer'd, by fuppofing, that Leucius,' who was a Manichee, did fio largely interpolate them, or fo much 'alter them, that they, were afterwards call'd by his Name. They are hpWever plainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. There are indeed fome large Accounts of Thomas in Aufiin's Works f, which are thought to be taken out of thefe ASs ; but inafmuch as thefe ASs are not exprefly" men tion'd, they do not properly fall under my Confi deration ; but may perhaps be produc'd in a more convenient Place in the next Volume, where I fhall confider thefe ASs as a Book now extant, feeing Father Simon affirms, there is fuch a Book in the French King's Library, and Dr. Grabe & fays that he met with it in our Bodleian. 4 Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teflam. f Lib. adv. Adirria'nt. Manich. p. 823, T.4.C i7.contr.lkift. Manich. ' Prolegom. in Nov. Teftam. Lib. 22. c. 79. §.- 318. £ Spicileg. Patr, T, j, p. 314. .,, . Kkj Num. 502 The Gofpel of Thpmas. Part II. Num. LXV. The GOSTEL of THOMAS. 'THERE is at this Day extant a Gofipel under **¦ the Name of Thomas, otherwife entitul'd The Gofipel of the Infancy of our Saviour, which I fhall in the next Part of this Work infert ; but it ber ing very uncertain, whether it be the fame with this antient one, I fhall here produce the Places where this is mention'd within my Time3 without any Regard to that. It is mention'd, i. By Origen1!. EccleGa quatuor habet evangelia, Herefes plu rima -Scio evan gelium, quod appellatur S£cundumThomam,&c. The Church receives only four Gofpels, the Hereticks have many ; I know one enti tul'd, The Gofpel of Thomas, CjtV. Z. By Epsebius1 Iv md^ivou t%oij.ifyj — Taro- vojj.c£Ii twv a7ros-oXcov •k^@j twv- AigfliKwv -nrgoo-ipEfQ- H%Jas, tfloi twv cfau- o^svutattroroXfflv, aXX' tv©1 tuv ftattwv toi{i)v ts Mav>) /jta$Tf](wv. Let no one read the Gof pel according to Thomas j for it is not the Gofpel of one of the Twelve Apoftles, but one ofthe three wicked Difeiples of Manes (whofe Name was Thomas. ) :: ;. f. By Ambrose1 i\ Multi evangelia fcribere conati font, quae boni Numularii non proba- verunt-rr— Fertur evan gelium,'} quod feribitur Many have attempted to write Gofpels, which the Catholick. Church has not approv'd — r- There is one fpread.-a- broad, which is entitul'd ' Catech. VI. p, i ro. the Paflage at large, Ghap. VII. *' Coipmentl in Luc. I.- See Num. V. K k 4 Se- £04 The Gefpel of Thomas. Secundum&c. Part II. Thomam , J The Gofipel according to | Thomas. .-.-;,. 6". By Athuanasius". Ta t*u vf«f diaSyHyis av- TiXiyojJpa TOjfla —r-r»- AiayfiXiov nala- ©ai/xa, &c. i. The Apociyphal Books of the New Teftament are thefe, The Gof pel of Thomas, &'c. 7. By Jerome' Plures fuiffe qui evange lia fcripferunt, Lucas e- vangehfta . teftatur, di- cens, Quoniam quidem multi, &c. quae a di- verfis auctoribus edita diverfarum hazrefecon fu ere principia, ut eft il-, lud juxta. .^Egyptios & Thomam* &c. Luke the Evangelifi af fures us, there were many who wrote Gofpels ( Ch. i. 1.) which being pub lifh'd by various Authors gave Birth to various Herefies ; fuch is that According ', to: the Egypti ans, and Thomas, &c. 8. By Gelasius in his Decree. ; Evangelium nomine Thomce apoftoli, quo u- tuntur Manichari, apo- cryphum. The Gofpel under the Name of Thomas the Apoftle, which the Ma nichees ufe, is Apocry phal. I need fay no more of this Book, than that it appears plainly to have been a fpurious Piece, com- po&'drby the Hereticks, and. Apocryphal-by Prop. IV. V". VI. only I muft obferve, that the Gofpel In Synopf. See the Paf- at large -above, Ch, XXI. 0 Pracfat. in Comment, in Matth. -Seethe Place at large above, Ch.y.II. Nun). IV. •/ Ch.XL. The Revelation of 'Thomas. 505 of Thomas, of which Cyril fpeaks, compos'd by fhgmas, one of the Followers of Manes the Head of the Manichees, could not poffibly be the fame with that mention'd by Origen, and perhaps moft of the other Writers, except Gelafius ; becaufe Origen liv'd a confiderable Time before the Ma~ nichean Herefy, or even Manes himfelf was known in the World : This being not 'till the latter End of the third Century, viz. 'till the Time of Aure lius Probus, or Dioclefian (as I have, above ob» fery'd, Chap. XXI.) Whereas Origen liv'd in the Beginning of it. Num. LXVI. The REVELATION of THOMAS. IT is only mention'd by Gelasius in his Y\prree.. Decree. Revelatio quae appellatur Thomse apoftoli apocry pha. The Revelation, which is afcrib'd to Thomas the Apoftle, is Apocryphal. To be rejected by Prop. IV. V. and VI. Num. LXVII. v BOOKS under the NAME of THOMAS. 1 By Innocent I.p Cxtera, qu* fob no- 1 The other Books under . Ia Dccra. live Epift. J. ri E»p». Epifcop. Thol.f. c7. verum 506 Others under Thomas's Name. PartIL verum etiam noveris effe J they are not only to be damnanda. ¦ rejected, but condemned. It is not very certain what Books under this Apoftle's Name this Pope here defign'd to con demn v it is probable they were not the ASs, be caufe he would have attributed them to Leucius, whom he juft before refers to, as the Author of fpurious Acts under the Names of Peter and John, -and others, as has been prov'd, Chap. XXI. I fuppofe therefore he rather intended the Gofpel of Thomas. Chap. Ch. XLI. The Gofpel of Truth. sor Chap. XLI. The Gofpel of Truth, a Forgery of tfye Valentinians. Some Account of Valentinus. A Gofpel under his Name. Num. LXVIII. The GOSTEL of TRUTH. THIS Book was undoubtedly a Compofure of the fecond Century, and very early there in it is mention'd by Irenaus3- thus : His igitur fie fe ha- bentibus , vani omnes & indocti, & infuper audaees , qui fruftran- tur fpeciem evangeliib, & vel plures quam dic- ¦tx. font, vel rurfus pau- ciores inferunt perfonas Seeing thefe Things are fo (viz. that there are but four Gofpels) it foL- lows, that they are all filly and ignorant, , as well as impudent, who attempt to make any Al teration in the Gofpels, and make the Authors of the Gofpels to be ei ther more or fewer (than ' Adverf Hseref. L. j. c. n. gible, without confideriiig his p_ 2«h. preceding Allegory of the four * This Paflage js not intelji- Gofpels, and four Animals. 1 evan- jOS evangelii- qui font a Valentino, ite- rum exiftentes extra om- nem timorem, fuas con- fcriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam tint ipfa evangelia ; fiquidem in tantum pro- cefferunt audacias, uti quod ab his non olim confcriptum eft, Verita tis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo conveniens 'a- poftolorum evangeliis, ut nee evangelium quidem fit apud eos fine blafphe- mia. Si enim, qutsd ab iis profertur, Veritatis eft Eyangelium, diffimile eft autem hoc illis, quae ab apoftolis nobis tradita font ; qui volunt poffunt difcere, quemadmodum ex ipfis Scripturis often- ditur, jam non effe id quod ab apoftolis tradi- tum eft Veritatis Evan gelium. Qaoniam autem fola (ilia) vera & firma & non capit neque plu ra prseter quam prasdicta font, neque pauciora ef fe evangelia, per tot 6c tanta oftendinaus. :* So I tranflate the Word Blajphemia,- ¦ becaufe it at leaft The Gofpel of Truth. Part IL Hi verb. four). But the Valen tinians , without any Modefty,producing fome Writings of their own, boaft that they have more than the (four) Gofpels ; for they have been fo very impudent, that they have entitul'd one The Gofpel of Truth, which was not long fince written by them, * nor does in any Thing agree with the Gofpels of the Apoftles ; fo that they have really no Gofpel but a mere -Forgery c ; for if that Gofpel which they produce, entitul'd The Gofpel of Truth, be difagreeable fo thofe which have been deli ver'd to ns by the Apof tles } every one may per ceive (as has been prov ed above-from the Scrip tures) that fihe Go/pel of Truth is not one of thofe deliver'd by the Apof tles. Befides"1 that I have above by feveral good Arguments evine'd, that only the (four) above- mention'd Gofpels are true and juft, and to be receiv'd. implies fome Injuftice done to the Apo-ftles. This Ch. XLI. The Gofpel of Truths 509 This Paffage leaves us no Room to doubt con cerning the Defign and Scope of this Gofpel, be ing calculated to ferve the Purpofes of the Valen tinian Scheme. The Author of the Seft, Valen tinus, was at Rome under Hyginus, about the Year of Chrift CXL1I. (according to the Chronicon oi Eufebius) but according to the Opinion of fome modern Criticks, near twenty Years foonerj which indeed feems to me undeniably demonftrated by feveral 'good Arguments by our learned Bifhop Pearfon d. He was one of the principal Authors of the Gnofticks, and of his Sentiments we have a ve ry particular Account given- us by Irenause, Cle mens Alexandrinus* , Tertullianz, Origenh, Epi phanius'1, and feveral others, which I fhall not here largely enumerate, but only give -the Reader the ¦ following Specimen. Hdving been, educated in the Platonick Philofophy at 'Alexandria, he form'd his fifotions of Chriftianity agreeable thereto. He ima gin'd certain Gods, which he call'd iEones, to the Number of Thirty, whofe Names and Pedigree (con formable to the fabulous Genealogies of Hefiod) he pretended to affign. Fifteen of them he would have to be Male, and fifteen Female. Epiphanius has preferv'd their Names ; they are fuch as thefe, Ampfitu, Auraan, Bucua, Thartua, Ubucua, Thar- deadie, &'c. That Chrift brought a Body with him from Heaven, and pafis' d through the Virgin as Wa ter through a Pipe. He afferted the Lawfulnefs of all Sorts of Lufts to his Difeiples, allowing them to force other Men's Wives, &c. denied the Refiur- reSion, contended for the, Tranfimigration of Souls, d Vindic. Epift. Ignat. Par. 2. h Contra Celf. Lib. 2. p. 77. c » Lib. f. p. 271. efpecially L. 6. ' e Lib. I. 8c II. adv. Hseref. p. 298. 8c Lib. 8. Expof. in f Strom. Lib. 3 Rom. 11. * De Prsefcript. adv. Hseretic. ' Hseref. 3 1. c. 40. & Lib. adv. Valentin. 5io The Gofpel of Valentinus. PartIL &jV. Such were very probably the Contents of this Gofpel, fo pompoufly entitul'd, The Gofpel of Truth. To be rejected therefore by Prop. IV. V. VL VIII. and iX. Num. LXIX\ The GOSTEL of VALENTINUS, IT is only mention'd by Tertullia^ trius*: Evangelium etiam habet fuum praeter haec noftra. Valentinus alfo has a Gof pel of his own, befides thefe of ours. This Book, entitul'd The Gofpel of Valentinus, has been foppos'd by fome learned Men to have been no other than the Gofipel of Truth, made Ufe of and forg'd by the Valentinians, of which I treated in the laft Section. This is fuppos'd by Dr. Grabe1, and after him by Mr. Fabritius™, be caufe, as they imagine, Valentinus himfelf did not write any Gofpel : This they gather from a Paffage of Tertulliann, which to me feems to imply nd fuch Thing : His Words are, " Alius manu Scrip- " turas, alius fenfo expofitiones intervertit. Neqj " enim fi Valentinus integro inftrumento uti vi- " detur, non callidiore ingenio quam Marcion ma- " nus intulit veritati. Marcion enim exerte & " pajam machaera non ftylo ufus eft, quoniam ad " materiam foam casdem Scripturarum Confecit, " Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad " materiam Scripturas, fed ad Scripturas materiam " excogitavit. " i. e. Some Hereticks corrupt the * De Prsefcript. adv. Hseret. » Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. No/. cap. 49. Teft. P. i. p. 380. 1 Spicileg. Patr,. T. a. p. 48, ; Lib, jam cit. c. 38. 49. Scripture Ch.XLI. The Goffrel of Valentinus: "511 Scripture with their Hands ; (viz. by adding and taking out ) others do it by perverfe Interpretations.- For though Valentinus feems to make ufe of all the Scriptures, he no lefs artfully than Marcion made his Attacks upon the Truth. For Marcion corrupted not onlyfimall Portions of Scripture, but made almoft a total DeftruSion, defigning thereby to make the Scrip tures accommodate to his Principles ; but Valentinus fpar'd them, becaufe his Defign was not to accommo date the Scriptures to his Principles, but his Princi ples to the Scriptures. In this Paffage it is plain, that TertuUian fays no more, than that Valentinus did not corrupt the facred Volume as Marcion did, by taking out thofe Things which were difagree able to his Opinions ; he Jays not (as thefe learned Men imagine) that Valentinus tttade no new Gof pel; nor is the Suppofition of his having made one in the leaft inconfiftent with the Defign of this Paffage ; which fhews the Weaknefs of Dr. Grabe 's Argument, that the latter Part of this Book under the Name of TertuUian is not his, be caufe the Author fays, Valentinus had a Gofpel, and (o~ contradicts this former Part of it, where he fays he had not one ; TertuUian faying no fuch Thing. But if there really were any Contradicti on in thefe two Places of TertuUian, I fhould ra ther think the Miftake was in the former, where he fays, Valentinus did not corrupt the Scriptures, than in the latter, where he fays Valentinus had a Gofpel of his own ; becaufe I obferve, that both Irenaus0 and Origen? lay the former Crime, viz. of corrupting the Scriptures, to the Charge of that Heretick, tho' the latter, much more plainly than the former j for when Celfius objects, that feme Chriftians had chang'd the firft Scriptures three or four Times, or more, &c. Origen an- fwers, that this was not done by any Perfons ex- 0 Adv. Hseref. L. i. c. i. ' Contr. Celf L.2. p. 77, cept 5 1 z Th'e Gofpel of Valentinus. Part IL cept the Difeiples of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Lucianus. , I conclude therefore, that Valen tinus had a Gofpel of his own, and that this was different from that call'd the Gofpel of Truth made ufe of by his Followers ; becaufe the one was us'd, and fo probably forg'd by Valentinus^ but the o- ther more lately made by his Followers ; yet it is very probable tbey were both defign'd for the fame Purpofes, and therefore both by. the fame Reafon to. be efteem'd Apocryphal, by Prop. IV- V. VI. VIII. and IX. A N Part II. 5i3 A N APPENDIX; Containing an ACCOUNT of all the Sayings and Histories O F CHRIST, Which are to be found in the Writers of the firft: four Centuries. To which is added A Collection of the Discourses, Histo ries, &c. of CHRISTandhis Apos tles; which are to be found in the Alcoran of Mahomet. LTHO' I cannot but hope, that I have in the foregoing Part of this Work fufficiently difprov'd the Claim of any of the loft Books under the Name of Chrift-, his Apoftles, &c. whofe Names are yet preferv'd, to Ca nonical Authority ; yet I judg'd it neceffary to add the following Appendix : The Defign ot which will be evident from what follows. 514 An Appendix. PartIL Befides the Apocryphal Gofpels, whofe Names. are ftill extant, and of which I have produc'd all the remaining Fragments, it has been thought, and may feem probable, that there have been feveral others, whofe Names are now quite loft ; becaufe there are cited in the Writings of the primitive Fathers feveral Sayings and Hiftories of Chrift and his Apoftles, which are not to be found in any of our prefent Gofpels. Now inafmuch as thefe are generally fuppos'd to be taken out of Apocryphal Gofpels by feveral learned Men, fuch as Mr. Dod well, Dr. Mill, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Fabritius, and o- thers, as will appear in the Sequel of this Dif courfe : What I propofe here is, to make as large a ColleSion as I can of all thofe Accounts, Sayings, Hiftories, DoSrines, &c. of Chrift and his Apof tles, which are not in any of our prefent Gofpels, but either are, or may be fuppos'd to have been taken out of fome Apocryphal Books, and which , are men tion'd by any Writer of the firft four Centuries after Chrift ; and withal to make it appear, that none of thefe Accounts were taken out of Apocryphal Books. And as in this laborious Attempt I propos'd the eftablifhing the Credit of our prefent Canon, foalfo the Entertainment ofthe Curious in Chriftian An tiquities. The Reader learned in thefe Things will eafily obferve, that there are many Accounts of the Apoftles omitted in this Collection, that are in the Writings of the firft four Centuries; but I defire it may be confider'd, that thefe are purpofely omitted here, becaufe I take in none but fuch as may, or have been fuppos'd to, have been in fome Apocryphal Books ; whereas thefe are ge nerally Traditions not written, and of which per-. haps hereafter, in a more convenient Place, I may, make a full Collection. Two or Three Things I muft premife to this Work ; viz. I. That PartIL An Appendix. 515 I. That I do not propofe to tranficribe the vari ous LeSions of our Gofpels, that are to be gather' d out of the Writings of the Fathers, nor to make thofe pafs for Sayings of Chrift, different from any in our Gofpels, which are only the memoriter Ci tations of the antient Writers : To do this would be a Work of endlefs Trouble, and of very little Advantage ; and I cannot but think the Labours of Dr. Mill in his Collections of this Sort were very triflingly imploy'd, as Dr. Whitby 3 has fufficiently fhewn. It is a Matter paft all Doubf, that all the primitive Writers cited the Scripture memoriter, or by Memory, without confulting their Copies ; 'which is not at all ftrange, if we confider the Forms of their Volumes, being large Skins of Parchment roll'd up together (as I have elfewhere fhewn b) and that their Books were not divided into Chapters and Verfes, as ours now are. Hence I fay, they cited memoriter frequently, and confe quently exprefs'd rather the Senfe and Meaning, than the Words of the Author they cite ; ( 1 . ) Sometimes quite changing his Words, and fubftitu- ting thofie of their own, which they thought equiva lent ; (2,.) Sometimes inferting their own Gloffes and Explications, and what they imagin'd needful to make the Senfe of the Sentence compleat ; ( 3 . ) Some times leaving out what was not to their Purpofe ; and Nothing more commonly, than ( 4. ) joining feveral different Texts of Scripture together, and which are related by feveral Evangelifts, as though fpoken by* Chrift at one Time. All this it were eafy to1 demonftrate by a thoufand Inftances ; and befides, the Fact being fo notorious, I jhall here take it for granted : He who has 'a Mind may fee very many Examples of all thefe, collect- ' Examen variant. Leftion. " Vindic. of Matthew, Chap.' Mill. Seft. I— VI. *?• Liz ed 5 1 6 An Appendix. Part II. ed by the learned Heinfiusc and Dr. Whitby, in the Place cited. II. I purpofe not to colleS the Differences of an tient Manufcripts, nor to lay down, as Sayings or Hiftories of Chrift, any of thofe which are to be found in any Manufcripts now extant, and not in our prefent Gofpels, unlefs perhaps, in one or two Inftances, where the Difference will appear to. have been in Manufcripts before the End of the fourth Century. This I propofe not here, becaufe it is a Work rather belonging to the Integrity of the Text, than the Eftablifhment of the Canon. III. I premife it as very probable, that many 'Accounts and Sayings of our Saviour were convey' d by Tradition through the firft and fecond Centuries. , St. John tells usd, that our Saviour did many o- ther Things, which, if they fhould be written every one, he fuppofes, that even the World it felf would not contain the Books which fhould be written. Some- of thefe it is impoffible, in the Nature of Things, but muft be tranfmitted to the foccecding Ages ; efpecially , if we confider, how remarkable our Saviour's Sayings and Actions were, and how much taken Notice of. Thefe Papias, Irenaus, and many others fought after, and indeed we can hardly fuppofe any one of fo little Curiofity, as not to defire the Knowledge of them, and confequently of thefe it is very probable feveral are to be found in the moft antient Monuments of Chriftianity. Thefe Things premis'd, I come to confider the Paffages themfelves, which are in the antient Wri ters, relating to Chriit and his Apoftles j and which not being to be found in any of our ' Prolegom. in Exercit. Sacr, f Job, xxi. 2f, ad Nov. Teft. p. 4. f, &c. Gof- PartIL An Appendix. 517 Gofpels, are or may be fofpected to be taken out of fome others. [N. B. I fhall produce thefie Pajfages according to the Order of Time, in which the Wri ters are fuppos'd to have liv'd, who mention them7\ » I. A Saying of Christ mention'd by St, Paul, Act. xx. 35. not to be found in any of our Gofpels. Tlavla u-nrscAe^a V[jliv, oil isloi xowiowla; crei avli- \aix(iavic$ou tgjv aofrtvisv- TOJV, lAVYllXO'jdjllV Ts T&)V Xo- ym ts Kugfa Ina-x, oil opl©' emrt, Maxapjov vzi •Movw. paXXov i\ Xa[xSa- I have fhew'd you all Things, how that fo la bouring you ought to fupport the weak, and to remember the Words of the Lord Jefus, how he faid, It is more bleffed ¦to give than to receive. This Saying of Chrift has been fuppos'd by fome to be taken out of fiome Apocryphal Gofpel now loft e j by others to be taken out of a Book entitul'd, The Book of the Sayings of Chrift, which is cited in The Recognitions of Clemens1, and by Turrianust, to be taken out of the Conftitutions of the Apoftles, for which Opinion he alfo cites Euthalius, a Bi fhop cotemporary with Athanafius ; but there is not the leaft Evidence for the Truth of either of thefe Opinions, becaufe had St. Paul really cited any Book, he would, according to his Cuftom? have given fome Intimation that he did fo, either by mentioning the Author's Name, or the Title of the Book, &c. Befides, as to the firft of thefe Vid. Heinf. Exercit. Sacr. f Sixt.Senenf Biblioth. Santcu a-4/a^at jus T«f /3a3-iXaaj , otpaXstn flXifs/lsj- ho« TroXXa 7ra- Swle? \aj3etv /*s. £0 /#*y, faith (Jefus) who would fee me, and arrive to my Kingdom, muft re ceive me thro' the Suf fering of many Troubles and AjftiSions.' The celebrated Archbifhop Ufher1 imagines it an Evidence of the great Antiquity of this Epiftle under the Name of Barnabas, that in it are cited feveral of the Apocryphal Books, the very Names of which are now quite loft. Mr. Dodwell m af ferts not only of Barnabas, but Clemens Romanus, ¦Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, the fuppofed Wri ters of the firft Century, or Apoftolick Age, that they promifcuoufly made Ufe of our Gofpels and other Apocryphal Books. Dr. Mill follows, him exactly, and is fomewhat more fanguine in his Expreffions n. They, i. e. the Apoftolick Fathers, fays he, cite and alledge, without any Difference, ' the Apocryphal Gofpels and the infpir'd Books of the Apoftles. One would imagine they had very clear Proof for r.he Support of thefe Affertions, and that Barnabas, Clemens, Hermas, Polycarp, and the reft, had nam'd, or at leaft refer'd to fome fuch Writings, or Books. But of this I dare aver, there is not one fingle Inftance in all thofe Fathers to be found ; and though fome of them have fome Paffages not in our Gofpels, yet there is not any 1 See the remaining Part of Corrector's Hand, by the great the Preface to an Edition of Fire there, 1643. See the this Epiftle, which he intend- Preface to Dr. FelrV Edition. ed to have publifh'd, but was m DiiTert.I. in Iren. §.39- , confum'd at Oxford, with all " Prokgom.in Nov. Teftam. his Notes, only a few in the §.133, &e. L 1 4 Reafon 5 jo An Append i x.~ Part II. Reafon to conclude they were taken out of others, as I fhall fhew in the particular Examination of them : And firft as to thofe of Barnabas, which are now under Confideration, only firft obferving that Mr. Fabritius ? fuppofes alfo that both thefe Paffages were taken out of fome Apocryphal Gof pel. I fhall confider each of them diftinctly. As to the firft, it is evident it could not poffibly be any Saying of Chrift, becaufe it is deliver'd in the plural Number, Let Us refift all Iniquity, and let Us hate it. Thefe, I fay, could not be the Words of Chrift, becaufe his Commands are never deliver'd in the plural Number, as relating to himfelf and to his Apoftles ; befides, it is abfurd in the Nature of the Thing for a Perfon under the Character of Chrift to command himfelf, efpecially confidering that he was incapable of all ~Sin. If therefore they were not the Words of Chrift, it is plain they are no more than the Author's Ex plication of fome Words of his ; and though he prefix the Words, Sic dicit Filius Dei, fo fays the Son of God ; it is plain that they cannot be taken in their literal Senfe, but muft mean, This is the Command of Chrift to us, or he has fpoken to this. Purpofe, that we fhould avoid and hate all Sin ; or it is the DoSrine.which he has deliver'd? : And fo indeed it is in many Parts of our Gofpels, and the mafo Defign of them all, and therefore was ' not taken out of any Apocryphal Book. As to the latter Paffage, it was either taken out of that Paffage of Paul and Barnabas, AS. xiv. 22. where it is laid they exhorted the Churches to con tinue in the Faith, and fay, We muft all, through much Tribulation, enter into the Kingdom of Hea ven : Which are very near the fqtne Words with 0 Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Teft. p See Inftances of the like Par. 1. p. 330, 331, Sort of Speech in Heinf. Exerci(. Sacr. ib.45.xx. 3J. thofe "PartIL An Appendix." 521 thofe of the fuppos'd Barnabas under Confidera tion, and fo that is faltly afcrib'd to Chrift, which was faid by Paul and Barnabas ; or elfe the Paffage is an Allufion to fieveral Places of our Lord's Difi- Mourfies, in which he affures his , Followers, that fo Order to become his true Difeiples, they muft depend upon a Variety of Troubles and Sufferings, as he does Matt. x. 18, 22. Luk. xiv. 27. John xvi. 33. and in feveral other Places ; and this I fuppofe no one can think improbable, -who con- ¦fiders how frequent thefe Sort of Citations are in the Writings of the Fathers, and particularly in this Epiftle. But if after all it fhould be thought, thefe Paf fages in the Epiftle of Barnabas were taken out of fome Apocryphal Gofpel ; I will add, that fee ing it is no hard Task to prove (as I hope fully in the next Part of this Work to do) that this Epiftle was not the Compofure of Barnabas, but of fome other Perfon under his Name, the Credit of our Canon cannot thereby be hurt ; for the moft that can follow from thence is, that the Apo- i cryphal Books have been cited by fiome heretical Im poftor of the fiecond Century. It will not be foreign to my Purpofe to infert here, that the Author of this Epiftle under the Name of Barnabas faith, Ch. v. p. 22. that when Chrift chofe his Apoftles, he made Choice of fuch pvTas irnnq 7rao~av apaglia)) avo/^omgsr, who were exceeding great Sinners : Which, though it be not afferted in either of our Gofpels, yet feems to be collected from thence, viz. where Matthew is faid to be a Publican, Matth. ix. 9, 10. Peter defires Chrift to depart from him, becaufe he was a finful Man, Luk. v. 8. and where he is related to have denied Chrift, Matt. xxvi. 70, &V. Paul fliles him- fplf a Perfeciitor and Blafiphemer, and the Chief of Sinners, 1 Tim. i, 13, if. This is well obferv'd by Origen againft Celfius to have been the Meaning 522 An Appendix. PartIL of Barnabas in this Place % though Jerome r by Miftake afcribes this to Ignatius, and not to Bar nabas. IV. A Saying afcrib'd to Christ in the fe cond Epift He of 'Clemens to the Corinthians, Chap. IV. He is fuppos'd to have been the fame Clemens, who is mention'd by St. Paul, as his Fel low-Labourer, Phil. iv. 3. I. Ai« Tiflo Toofla y]- fA&JV TT^yOJOVTOiV eiWiV 0 Kug/©', Eav hts ;xjT s/jis cmniyit^yot sv Tea xoX-arco juis, k'ou /my] -TroieiTs Tar sv- ToXas nn, amroCaXto u- fjtar, Kae sgu u/juv, T-nra- yele Cfnr' s/xss, ux. oio^au- jmar tto^sv srs, sgyalcw a- vo^tiar. 1. For this Reafon, that we might do thefe Things, the Lord hath faid, Though ye fhould le join'd to me even in my Bofiom , and do not ob ferve my Commandments, I will rejeS you, and fay to you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye Workers of Iniquity. \ V- Another Saying afcrib'd to Christ and Peter in the fame Epiftle, Chap. V- For the Lord faith, Te ftmll be as Lambs in the Midft of JVolves ; but Peter replying faid, What if the Wolves fhould tear in Pieces the Lambs ? Je fus faid unto Peter, Let not the Lambs fear the 2. Asya yag o Kti(y®j, Eo-sc^e ok agvia sv /xso-co Xoxwv. A-aro-fg/S-etr c^s o I1sti=®,:) Eav xv cPiao-wa ga^Mo-iv 01 Xu'.'ci Ta aavia; Ei-Etrsy 0 Iyjcrss- toj rislga) , M»i tyo£eic&u et-anv, Ev fus Chrift hath faid : In fir av ujxas xalaXafio), sv whatfoever [_ Actions ~] I yslcif xat x^/vw. fhall find you, by them al fio I will judge you. This is a very noted Paffage, and has been not only cited in feveral of the antient Books, but ta ken Notice of by feveral of the Moderns, info- much that for this Reafon Juftin is reputed to have made Ufe of the Apocryphal Books. Every Body knows (fays Cafaubon y) that Juilm Martyr and the other Fathers have frequently appeal' d td A- pocryphal Books ; but I know not one Inftance which has been affign'd for the Proof of this, be fides the Paffage which we are now upon. It re quires therefore Confideration, and the more, be caufe Juftin, being one of the firft Chriftian Wri ters whofe Works are extant, his rejecting all o- ther Books befides thofe now receiv'd, is a migh ty Confirmation of our prefent Canon. But I come to the Paffage, and to enquire what has been faid of it. i.^Langus {Juftin's Latin Tranfiator) propofes two Conje&ures concerning this Paffage, viz. ei ther that it is a Citation of fiome Words of Chrift •which are in John v. Luk. xii. and xix. and more Regard had to the Senfe and Meaning of thofe * See Dr. Whitby's Treatife * Exercit. adv. Baron. Anna;. of the MiUtrmiHm. ¦ p. J4- _.,Places, 538 An Appendix. Partli Places, than the Words -, or elfe that it was taken out of fome Apocryphal Book z. ¦ The laft of thefe Conjectures I fhall prefently examine largely ; as to the firft,, viz. that the Paffage is an Allufion to fiome Words of Chrift. I obferve, that tho' perhaps, it may not exactly be the Cafe, yet it is not very abfurd ; indeed I know not certainly what Places in the Evangelifts Lan- gus refers to, becaufe he only cites the Chapters at large, and not the Verfes ; but I fuppofe he meant thofe, John v. 27. — ¦ 30.. apd thofe in Luke xix. ii.- — 27. in which PLces there is a plain Declaration that Chrift who is conftituted Judge would be no Refpecter of Perfons, but deal to e- very Man according to his Works. And this is the undoubted Meaning of the Saying in Juftin^ I fay therefore, this Conjecture is not very abfurd, becaufe the Fathers ufually cite thus compendi-r oufly. But there feems to be this againft it, that the Paffage is in the fame Words in many of the Fathers, and it is hardly probable that they fhould paraphrafe the fame Way. 2. Dr. Cave a fuppofes it taken it out of the Apo cryphal Gofipel of the Nazarenes. 3. Dr. Grabe is of the fame Opinion^. 4. Dr. Felj in his Notes on the fame Saying of Chrift, which is in §. 40. of the little Book of Clemens Alexandrinus, entitul'd Quis Dives fialve- tur, fays, Clemens took it out of fiome Apocryphal Gofpel. But againft this Opinion I argue, I. That Juftin does not in any other Part of his Writings cite or take any Thing out of any Apocryr phal Book, and therefore it is fuprifing he ftipuld do it here : He cites our prefent Canon, and particu larly our four Gofpels, continually ; I dare fay, a- . x .Vid. Sylburg. Annot. in ¦1 Hift. Liter, in Matth. p..B. Loc. Juftin, J -Spicileg. Patr.T. 1. p. .3*7,. bove Part II. An Appendix, 5 3 9, have 200 Times ; and is it likely he fhould ap peal to an Apocryphal Gofpel in this one Place,, and efpecially when he might have found that which was equally to his Purpofe in ours ? I leave the Reader, who is unprejudic'd, to judge. II. It is probable Juftin Martyr took this Paffage out ofthe Prophecy of Ezechiel, and that he did not himfelf prefix to it the Words, O mxilt^ Kvy& Muss Xg/9©' etwsv,. i. e. our Lord Jefius Chrift Jaid, but only Kv(y®> emnv, The Lord hath fiaid, and that fome'Scribe ignorantly imagining thefe to be the Words of Chrift, inferted in his Copy the Words vi/ui£T6§©' and Irtaas Xg/s-©'. Firft, For the Proof of tnis I appeal to the Con text, or Series of Juftin'j- Difcourfe. In. which a Queftion is debated between Juftin and Trypho,. whether the Ebionites, or fuch who profefs'd Faith. in Chrift, and Obedience to the Ceremonial Law, Gould be fav'd. Juftin declares he thought they might, if they did not endeavour to pervert the Gentiles to their Opinion, but that thofe of the Jews who denied Chrift, though they liv'd ac cording to the Mofiaick Law, could not be fav'd without Repentance in this Life ; for, fays he, the Goodnefs of God is fuch, that he will accept thofe who are truly penitent, as he declares by Ezechiel, but reject thofe who perfift in their Wic- kednefs ; then follows the Paffage we are about, Wherefore the Lord faith ; which alfo follows in Ezechiel in that Place which Juftin refers to ; fee ¦ Ezech. xviii. 26. — zo. And indeed it is remarka ble, that this 20th Verfe is now in the Septuagint Verfion more like the Words of this Paffage than any of the preceding are to What Juftin cites, as will appear by comparing them (Exafov x«D« -rrjif %$cv with xg/vco ujixas- Xiyet Kug/©>.)' Nor would it be at ali ftrange, if there Were a much greater Dif ference, confidering how unlike the prefent Co pies of the Greek Verfion are to thofe in Juftin's f -' Time, 540 An Appendix. PartIL Time, and particularly to Juftin's own Copy of that Tranflation ; which every one who has read Juftin cannot but obferve with Surprife } and thofe who have not may fee in Vaillant's Differ tation concerning the Places in the New Tefta ment cited out of the Old, and Archbifhop UJher's Syntagm. de Septuagint Interp. c. 4. p. 42, &c. But, Secondly, That which feems to put the Matter paft all Doubt is, that Clemens Alexandrinus c ci ting the fame Paffage, exprefly cites it as the Words of God the Father, and not of Chrift, having juft before alfo quoted the preceding \Eerfes in Ezechiel. This Dr. Grabe has alfo obferv'd, which makes it fomewhat unaccountable, that he fhould in the very fame Paragraph fuppofe it taken out of the Gofpel of the Nazarenes. Thirdly, Confidering the Series of Juftin's Dif courfe, it would havS been very abfurd for him to have cited a Saying of Chrift to flop the Mouth of Tryph o, who was a Jew, and therefore would yield no Regard to it, efpecially when he had fe veral Paffages in the Books of the Old Teftament, which his Adverfary own'd, to have produc'd, which were as much to his Purpofe, and really more particularly exprefs'd his Mind, than any Words in the New. XIII. A Hiftory of Christ'.? Baptifm, related by Juftin Martyr. Dialog, qum Tryph. Jud. p. 3 15- Koa toIi e\3-o/]{3^ rv I«- 0-8 vwi tov lagcPavnv 7T0" lajmov, iv&a 0 loiavws t- £«w1i£s, XflfliXS-Dlfl©- TH And when Jefus came to, the River Jordan, where John was baptifing, as Jefus was defcending ii> I In Lib. Quis Dives falvetur, §. 40. Part II. An Appendix. 541 to the Water, a Fire Iflfl-B S7H to v&up, xeu 7ru£ ttvui^S-ni tv to) lofcfiavn- Kax avac/Wl©» owls swo ts uc^al©', tar 7rsg/?sgav to ayiov TrvAipa mrnclnvw. «7r' aulov, sypa^av oi atsroso- Xot OttfliS TV% TS Xg/S-8 ¥)fl»V. w&r kindled in Jordan. And when he came out of the Water, the A- poftles of this our Chrift have wrote, that the Ho ly Ghoft did alight upon him as { or in the Form of) a Dove. That which is peculiar in this Relation^ and not in our Gofpels, is, that a Fire is fiaid to be kindled in Jordan, when Chrift was going down into the Ri ver to be baptis'd ; and fomething of the fame Na ture we find there was in the Gofpel of the Ebio nites, or Nazarenes, viz. that at Chrift's Baptifm after the Defcent of the Holy Ghoft, and the Voice from Heaven, a great Light fhone around the Place. ( See the Paffage at large out of Epiphanius, in the foregoing Part, Chap. XXV. Num. 11.) On this Account fome learned Men have imagin'd this Hiftory to have been taken by Juftin Martyr out of this Apocryphal Gofpel. Thus thought a certain learned Friend of Mr. Dodwell A, and Dr. Mill* ; but herein they are moft evidently mifta ken, becaufe Juftin's Account, and that in the Ebionite Gofpel do fo very much difagree in Cir cumftances. Juftin relates, that as Chrift was de fending into the River, the Fire was kindled, and then after that was the Defcent of the Holy Ghoft, and the Voice from Heaven ; on the contrary this Gofpel faith, that the Light was not 'till after Chrift had aficended out of the Water, and the Spirit had defended, and the Voice came down from Heaven. Befides, if we look carefully into the Paffages, we fhall eafily perceive they are different, not only * Diflcrt. in Iren. II. §°- « Annot. in Mat. iii. 11J. fie Prolegom. §. sop, 8c 766. becaufe 542 Ain Appemd-i&. PaptlL ;becaufe of the Difagreema&t, ¦ as has bee-n ifcid, in Point of Time, which there is between them, but becaufe the Subjects are qui&e drfforqni;. The -one fpeaks of a Fire kindled in tbe River ;¦ the 0- iher ef a great Light emir cling or fthining&rwvdfM •the Place, which are two Things ifo different, <-. that I fuppofe if this had beep , obferv'd, no one MiouJd ihave imagin'd that Juftin took his Account QVtf.qf the Ebionite Gofpel. But farther, he who will be at the Pains to confider what Opinion Juftin had of the Ebionites, and ,tbeir Scheme*, will hard ly perfuade himfelf that iFather,made Ufe. of their idle and filly Apocryphal JSooks. Nor is there any Thing that I have feen to be, urg'd on the other Side, befides what Dr. Mill gathers from the Words ey^ji-vj/av . amosoXot, i. e. the Apoftles (fpeaking of feveral of ,them ) wrote this, that Juftin refer'd -to •the Gofipel of the twelve Apoflles, which was the iame with that of the Ebionites , or Nazarenes. But it is eafy to anfwer, that thefe Words, th Apoftles wrote, refpect only the latter Part of the -Senfe, viz. the Holy Ghoft's alighting upon Chrift in the Form of a Dove, and not the former, be caufe the Verb i-smr%via is in the Infinitive Mood, but the other Verbs are in thethird Perfon ; and for this Reafon Dr. Grabe s, from whom Dr. Mill borrow'd this Argument, rejects it, as not fuffici ent "to prove the Point. That therefore which feems moft probable. upon the whole is, that this Circumftance at our Saviour's Baptifm was related by Juftin only as what he had receiv'd by Tradi tion j and if I miftake not, this was founded upon that Paffage in three of our Evangelifts, viz. that the Heavens were open'.d ; by which I know, not what elfe can be underftood befides fome lucid Phenomenon -in the' Air. " II femble que les Nu- f Dialog, cum Tryph. Jud. s.Spicileg. Patr. Tom. I. p. p. 2.6-f, &c. , ip, 10. " ages ita PartIL An Appendix. 54/3 '" ages f'ecarterent tout d'un coup, & qu'urie " 'flamme defcendit de l'eritre-deux. Au moins les " hommes ne peuvent pas voir une autre ouverture c du Cicl, 8c l'ori difoit commuheinent, que le ciel fi'ouvroit, tors que cela arrivoit h : It is pro vable that the Clouds divided fiuddenly, and that a Flame of Fire deficended from between them. Other- wife Men could not poftibly fee 'any Opening of the Heaven ; befides, we commonly fay, the Heavens are ^opened, when there is fuch a Phwnomenon in them. "Hence it might eafily pafs into a common Opini- Jjs VGrag%eiv, xou • aac^ss-, And when Jefus came to .Jordan, and was repu ted the Son of Jofeph the Carpenter, and ma king a mean Figure (ei- * Cleric. Annot. in Mat. iii. i.&. us 544- An Appendix. PartIL ok at ygjjs^oe sxviguaroy, (p Mvojjfyx , xa« Tsxlcy©' vo/xi^O/a^os* Toufla yag Ta TiiTiow'a fgya eioyoffo sv av&gco-arois- uv, agcflga xcw £uya, o\a TS^a)v xat ts th? e^KaioffutJUor av^CoXa e^ic/'ttdrHwv Kat mgyn (SioV. ther in Refpect of his Perfon or Garb) as the Scriptures have foretold (.fee^.liii. i.) and him felf was efteem'd a Car> penter, for he ivork'd when he was here on Earth at the Carpenters Trade, making Ploughs and Yokes (for Oxen, & c) thus making a Pat tern of Righte©ufnefs j * and a laborious Life. There is at this Day extant a Gofpel of the Infancy of our Saviour (of which more hereafter) in which we read of the Actions and Miracles of Chrift, during the Interval of his Minority, and particu larly of his working with his Father in the Car penter's Trade. Accordingly, Chap. XXXVIlL we read, that Jofeph took him along with him to all the Places where he was fent for to do Bufinefs, to make Gates and Milk-Pails, and Sieves, and Trunks, and that when Jofeph intended to make any Thing longer or fhort er, wider or narrower, as foon as Chrift put his Hand to the Work, it was inftantly done, according to JofejphV Intention, fio that he had in- ¦deed but little Occafion to worL not being very dex trous at his Trade.. It may perhaps be thought, Juftin took what he fays out of fome fuch Apo cryphal Books j but inafmuch as this Book was a Forgery long after Juftin's Time, and it does not .appear, there was any fuch Book in his Time, it is much more probable either that he relates only what he had receiv'd by Tradition, or elfe that what he here faith, was his Glofs upon thofe Words of Mark, c. vi. z. in which Chrift is call'd by his ownTownfmen o Ttxlaiv, the Carpenter. Ori- 3 I™ PartIL An Appendix!' sa-S gen indeed afferts1, that it is no where to be read in the Gofpels receiv'd by the Churches, that Chrift was a Carpenter ; which he never would fo pofitively have afferted againft Celfus, bantering our Saviour becaufe he was a Carpenter by Trade, unlefs he was well affur'd of the Fact. It is probable there fore Chrift was not call'd t^wv, the Carpenter, in any Copies of St. Mark which Origen had feen; and accordingly I obferve, Firft, That in the paral lel Place in St. Matthew, c.xiii. ff . he is not call'd viiflm, but tjxIov©- tj©», not the Carpenter, but the Carpenter's Son. Secondly, That many antient Ma nufcripts, in this Place of Mark, inftead of texIw, read e ts tsxIov,©' q©», viz. the Carpenter's Son. It is not to my preient Purpofe to make any En quiries into the Life of Chrift, before his publick Miniftry ; it is generally thought , as Juftin fays, that he follow'd his Father's Trade of Carpentry. So Erafmus k, Eftius1, Chemnitius m, Grotius n, Light foot °, Dr. Cave p, and many others. Thus much concerning Juftin Martyr, 'till whofe Time there is the greateft Reafon to con clude the facred Text of the New Teftament con tinued very pure and incorrupt ; foon after the Hereticks of thofe Times made many and large Interpolations and Additions to it ; fuch as Mar cion, Valentinus, and others, whereby they fre quently make both Chrift and his Apoftles to fpeak what they judg'd moft agreeable to their own Sen timents. It would be endlefs to collect all thefe, nor would it be of any Service in fettling the Ca- ' oAfhto rm iv reus ejotAijo-i- m Harmon. Evangel. Vol. j. <«!]©- s Isjiroys «>aysyp*j3-T«n. n Annot. in Matth. xiii. 5-5-. Cont. Celf. L. VI. p. zpo. ° Harmon, of the New Teft.' k Annot. in Matth. xiii. ?f. §.8. in fine. 8c Mar. vi. 3. £ Hiftor. Literar. in Chrift. 1 In Difficil. Loc. Script, ad Mar. vi. 3. N n non, 540 An Appendix. Part II. non, and indeed but little in fettling, the true Reading of the Text ; Irenaus and TertuUian have mention'd feveral of them ; Epiphanius has made a large Collection of Marcion's Alterations in the Gofpel of Luke, and St. Paul's Epiftles. I ftiaU think it fufficient to produce the following re markable Inftance of an Addition- to the Gofpel Hiftory made by the Gnofticks in the fecond Cen tury, and perhaps afterwards inferted in fome Apo cryphal Gofpel. The. Inftance I mean is that out of Irenaus adv. Haref. Lib. i . f. 17. Speaking, of the Gnofticks, and their fpurious Scriptures, he adds 'Tipoo-^a^fXaixSavaa-i J*s Br /rslo xa'xetvo to ga^isp- yt\\xa, co? ts Ku^ys Ta dlia. .ts cWaaxaXs ouflcn (piia'avl©' , xaS-ws- s^©- itiv, etirt aXtya, a7rcx.£f- ,vaG\Ta< to aXtya' iraXiv ts to fbfila ts c^ic/WxaXs xsXdjcavl®' ef-pretv, awo- yfyva&M tov Ku^av, 2u [i.oi Trgoltgov etrnt tj eti to aX(pa, xou toIs (701 SgCO TI s?j to f&ifla.' Kok tsTo s|j- nysi/lea cos- a//]s /utcvs to ay'v'coyov rarisapfyns, 0 sipa- V6gWO-6V JV TCO TU7T00 ts aX- »!&* ctou/xoi w«§i-|Be ye flrilful Money- !JW. J Changers. f Chap. XXVII. ¦ Strom. L. IV. p. . +8*. * Cod Apocr. Nov. Teftam. k Vid- contr. Celf. L*. 7- ht. i. p. 3 19. P- S62' 7* de °rat* 5> 2- ' I P^dageg* Lib. 2. p. 'S8- _ 554- ' An Appendix. PartIL It is fbrprifing to obferve: how many of the pri mitive.'. Writers of Chriftianity have cited this Paffage in. their Works ; Clemens Alexandrinus1, Apelles m, Origen ", Dionyfius Alexandrinus0, Cyril of Jerufalem p, Pamphilus % Athanafius *, Jerome f, Cyril of Alexandria?, -befides feveral more, have cited it; Cotelerius, Ufher, Valefius, Dr. Grabe, yir.. Fabritius, , Mr: Whifton, Dr. Mill, and others among the Moderns, have obferv'd it ; though I knowvnot any fufficient Remarks that have been yet made concerning its true Original j for which Reafon I. defign more particularly to difoufs it. It i& fuppos'd by moft. to have been taken out of the He-, brew.; Gofpel of the Nazarenes ; fo Cotelerius v, lifter^, ¦Valefius* : But this muft needs be a Mifr take, becaufe verf few of the Fathers underftood the Language of. that Gofpel, and; a Verfion was nocmade of it 'till Jerome had made his, as is a- bove; prov'd,.;, Chap. XXVII. That, which ap pears to me nioft probable .upon ^examining the Places of the, Fat hers, where this Paflage is cited,. J fhall reduce into the following, diftinct Obferva-t tions. viz. ;:.r-:j br.-. ~xt- .: ¦i. None of all the Writers, who have menti-, on'd it, dp cite it asp he Saying or Wftrdf of Chrift within, the firft four ffetitfiries, except JQrigen, Je rome, and the Heretick Apelles. , ;....' 2,. The Meaning of the Paffage, . Tm^t e/Vt/^f tgatB-tffi'iaM, Be fMlfui Money-Chdngers, is the vefy .'-T..- .. 1 Strom. Lib. I. p. 35-4. r Epift. ad Solitar. . <*. Apud Epiphan. Hseref. 44. f Epift, 2 6. ad Miner. & Ar N. 2. lexand. in fine. " Tom. 19. in Joann. viii- ' Apud Coteler. Not. in Con- 20. ftit. Apoftol. L. 2. c. 36. 0 Apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccjef. v Loc. cit. L. 7. c. 7. * " Prolegom. in Epift. Igriat. f Cated*. VI. in fine. c. 8. J Apolog. pro Orig. ininitio. * In Eufeb. H.E. L.7. c.7. fame, PartIL An Appendix. 55^ fame with that Exhortation, of the Apoftle, 1 Thefifi. v. 21. Prove all Things, viz. that as Money-Chan- gers they fhould be careful to diftinguifh- be tween tharwhich is good and bad, and like them try and prove, all. This is evident from the De fign of every Citation, but more clearly from the Explications which the Fathers themfelves have given of thefe Words. Thus Clemens Alexandri nus compares a Perfon ignorant, in Logick, and not knowing how to diftinguifh between Things, to an ig norant Money-Changer, who- cannot diftinguifh good Money from, bad I, and dfewhere ^exprefly: calls them the JW/xsr Tgerare(Ylas-, i. e. the fikiiful Mo ney-Changers, tojli$o\Xov vojxia-(xa ts Ku^s awo ts Tfa^^a^uyixofliQ^. criakyvovlafj who can diftinguifh the bad Money v( pretending to be the Lords) by its Stamp and GharaSer, i. CxHerefy from Truth ; and Jerome, after having cited the Paffage Be fikii ful Money-Changers, adds for Illullrarion a, like thofie who rejeS that for Counterfeit Coin, which has - not the Image of C«efar fit i.ftamp'd upon it as it ought to have- Once more in- the Apoftolical Conftituii- ons^, after the Paffage produced, in the next Pa ragraph we read, Be as fikiiful. -Dealers in Money, •who rejeS that which is bad, and keep that which is good. It is plain therefore to mention no more Inftances, the Scope of the Exhortation is, that we be careful in proving, trying, or examining Things (as the Money-Changers- do their Money) and this is^tbe.very fame as St. Paul fays, Prove all fhings. Which being fo, I obferve 3. The .Fathers cite this Paffage as the Saying of the Apoftle, and do all of them (except Origen and Jerome) cite it inftead of this very Paffage of y Strom! L.6\ p.6j-f. ' Epift. 26. ad Miner. & A- * Strom. L; 7. p. 7/4- lexand. in fine. * Lib. a. c, 36/37. 1 St. 55f5 An Appendix. PartlK St. Paul, ( t Theffi. v. 21.) Prove all Things. This is as evident as any Thing can be, by a View of the Places : Dionyfius Alexandrinus calls it otstoso- Xwir (pawn, i. e* the Apoftle's Sayingc. Cyril of A- lexandrla in feveral Places calls it the Words of Paul $. Cyril of Jerufalem e, Pamphilus £, and o- thers, add the following Words of Paul in the End of this Verfe and f. 22. Hold faft that which is good,- and abftain from the Appearance of Evil. 4. It is evident therefore, this was not any Saying of Chrift, but of Paul ; and fo not taken out of any Apocryphal Gofpel. There are indeed two1 Difficulties attending trri* Hypothefis, viz. How fo many Fathers could agree to cite St. PaulV Words thus different from what they are in our prefent Copies, and how Origen, Je rome and Apelles, were fo miftaken in citing it as a Saying of Chrift. As to the firft, I frankly own I believe it pro ceeded from an early Interpolation in the Text; fome one, oppofite to St. Paul's Words, writing for Explication car c/Wi/utoi Tga-ars^flou, in the- Margin, he who tranfcrib'd that Copy inferted it in the Text with the Addition of the Verb yiv5<*h, which he apprehended needful to compleat the Senfe. As to the latter ; viz. Origen, Jerome and A- pelles citing it as a Saying of Chrift, I anfwer, Firft, That it is" not ftrange Jerome fhould do fo, when Origen had done it before hirity becaufe he fo much follow'd him, and depended upon him, Secondly, Either Origen fail'd in Memory, and wrote down that as a Saying of Chrift, which, if he had examin'd, he would have found to be St.- PduP's j which is very common : Or elfe, ' Apud Eufeb. L.7. c. 7. « Catecn. VI. in' fine. I Apud Coteler. Loc. citi [ Applog.prb Origene in Init. Thirdly^ PartIL An Appendix^ 557 Thirdly, Some Scribe made the Addition ivloXnv Kug/s, i. e. the Command of God, as an Introducti on to the Paffage, which they often did ; and in doing fo were often miftaken. Fourthly, Whereas the Heretick Apelles quotes the Paffage, as being <=v t<» diayUXiu, in the Gofpel -f we may fuppofe him either miftaken, or elfe that. he ufes the Word Gofpel in a large Senfe, to denote St. Paul's Epiftle j and this cannot feem ftrange to thofe who confider, that the Word Gofpel is fre quently us'd not only in the New Teftament for the DoSrine of the Gofipel, but is alfo by the pri mitive Writers frequently put for any Book of the New Teftament. Thus Clemens Romanus calls the Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians the Gofipel of Pauls : Or perhaps, Apelles might read thefe Words in the falfe Gofpel which he made ufe of, and which afterwards went under his Name (See Parti. Chap. VII. Num. IV.) into which, being fo noted a Saying, it was inferted out of this Place of St. Paul's Epiftle. It cannot be improper here to obferve, that Mr. Whiftonh urges this Paffage, becaufe it is cited by Dionyfius Alexandrinus as an awo?o"Xm^ (pcuvn, i.e. An Apoftolical Saying; (and as he thinks out of the Conftitutions ) as a ftrong and almoft . undeniable Atteftatian to the Conftitutions of the A- poftles, and imagines this fiuch a Citation as cannot fairly be fiet afide by any. But I fuppofe, even Mr. Whifton himfelf will allow, that the foregoing Re marks do fufficiently overthrow his Argument 5 ^nd I muft obferve, that a-mosoXim vn may as well be tranflated the Words of the Apoftle in the lingular Number, as the Words of the Apoftles in the plural. 8 Epift. ad Cqrinth.I. c. 47. and Junius mil Cotelerius on that See above, Part II. Chap. III. Place of Clemens. J Efiay on the Conftit. p. 1 6f. XX. A j58 An Appendix. PartIL XX. A .Saying "afcrib'd to Christ in Cle mens Alexandrinus, Strom. Lib. 5. p. 578. Ou ya% ^3*ovaiv, immediately follow, yet it has its proper Verb Tca^yXeiXiv, the Lord hath declar'd ; but Say ing and Declaring being the fame Thing, both the Verbs cannot refer to that Noun } and confequent ly one or other of them muft be fuperfluous, and -not wrote by the Author at firft : But this is the 4atter, becaufe we certainly know the Prophet .wrote thofe Words, but do not know that Chrift did fpeak them. It is therefore evident that Cle mens did not write the Words vra^yTetXiv 0 Kupj^ iv tivi diayliXioi, the Lord, hath declar'd in a certain Gofipel, but they were inferted by fome ignorant Tranfcriber, who imagin'd them to be the Words of Chrift, and by adding the Word ira^yTaXiv, when the Word (pyjc-iv fo immediately preceded, he plainly betrayed his Ignorance and Interpola tion. This is yet farther confirm'd by Clement's ¦citing, as he does in the next Paragraph, the fame Prophet thus, 7r«Xiv 0 .xgef if7»ir, and again the Pro- • ,*, . ¦ phet $60 An Appendix. PartIL phet fiaith, which he could not have faid, had he not cited him before. All this is fo evident, that I think it may be fairly urg'd as an Inftance to fopport fome Conjectures which I have made a- bove, concerning the Interpolations of the Scribes in antient Manulcripts. XXL A Hiftbry a/Christ, and his Ba rents, in Orig. contr. Celf. L. i. p. 22. Ov«cfy£« t%iaio?oa, i- Xtyx&eiav as in.tjjioi^v- iifynv. 'RiSra Xtyei, as zu-fiXn&mra ware ts av- ePg©j Kat 7rXava)ju^yn an- fxtps fflipliov iyiWDfft tov Iigo-sv, Kat oil s1©», tha vriviav as Aiyuzsrlov (ua- S-agvno-as-, Hftnet .d^iwa^- tov tivwv TragaeS-af s(p' atr Aiyu'sflioj o-Efxvuvpvlat, s- TravmX^EV, ev Tatf cruva- jweo-t /wsya (pgovcpv, Hat c/V cuflas ©sov «t/7ci» avig- yog&a-s. He ridicules {viz. Cel fius) our Saviour, that he was born in a mean Village of Judfia, and of a mean poor Woman, who got her Bread by Spinning, and was turn'd away by her Hufband, who was a Carpenter, becaufe fhe was charg'd with Adultery. Again, he adds, that when fhe was turn'd out by her Hufband, and fcanda- loufly wander'd about the Countries, fhe pri vately brought forth Je fus, and that he being thro' Poverty oblig'd to work as a Servant in E- gypt, and there having learnt fome Sort of pow erful Arts, which are much reputed in Egypt, he return'd much lifted up with his Arts, and thought becaufe of them he deferv'd to beefteem- ed as a God. 1 Whe- Part HL An • A g p" « n d t x: < &t Wetlher Gelfkf^tArith this in anf^orjry- yhal -Gofpei^j, no, -I earfrtell * fomethftW W, this bort we meet Within forjie Apocryphal fifeex-. tone, in ,Sc, Auftin's Tlrrje;- under the ^Lref fen-nit... Concerning the Magical Power b| which J? wrought bis Miraclesjj fed*above, GhSp'.XlV « he took it out 6f'f6nie-f5c^'Bdbk, -# can no waflfoa ;tte'Credft*f lofcr-Canon, •'tMt/foa-ari fcr»ln«y4(hiouldfee fonfMitefi fidicuforls Writines But I rather think ' it* ^4s°l ~ .^ Forgery :W6flg the Jews, than ^ny Part of an-Aptory^WGiSfoel. ¦r .-.-j .,:;i: ;s..v..-, -ttv.' ' iAt .-; , : &i kTircT £ c .- ¦ AA11, ^ timotyvfo^r S a v i g u r ¦'. s u#^ .' tion according to thh Fkfh, -w 'Epiphysitis, *i Hxt^Lji. n. 7,! &--8J.'-'"- Ilur ya j Yi&liiltflo1 Or TOJTS- r©» ysj&iv -9rbi-p'^>^ov 'sS-av yui/atxtf,' wv -'^aisro irpcflins yut>oux@> r^ng©'' TooWTa «1») } s1©> /!$> yag o Iai- ff»)(p ctc^sXtp©^ yivslat ts KXawj-a, »iv e/*s t^©* ts Ittxajf, sttFixXJiv" cAs ITai^ &«£ KaXsju^os- iajut^olsgoi ifloi a-aro ts -Ilav&np©' s- •jbtixXiiv ysvvwvlat' itfw

ag^var, * ^nXaar cPt a^vd, xaSwars^ to 4/ayfsXiov to Kala MoMttov Hat xefla Ia»- avvr\v sja^nvio-av. E^/e £$/ sv ¦nrjaflonoKcv tov laxco- Cfltf rev eariX-Xn&tvla ft- .1 J Oo .\r..-\ HaW could a Maif fo'Jbld have a young Virgin for his Wife, : having been ! a -Widower F6 foany i Years after fife : 'firft Wife's DeCeafe ? for Jofeph' -was the Brother ojft 'Gleifpfftas, th e ' Son1 of Jdmesfg; firnam'd :'f Po ther. 'jiiJoth thefe were the , Sons, of him who was' firnam'd Panther. This Jofeph married his firft "Wife out of the Tribe of Judah, by whom he had fix Chil dren j four of which were Males, and two Females,"' as appears by the Gofpel of Mark ana John. His firft-born was James, who was firna- Xt«v, -5-6> Ap, Appendix' PartIL GXiav, £g/x«v4)oju^toVTT«^o?, siot i/, 6Br«T« lad'as' xat tPuoSr-uya'ltgK, uMa- gp, xat 10 SaXa/xyj xa- Xs/X$»!)" x<« -rfST^v aula- 0 yu/J*i, r&at fji/la ih .iroX- 'Ka Xapf&avet tijv Mag/av. j£»lg©>, Koflayatv njXiKiav srsgt ws oyePoyjxo^a-Vlejv Hat Tgeo-w p ttVMg.^ Kat f*/7a X«y*Cava tkjv M«g;- ,¦( '. .-, -r; wm $XIIL Art Anfwer ofthe Apoftles to Christ," ju. t '- ftia I r~ i^/- • -d»i— . u r #z Jerome. Lib. 2.^Epift. log. contr. 1 6. foh 5r2, Pelag. Haref. CHRIST having reprov'dthem' for their Un belief of his Reforrectipn i Illi fatisfaciebant dicen- ies, Seculum iftud iniqui- tatis & incredulitatis fub- ftantia eft, qua nonfinit per immundds fipiritus ve- rdm Dei apprehend! vir- tutem, idcircb jam nunc reyela.juftitiam tuam. They were fatisfied, and faid, " This Age is the " Subftance of Iniquity "and Unbelief,, which " through the (Influence " of) Evil Spirits, will " not fuffer the true Pow- " er of God to be per- " ' ceWd', there fori even, «¦ now manifeft thy Juft " -Hee. .. • *7 This Paffage Jerome, in the Place cited, affirms wis in fome Copies of St. Mark (efpecially the Greek ones.) in the End of the kft Chapter,, viz.- after f. 14. and becomes confiderable here, only, becaufe it has been fuppos'd by feveral learned Men to be taken out of fome Apocryphal Gofpels, So Exafmus, arid Father Simon*, to whom Dr. Mill* m See Bifhop Fearfin on the Cre.ed> p. tys- '» Erafm.inMar.j5. & Sim. O o 1 Critic. Hift. Nor. Teft. Par.!* C. I I. In ' 0 Prolegom. in Nor- Teftara.. §. 714, §c in Loc. — fub- 1 64 An Appendix; Partjf. (ubfcribes, and adds, a very probable Qffiy?&mt} that, it was taken? out of one of jithe M^chaan. Gofpels, and perhaps that qf Thomas-;;: which,- if indeed- it he" true* yet doe's no way affo^ the Cre dit of our prefent Canon. For befides that. I have above ;$rbv.'d the Gofpels of the Manichees to be Apocryphal, fo this Paflage it fejfprovesi.the. Book, which contain'd it, out of which it was inferted into M®rk, tp, :bave been fuch P. t<-As,to itssbeing interpolated , into .,the laft Chapter of Mark, I have here no Concern, that Matter belonging to the Queftion about the* Integrity of the Text. I foall only add,, that this Chapter of that Gofpel hasfuffer'd many Alterations; for in many Copi0 the laft twelve Verfies are entirely 'omitted :' Jerome faysi, they were to be found but. in, few, Copies, and almoft all the Greek pooks had them not. J mention this,, becaufe Dri Mill1 fuppofes the inter? poiated" Verfe, which I am now confidering, did appear- fo plainly fpurious, that fome ignorant Trarifcribers left out the rjeft of the Chapter upon the Account of that. -^ XXIV. A Queftion of the Apoities, and Reply .W:^ 5 if. \fupfibs'A ^formerly1' k v'haye ¦foretold Things relating' to hisr Coming ? He being angryi that they thouid think any fuch Thing at that Time , anfwered, Tou difregard hini who is alive, and among y bit-, and deal in idle Stories about thofie who 'are dead.- -But- it is no Wonder, feeing he took this TeftkiSny out of fome Apocryphal ejuV aliquid ceCinifle in prasteritum putabantur ? commotus talia etiam eos n\mc fentire refpondit, Dimififtis vivum qui an- terVos eft, ot de mortuis fffeufamini.' Quid mirum quandoquidem hoc Tef- timdnium de fcripturis nefcio quibus apocryphis protulit, fi de prophetis Dei talia confinxeriint hazrerici, qui eafdem li- terisnon accipiunt ? Books, that the Here* ticks,'.* who" do not re ceive the- fame (fibred) Bodksy fhould forge fucE Things of the Prophets} -Concerning: thi&Saying there need no more1 be •faiB), rbut that riro* it was Part of an Apocryphal (5©fj5el, yet it was taken thence by a wretched Heretick, and ,with this Peftgai to proyq his Do ctrine of the Neceffity of not regarding the "an-- tierit Jewifh Peophets. . T>r. Mill? conjectures it was taken oirt of the "Gofpel of Thomas, in whicfiA though he perhaps may be right, yet he isjnifta- fcensra fuppofing it to have heen ever- interpolated into either of our prefent Gofpels. ;oi -. XXV. A Saying in fome Goffief according to ' the Opinion ¦ of Jerome, in Ezech. xvii.' Tale- quid & illud-evan- g^irT-fonat, Eft confufio qtwe-ducit ad mortem, & pel, "There is a Sharkey 1 ' ' j which leadetb to Death, Something like*' that are the Words of the (Sof- ' Prolegom". in Nov. Teft. §".724^ ji?. Oo 5 eft 566 ArfcC^?$N,EW &a PartlLv eft confufio quae ¦dncithanda'.&hame iphkhfead- ad vitam. t-v ' w. \\eth. to. Life. '.-.[ , Concerning thefe Words Mr. Fabritius1: feems rightly to guefs, that Jerome fail'd in Point of Me-, mofy, citing that out ofthe Gofpel, wjiich is not there ; perhaps he meant thofe Words in the Book of Ecclefiafticus, civ. 21. jwhichare not much un like ; There is a Shame that bringeth Sin, and there, is a Shame which is Glory and. Grace. \ . ¦ , These are all the payings, and ,: Hiftories rof Christ, which have fallen .within my Obferva tion, and which were nfeceffaty. to be produc'd^: ia order to fhew they were not taken by any Ec clefiaftical Writers: out of Apocryphal Gofpels. Static befides thefe I have obferv'd, which I re gard; not, as. being no Wfiy prejudicial to the Ca non, becaufe either found in Books evidently fpurious arid of uncertain Age (fuch as thrift in the Confti tutions under the Apoftles Names, of which the' Reader may take the' following Inftance out -of B. TV. c. 3. It is faid by the Lord, : Woe to thofe' that have and receive in Hypocrifiy^ or who are able to fiupport themfil&esi,. yet will receive of others, for Mth of them fhallgive an Account to ibe Lord God. in the Day of .Judgment; ) Ot becaufe -they are only the various. Readings' of. different Cogies^ and Inter polation of Scribes ib their Manufcripts, .which were wrote long after the End of the fourth Century, and of ''which the Reader may fee many Inftance* in Dr. Mill's Notes on the Gofpels ; fee Matt. six. 28. xxiv. 31. "M?r.xvi.B."Z»£. vi. y. Joh. r iii. f. vi. if. But befides either of thefe, there are now to be found in the -Alcoran of Mahomet feveral Dif- courfes, Sayings and Hiftories, as of Christ and his Apoftles, which are not to be found in any of \ Cod. Apocr. Nov. Tefc Par. 3. p. j 14. ',.' "i\" * ! our PanK An Append r£ 567 our prefent and'/dBiingi/ rela- ^tingto him, which care'to be^sufld-iH the $Ah'otM'o\~ Ma«home;t./ •;fi! ;'V'Vf"- fjjV.-i?. In this Collection I haye;foilo,w'd the :' laft"1 Englifh Tranflation of the fAl'coran , ' done; out of trie : French, which; was tranf lated out of firabick by the Sieifr, de Ryerx "Lord of Matezair, and Refidejit for the French Kins at Alexandria. T" ; - ,f:, & ..:.;. »~-?.-v4 .u.- I.' Ctfap': . II.' Entitul'd, ;0/ ?£"- gave' the Lam to Mates, a»i after- him fent " many Prophets ; we infpir'd Kkowleyjg& {4M0 J efos " /fo tow 0/ Mary, and.cffyengtbedd^hiw'&y the " /fr/j)* ; (»&>/# j -to* jpw aro/f againft fhe Prophets " /to? f«nd» contrary j fayvaHAffeclions ; you belied " one Part, and flew ^amther." The famVin Part' we read in the fame Chapter, p. 8p. -1. -- ':.\l Slab, • ... .i^-r;.. ,.' ¦'.:>. IL" Chap J Ilf . Entitul'd, Of the Lineage of Joa- ¦ ' f*u chim, jp; p6, 97, &c. •-' -' *'-' . : '-^'3 '-ttAw..o ¦ '. »vc '. «*.: ".itnajk 3d ' ^ OD ejected ^«?# and Noah, the Lineage of V* Abraham, and the Lineage- of Joachim; the onef proeeederfi from, the other \ God knoweth andundcrftan&thraU Things. Remember thou, „ c v_» how flirt IL An A p p e » i> i x> 5 69 how the Wife of Joachim faid, ' « Lora\ ''I'mw fa-utototlert&i Fruit that is' tow f Womb frer Wid & exempt ifri&i mil iAff airs, to-fefve thee in thy Tern-- ^pkj'Atiep^Mmfrom me, who offer him to'- 'thee ft" with AffeBion. ; ' thou undirfldndeft and knoweft all \S»t& him,*" L declare' M to thee frtim^Ged, Mat thou fhaili have a Sen cal- « • ted Jdhri , ¦ -he: fhall 'aftim the Meffias to-be the %\Word oft'God, that he fhall ie a great Perfon, ^ thofie, aProphet^-and one of the Juft ': Lord, an- a fwer'd Zachary f -how fhallTh'dve a Son,' I am * eld, and mf.Wifie is barren ? " The Angel faid to hiasj " So God' doth as pleafeth' him. Lord, hid u Zachary, Give meifome Sign of the Conception^ of "my Wife ¦: "The Sign that I will give thee,^ an- « fwer'd the Angel,; fhall be, That thou fhalt not^ "vjp^ak in three Days, but by Signs : " Remem ber thou thy Lord 'riften, praife him Evening and Marningi Remember thou, how the Angel -faid, li^O Mary, God hafhchofien and purified thee dfc'de «,all the Women of ¦ the World ; O Mary, obey " th Lord, praife bim, and worfhip him with thofie t . ¦ " that $.yo Ani A p "^ e n D i xa Part IS I !£„,*&** w.orfihip 'hifa". J, relate to ;thee how the vMatter.paft} Thou wert not with the Minifters of the Temple, when they caft in their Bens, to draw Lots, *nfj,tp\fee which of them fhould have" fhe Care of the Eduction, of Mayy^ neither when they entred upon this Difficulty. Remember thotij jjow the Angels faid.} FO Mary, God declanth " unto thee a Word,, frpm^which fhall prueed the " Meffias, named J eius, the. Sum e/.M^ry, fuM of u Honour in this World, and that fhall be w$Jj)e o- *' ther. in the Number pf Inteneffors with his.sDi- v- vug Majefty. He fhall fpeak in the Cradle as a *f Map betwixt thirty and fifty Tears, .and fhall be f< fifrithe-Number of the Juft. " She faid, ^Lord, hem f* fhall-I have aQhildfrnthout the Touch of a Man?" He anfwered, K.So God doth as pkafefib him.; wheii u,he treateth any Thing, he faith, Be thou, and it (t. is.- I will teacbMw the Scriptures, the Myfteries u\of the Law* the, Old Teftament,. and the. Ghfpel, *,' qpd he fhall be a Prophet fent* to the Childremvfi tf Ifrael, " Jefos faid to the Children ot Ifrael, " / ** cometo. you with -evident Signs efmy Miff e» from *c yoU-r Lord ; I willw£*ke unto$ou,-ef the Slime of *l the Earth the. Figure of a Bird ; I will blow up- *,' ynit, pnfiently, it fhall be a Bird, and by the Per- " .miftion of God Jhalt fly ; I will heal them that are if born blind, and the feptous ; I willraife again the « Dead ; I will teach you what you fliall eat, and ¥ what you ought not to eat. This fhall ferve yon *f for Inflrut~lion,\if you belieyew.God. A -am come w to. confirm the Old Teftament, and .iohat hath been *c Haught yo% heretofore. Certaintyrit is lawful fof *f. you to eat Things, that have heretofore been for- % bidden. 1 amt&m^to mt with Signs of my Mifi- 66 fiion, _that tfftifie that 1 am truly* fent from your " Lord- Fear God, t and obey me ; GodJs my Lord, ** .and your Lord, worfhip him ; this is the right *' Way : " WhenJefus knew their Impiety^ he faid, *•{ Who JbaUfuftain th Law of God m my Akfeim? '* The Itert Jfct An , A jpp, e^'d i x^ 57 1 The Apoftles anfwer'd him j cf ^ will fufimfihe " Law of -God, ; we beliepe fn-his IJnityW BeAthM. u a Wjtnefs fbffore God,, thtfi we, refign,. fur/elves lf wholly to the. Plea fur e of hfs ftivineMa0fty-~Lor.d9 " we believe in what thou h^ft? commanded and we *' haye followed the Prophet, j thy Apoftle ; write us '! in the Number of them that profefis thy Lata. '? The Jews cpnfpir'd agajnft Jefus, and God caus'd their (Conspiracy to turn againft them $ he knowr /eth the Defigns of Confpirators. Remember thou, how the Lord faid, ^ O Jefus, I will baufe thee " to die ; I wilt I elevate thee, to my fielf,andr-stf£qve *? thee far from :Infidels% a$dj>refer thofe whft have " obey'd thee te Infidels at the Day of Judgment— — ., Jefas is with God. A little after, viz. p. 100. We believe in God in what . he hath infoir'd into us, in wfiat he infpir'd into fibraham, Ifimael, Ifia- ac, Jacob, and the Tribes' ; in what was ordain'd by .Mfifesy'by Jesus, and generally aft the Pro phets^ Such as fhajl be7impious towards Je fus having believ'd the Books of Mofief, and ihali augment; their Inqpiety againft Mahomet, fhall ne ver be converted, fhall err eternally. ;:r!t <~- / III. Chap. IV, Entitul'd, Of Women f p. 114. GOD imprinted Infidelity in their (the Jews) - Hearts ; they fhall never beheve'in his Law, except very few of them, becaufe of their Malice, and the Blafphemies they vomited againft Mary -, Tbey faid, '" We have flain the Meffiah, Jefus the " San of Mary, -the Prophet and Apoftle of. God. " Certainly they flew him not, neither crucified him } " they crucified one among them that refembled him Such as doubt it are in a manifeft Error, and fpeak not but through Opinion. Certainly they flew him not.' On the contrary God took him up to himfelf ; he is omnipotent and prudent in all his Actions. Such as ljav? the Knowledge of the #u»^w.»..«'_ t.; , . t - Scripture s7zl #ri AppWdia Fart! IT.' Scripture ought to believe in Je?aY- fcfefofre hii Death ':< He ftiall^eV Witnefs ag&nft ^rrfem^of their- Actions at the D&5* of Judgment. '-'Jti'tBifcx? Page — The Meffah\; >> IV.'-Chari. VV EntituYdf The Chafer of; the ' t.-„ .v-.-.,.-..* .,.- Table, p: ii9.. ^ f'A "¦':*"/ :: *' ' ^•Ertainlyi'- he that fiiJtb^ that X^'ffleffiah, the ^ So»ofcMarf^JsGod, is impious", 'fay-to him,r Who :can grinder God- to exterminaff'^h'e'Meffah and his- Mother,' ^itfi whatfbever-is in the Earth, when it fhall feem good to him ? '¦ir,;~ ~J *- |!' -' TC j <; . ... ki 1 <\V- The fame.CHapter, p.'i}i. ' " /; '" 11 Ifff^'fityi' after -mdnff-'Prophets, ' Jefus "tie Son^ Vr v 1$. lojfMary, who'cbfifirnt'd the antknf'Scrip* " turesr iTe'-him we gaiie. ?WGoffiet?JfkUr of Lifflt& '< to thndk-bJ-'tbe People : to' the rigWlfeife. wB&w^ " Confirmation of the OlfTiftamen^^GmMM^ *e Infer ublion for the righteous. "^'-They that follow the Gofpel 'ought to" iudge as it is commanded in the Gofpel; ,-:'- :^oMa-ryj to "'be Q&d, are impious. The Mefe fialj EltyHj An J1prb?idjx." $73 flah comman,deth.the Children of Ifrael $ iE^r##> God, Ms\aMd^b)ir,Lopd\nSM- Entrance^mQj?a» radife i^forbg^en tO|hin^,.ti[atv^haU ($*$$&& a Companimequal to,him,;f,sMsi\ fliall be^j^Habi* totipn,Aaiid the unjnft fhalV find none tc{ project thenj at.tjw Oay of Judgment. .^Juch^a%mj there t are Jfyarfydr, .'are impi^^ There-is Jjut one Go&.^-Jfsr.hey defjft -not, from fuch Difcourfe* they. fnall^^in- the Fire,,©f Hell : If theyturii and impjorej^dpn of God, he, will be^gra,G,ipus to them^ar^metciral. The Meff ah, jth^on, o£ Mary, i$ foRfigph&t. and-Amfile of God, iike to the Prophets mat came hafor^im » his Mother is ho ly, and .boriXof 'them did, .eat anddrink>- ^, .-The fofofels are^accuriejd ^y tli^Torjgue o^J^avid, and o^ttMefi^.h,'^^>*^Ivia^yi ihecaufe, oftfieir Dif- <$WaSP> £&•'• i»V.O - '?>'/ v ¦< 'i -^ 3 " f.; ^VIL:^P.he fame Chapter, p. 138, ijp/*"; iJ rt' fhall fay to Jefus ; " 0 Jefus, ^ Sw'ofM&yf 'ff .Remember thou my Grace towards tbee^&ni' ^'.\by. Mother .y / ftrengthen'd .thee with the f$oly* u^Ghoft : ThouAfiakefl in thy Cradle as a Man of <¦* forty or- fifty fpars. Thee did I inftrucT, .in Scrip-- " - tureand Knowledge, the Old Teftament and the- *'_ Gofipel. Thou didft form of Earth- the ^Figure of' " a Bird, didft breath -upon it, « and it \did-fily ; ' thou "ftidft cure the -born B^ind, 'and the Lepr,ops, and " didft revive the Dead, f J -deliver'd theeffrom the'- "Jews, when fliou didft -preach to them, my Cm- " mandments, and wroughteft Miracles, which the " wicked- affirm'd to -beMagifk -and fnfibantment. " Remember how' thou iidft fommand' thy Apoftles " to believe in me, ancf Obey ky Prophet, and how « theyjaidr, ^ib^yeve^n.-Onerfo'le God }7i*$w « W^St^thkt.we. entirety refign . ourfielves-'to^fhe " MwLtffaZ. Remember 'thou that the Apof- « tle«KJ*^Jefu% ^.^rMary, ian,thy Lord- *^CT*" " ' • ' * - " fend -iu: rSft A^AppEi$Di& felg « fend its from Heaven » Table covered with Medtt « to fatisfy us?" Jefus anfwer'd them, " ifojr i^ *to« e#fw'» -/to " People to worfhip thee and thy Mother as two « Gods? ''-Jefus (hall anfwer, li Praifedhe thy Name, « I will take heed , of fpeaking what is not; Thot£ " knoweft if Ihave faid it j ' Thovart ..omnificierit\ " Thou knoweft what is in my Soul, and I have no " Knowledge of what is in thee; I deliver'd nothing " but what thou didft command me to fpeak, viz. " Worfhip God your Lord, and mine. I am Wit- " nefis from the Time I was in the World, until thou " didft caufe me to die, thou didft obferve the De- " portments of the People ; Thou fieeft alt ; if thou " chaftifieft Men, they; are thy Creatures- ; if thou " doft pardon them, thou art omnipotent and wife. « Then fliall God fay, &c. VIII. Chap. VI. Entitul'd, Of Gratifications, fi; p. 145. " J17E gave Knowledge to Abraham, Ifaac, and W "Jacob his Son. We. before inftrutled Noah " and his Lineage in -the right Way. We taught it *' David, Solomon, Job, Jofephj JM-ofes, Aaron," 3 " Za- &ftil. AncApPiNDtx\ iff « Zachary, St. John, Jefus' the Son of Mary; Eli- w ah, Ifhmael, Joflma, Jonas and Lot. /^ gray €c /(/ferf themhe was\- tt ffiaif,, ^4bf(&4^Ml^^ PreJfr^ '^ frent t&e&t « fffmh^ef&^M^re thinp,Eye& yfHe,&&, *«, " faid, lam the Servant of God : He hath taught " me the Scriptures,- ji&bmafe me aftrephet,.btefi-* ry », "¦' "ficd Part, IL Ah Appendix. 5 77 ' fiedme in all Places^ and\commarided me to pray unto him,: He hatb recommended to me Purity ." through fhe whole Courfie of-.my Life, and toho- ." now my Father and Mother j hexh.atk not made " me either, violent, or malicious : Praifed.fkaU be t( the Day of my Birth, the Day thai I fhall die, " and the Day of my RefiurreSlion. " Thus fpake Jefus, the Son of Mary, with Truthj of which ye doubt} God , approveth not the Difcourfe of them who fay, He hath a Son. Praifed be God. XL Chap. XXIII. ' Entitul'd, Of true Believers^ p.271. " \Xf^" created Jefus and Mary his Mother; They " " are Signs of our Unity ; We eftablifh' d them " in an eminent Place, where they flayed near a " Fountain^ , XII. Chap.XXXlII. Entitul'd^ Of Bands of Soldiers, p. 314. REmember thou, we receiv'd the Premife ofthe Prophets, of Theej of Noah, of Abraham, of Mofies, and of Jefius, the Son of Mary, to wor fhip but one God : We receiv'd a ftrong Premife. See to the fame Purpofej Chap. 41. p. 3f<5. XIII. Chap. XLIII. Entitul'd, OfCounfel, p. 362. TH E People would not hearken to the Son of Mary, when he fpake to them by Parable : They faid, Our Gods are more profitable to us than his. Lies and Queftions : On tbe contrary, they were refractory } " He is our Servant ; we confer' d on " him our Grace, and made him like to the other li Prophets of the Children of Ifrael. Had it plea- " fed me, I had created Angels on Earth in your " Place ; ihe Coming of Jefus, the Son of Marys -¦'* p p f- fliall 57$ An Appendix.' PartIL " fhall be a Sign of the Certainty of the Day of " Judgment; doubt not concerning that Day : He " faid unto me. Follow me, it is the right Way ; be- " ware, left the Devil feduce you j he is your open *' Enemy ; I come to teach you the Commandments " of God, to refiolve the Doubts, and judge the Dif- " ferences that are among you : Fear God, and obey " him ; he is your Lord, and mine ; worfiip him, " it is the right Way. The People doubted' his Doc- " trine, but Mifery fhall be upon the Wicked. " A little after, p. 36*3. If God have a Son, whom fliall we firft adore ? Praifed be God, King of Heaven and Earth, the Matter is not as the Infi dels deliver it. XIV. Chap. LVII. Entitul'd, Of Iron, p. joy. " IV^" fent Noah and Abraham, &e. We fent ** " Jefus, the Son of Mary : We taught him the " Gofipel : We put GiviMy, Clemency, and Chaftky " into the Hearts, of them that follow'd him : We " did not command them to keep Virginity; they kept " it of their own Accord, becaufie of the Defire they " had to pleafie God: They have not obferv'd their " Law, as they ought ; many have been difibbedient, *' but we have rewarded thofie among them who be- " lieved. " O ye that believe in Jeftis, fear God, and believe in his Prophet : Ye fhall have double the Reward of God's Mercy j he fhall pardon your Sins, &c. XV. Chap. LXI. Entitul'd, Of Array, p. 403. "n Emember thou, that Jefus, the Son of Mary, -**- faid to the Children of Ifrael, I am the Mefi- fienger of God ; he hath fent me to confirm the Old Teftament, and to declare to you, that there fhall come a Prophet after me, whofe Name fhall be Mahomet. When he came with Miracles, Reafons moft in telligible, Pastil. An Appendix." 579 telligible, and Arguments infallible, they faid that he was a Magician : Who is more impipus, than he that blafphemeth againft God ? ' A Utile after in the fame Chapter. "-.'..- fjf E S US, the Son of Mary, faid to his Apoftles, */ Who will maintain the Law of God with me ? He fhall be fupported and protested of God. The Apoftles anfwer'd, We will maintain it. One Part of the ChUdren t-of Ifrael believed in Jefus, and another rejected his Law: pVe gave Succour to them that believed againft their Enemies, and they were victorious. Thefe are the Paffages which are in the Alcoran concerning Christ, his Dotlrines, Difcourfe s, Actions, &c. Concerning them I intend nor to make any particular Criticifin, or Remarks, but only to attempt the Proof of this one Propofi tion, that Mahomet took many or moft of -thefie Paf fages out of fome fpurious and Apocryphal Gofyels of ike Gneflaeksj and other antient Hereticks. ¦ This is a Fact, as far as I know, yet unknown, yet unprov'd in che World, although it evidently appears to be of confiderable Confequence. It is indeed a common Obfervation, that in the com piling of the Alcoran the Impoftor made Ufe. of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Tefta ment, and took many Parts of his Book out of both, which is indeed true ; but he who will With any Carefulnefs compare what he feems to have borrow'd from the Scriptures with the Ac counts refer'd to in the Scriptures themfelves, will be not a little furpris'd to fee the Difference } and be the more eafily induc'd to believe, that he moft commonly made Ufe of fiome Apocryphal and fipurious Writings. For the Evidencing of this I propofe the following Remarks. P p * F"fa 3 85 Art Appendix^ Part If.' Firft, Mahomet has not in any one Place of the 'Alcoran tited either pf 'our prefent Gofpels, or any Book of the New Teftament by Name. This I' af fert upon a ftrict Perufal of the whole Book, al though I have obferv'd five or fix Paflages there in, which feem very plainly to be taken thence : So for Inftance, fpeaking of Charity, he adds, It will cover many . Sins ; (Chap. II. Of the Cow,p~.oi.) which are the very Words of St. Peter in his firft Epiftle, c. iv. f. 8. Charity fhall tover a Multitude of Sins. Chap. VII. Of Prifions, p. ifj. he makes ufe of our Saviour's Metaphor, which is in three of our Gofpels *,- Of a Camel's paffing thro' the Eye of a Needle : And in the fame Page manifeftly bor- row'd his Defcription of the Future State of Men from our Saviour s Parable concerning Dives and La zarus, Luk. y.vi. Particularly, When ' he fpeaks of the Aaraf, or ' Separation between " the Bleffed and Damned, he alludes to thofe Words of Abraham to Dives, jr. z6. Between us and you there is a great Gulf fixed: When he'makes the Damned to cry to the Bleffed, Give us of the Water which you drink, he alludes to that, f. 24. where the Rich Man is reprefented, as crying to Abraham to fiend Laza rus, that he might dip the Tip of his Finger in Wa ter, and cool his Tongue. Again, to omit other In ftances, Chap. XIV. Of Abraham, p. 2ip. he borrows that Phrafe of Jude, jr. 4. of turning tbe Grace of God into Laficivioufinefe. Secondly, It was utterly inconfiftent with the whole Intention of Mahomeff Impofture, that he fhould in any one Place cite by Name any one of our Gof pels, vr indeed any of the Books of the New Tefta* merit. This is plain to any one who is acquainted but in the leaft Degree with the Alcoran. For whereas in all the genuine Writings of the New Teftament, Jefus Chrift is reprefented as Qpd, and I Matth. xix. 24. Mark x. ay. Luk. xviii. if. as PartIL An Appendix^ 581 as ther Son 0f God, Mahomet continually ,obliges his Followers to believe the contrary : He many tunes denies him to he either Gpd, or the Son of God, and fome times pronounces everlafting Dam nation and; Mifery againft thofe who believ'd o- therwife, Befides .the Paffages above, Num .IV. VI. IX. XI. and XIV. I have obferv'd near twenty Places in thi Alcoran, where Mahomet ex- preffes and infinuates the fame. ; which, for the Sake of the curious Reader, L have fet down at the Bottom ofthe Pageb. Now the Reafon. why the, Impoftor thus frequently and ftrenuoufly de- plares againft the Scripture -Account of Chrift's Divinity, appears evidently to be this ; becaufe he, haying it in hjs Intention to appear a Perfon mor- great and eminent than Jefus Chrift, faw this im poffible to be effected, if the. Accounts in the ge nuine Records of Chriftianity, and the receiv'd Writings of the Apoftles, were credited and look'd upon as true. -.a As therefore he did not appeal to thefe Books, fofwe perceive plainly that it was in confiftent with his Defigns to do it. Thirdly, Mahomet was very likely to be furnifti'd with the fpurious Books, and Apocryphal Writings of the New Teftament. It is indeed certain, that him felf co;uld neither wrke nor read, as he exprefly fays of himfelf twice in the fame Chapter of the Alcoran, (Chap. 7. p.,io"f.) where God is firft introduced, commanding Perfons to bejie,ve in his Prophet, who, could neither write nor read.,; and a little after, he exhorts them in thefe Words, Be lieve fin God, and in his Prophet, who can neither read nor write : But though he was thus a perfect ly rude and illiterate Barbarian, he was artful e- nough to procure proper Affiftances for his Wprk. "Chap.4. pag. uf, "i. Ch. 18. p.ijp, *4»- ch-*7- Ch.6. p.- 148,. 'f*- Ch. 10. p. 289. Ch.ji.p.Jio. Ch. p. 19?. 19S- Ch.J4-P-2'9- S7-V-W- Ch.,.*?. p. Jf*. Ch. ,d.p.ai8. Ch. i7-P^3i-. . -, * - - p p 5 1 lus 5 82 An A P P En dix. Part IL This is fo notorious, that it feems by his own Words to have been what he was commonly re- proach'd with, viz. that he did not make the Alco ran himfelf, but others helfdhim. So in the Chap ter entitul'd, Of the Alcoran, ( Chap. if. ) In the Beginning we read, They fay that "the Alcoran is but" a Fable of thine own Invention, with the Afi- fiftance of fome other Perfion, but they lie and blafi* pheme : But notwithftanding this Character of bis Oppofers, the Fact is certain. The Commenta-* tors on this Place of the Alcoran fay, the Perfons here meant, who were Affiftants to Mahomet, were the Servants of a certain Sword-Smith at Meccaj who were Chriftians, ' with whom Mahomet was ufed often to Converfe, for the better informing himfelf from them in the Old and New Tefta ment c. Befides thefe, we find he had the Affift- ance not only of a Per/ian Jew, nam'd Abdia Ben Salon, afterwards call'd Abdolldh Ebn Salem, who furnifh'd him with; his Stories out of the Old Tef tament and Talmud, but alfo of a Chriftian Monk, commonly known among Chriftians by the Name Sergius, but among the Eafterns by the Name Ba- hira ; from whom he receiv'd his Accounts of Chriftianity d, as well as from Joannes Antiochenuse, and others. As to Sergius, we are affur'd f he was a Nefiorian Monk of Syria, who, being banifhed from his Monaftery, fled to Mecca, and there en- tred into Confederacy with Mahomet. Hence it cannot be thought ftrange, that he fhould be fur nifh'd With the Stories of Chrift, by thefe Chrifti an Accomplices, which he made nfe of ; and if we confider the Character of Sergius, who was, c See Dean Prideaux>s Life of p. 177. and Prideaux Life of Mahomet, p. Jf, 36. Mahomet, p. 37, &c. * See Vincent. Bellovacen. c Spanhekn. Hift. Chriftian. Specul. Hiftor. L.aj. cap. 41. Secul. feptirni. p. 1109. , "> «— . 66. apud Forbes. Inftit. J Prideaux.. Lac. cit, Hiftor. Theolog. Lib. 4. c. 3. his PartIL An Appendix; 583 his principal, Affiftant, it will appear evident that he gave him his Relations concerning Chrift only put of fuch as were Apocryphal Books. Sergius was a Neftorian : The diftinguifhing Tenet of that Sect was, that Chrift was not God ; and this was the impious Affertion of many of thofe Hereticks, who forg'd the Apocryphal Writings which I have examirVd in the preceding Work. This was the Doctrine of Cerinthus %, of the Nag.arenes\ Ebionites ', ffheodotus Byzantius and his Followers k^ the Alogians1, and many others of thofe Hereticks, who made ufe c-f fuch Books to foppprt. their He refy, as the Gofpel of Cerinthus, or Nazarenes, the fiPreaching and. Revelation of Peter, &g. The Nefi- torians therefore being Heretiqks of the fame Sort, very probably -made ufe of the fame Books ; and "confequently Mahomet, being affifted by Sergius, was very likely to be furnifh'd with the old fpuri ous and Apocryphal Books. Fourthly, Altho' the Impoftpr mentions no Books from whence he borrows his Accounts of Chrift, yet in one Place he cites a, Hiftory of the Virgin Ma ry, and of Chrift, as being written, i. e. as out of fome Book. The Place I mean is that Ch. XIX. Of the Alcoran, above in my Collection, Num.X. He introduces the Hiftory of Mary thus, Remember thou what is written of Mary, &c. This he did, I fuppofe, thro' Forgetfulnefs, becaufe I have not obferv'd another fuch Place in the Alcoran. Fifthly, Several of the Paffages in the preceding Collection out of the Alcoran may be certainly .prov'd to have been in Apocryphal Books : For Inftance, . . ,- 1. The Story of the Wife of Joachim, Num. II. above, viz. her devoting .Mary to the Service of t Tertull.de Prafcript. c. 48. 5 Id. Hseref. 3 a. &Ep!;haUn.H*ref.a8.P ' Tenull. dePr*f cr.pt. cult. " Jd. H*ref. *g. ' Ep.phan, Hseref. ji. P p 4 ^ 5*4 An Appendix. PartIL the Temple, feems plainly to be' taken either out of the Prot-evangelibn" of James, Chap. IV.1 .or the Gofpel Of the Birth of Mary, Chap.' IF. (Vhich are two Apocryphal Books now extant, and will t>e produc'd in the third Part of this Work ) in both which this fame Account is related: : ,! - 2. The Account of Chrift's fpeaking iri his Cra dle, Num. III. is related' in the Gofpel tranflated out of Arabick by Mr. Sike, under the'-Tifle^qf The Gofpel of the Infancy of Chrift, Ghap. I. which fhall alfo he in the next Part. ¦'¦••• • '-*-' 3. The Story of Chrift's makinga Bird out of the Slime of the Earth, 'when a Child, related Num. II. and Num. VII. is alfo in the fame Gofpel of Chrift's Infancy, Chap. XXXVI. andvthe Gofpel of the Infancy in Greek, under the Name of Thomas, publifh'd by Cotelerius, Chap. II. 4. The ridiculous Fiction, Num; III. concern ing Chrift's not being crucified, but another crucified inftead of him, appears manifeftly to be taken out of fome old Apocryphal Book. However furpri- fing the Account may feem, it is Fact, that Ba- filidei, and feveral* others of the antient Hereticks, not long after Chrift, pofitively affirm'd that Chrift was not crucified, but Simon the Cyrenean in his Room ; who, when he carried the Crots of Chrift, was fo transformed into the Likenefs- of Chrift', that he was taken for him, and crucified in his Stead } and at the fame Time Jefus took the Form and Appearance of Simon, and ftood by ra,tig"hing at their Miftake. This we find in Irenaus™, Ter tuUian n , and Epiphanius ° ; and I ;have above prov'd p, that there were a Se& of Chriftians cal led Docette, in the very Beginning of the fecond Century, for this Reafon, that they thought Chi'ift did not' really fiujfer, but only in Appearance, This i- ¦ Adv. Hseref. L. i. c. 13. " Hxref 24. N. ?. ¦ De Prefer. adv.Hacr. c. 46, » Par. 11. Ch. XXL Opinior| Part II. Ah 'Appendix: '585 Opinion of Chrift I have fhewn in the Place-cited, Was very probably in the Gofpel uof Bafilides, and tjie Gofpel of Peter", if they were not -the fame pook ; and the incomparable Photius- tells; us* he read it in fio many Words in the fpurious Atls of the ¦dpoftfes, forg'd by Leucius' Charinus-*!. From all Which I argue, that Mahomet^ or his Affiftants for Mm, dealt in Apocryphal Bdoks, and took - this Paflage thence, becaufe there were not that I know of at that Time in the World any Set of Perfons who entertain'd that impious Opinion, that Chrift did not ftuffer, from whom they could have it. I cannot forbear remarking here, that tho' Mahomet, according to his Apocryphal Books, does in this Place deny the Death and Crucifixion of Chrift, affirming another was crucified in his Room, and he -immediately -tranflated by God to Heaven $ yet in another Place, viz. that above produc'd, Num. •II. he introduces God himfelf^ faying to Jefus, " / '" will caufe thee to die, I-will raifie thee to my felf, lt &c. " than which nothing can be a more pal- •pable and grofs Contradiction. But the Alcoran is exceeding full of fuch, and fo are thofe Apocry phal Books, out of which it was compil'd. Thus I have endeavour'd to fhew, whence Ma homet took his Accounts pf Chrift. If any fhould yet enquire,' why he did not cite and name the A- pocryphal Books from which he borrow'd ? I an fwer 5 1 . That he was ever willing to gratify and be com placent to the Chriftians : This is a common Ob fervation ; and as Dean Prideaux well obfervesr, // was his Ufiage thro' the whole Scene of his Im pofture to flatter the Chriftians on allOccafions. Now to have cited thofe Accounts out of Books, as of Authority among the Chriftians, which really were ' 3 See the Place produc'd at ' Life of Mafomt> V-fj>& large, in the Place laft cited. '} 1 1 . ¦ - not 5Stf AflrApPENDix> Part II; pot fo, but, inftead of that rejected by them, would nave expos'd him to their fevereft Refentment, and fo obftructed the Reception of his Scheme. 2. The Truth is > Mahomet durfl not pith Safe ty to his Defign cite^ any Qpok. His Dpfog this had been a Proof, that hre was either able to, read him felf, or had fome Affiftants with him in the Com piling of his Work ) bqth pf which he denied, as his Followers do ftiU ; who, when they are pref- fod, how without Miracles they can -prove his Mif- fion, give this Anfwer, That inftead of all Miracles is the Alcoran : For that Mahomet, who, was an il literate Perfon, that could neither write nor read, or that any Man .elfe, by human Wifdon? alone, fhould be able to compote a Bopk fo excellent in Eloquence and Doctrine, as they will have that to be, is what they will not admit poffible {. Coroll, I. From the foregoing Difcourfe it is eafy to fee the Reafon and Foundation ofthe Ma hometans charging the Chriftians with having alter'd and corrupted the Gpfpejt of Jefus Chrift. This is a Charge frequently laid againft us in the Alco ran, (fee Chap. III. p. ioo. Chap.V. p. 129.) and has been commonly obferv'd by thofe who have wrote of the Mahometans V(s See Grotius1, Forbes", Pride,aufnw, Toland\^ndMangeyt. Sir John Ghar- din z gives us a more particular Account j the Sub- ftance of which is, " That tho' God hath font ". into the World 1 24000 Prophets, there were f only five of them, who had the Laws of pub- " lick Worfhip given them, viz. Abraham, Mo~ " fe s, David, Jefus Chrift, and Mahomet : That f T/tfaux's Life of Mahomet, " Life of Mahomet, p. 1 f, \ §. p. 31. * Nazarenw, Ch.4. ' De Verit. Relig. Chrift. L.6. y Remarks on Nazaren. c. 6. §. 3. p. 378, 379, "Travels to Peffut, and the * Inftiiut. Hiftor. Theolog. Eaft-InAes, Vid. Fabric. C«d. Lib, 4. c. 4. p. 178, &c. Apocr. P, 3. p. $67. « thefe PartIL An Appendix. 587 il thefe Books were fent to thefe five PrdpbeH^by Ci the Angel Gabriel j and each when it came fu- " perfeded theTye ofthe other ; that thefe Books " were either fent by little and little as the Alco- " ran* ; or by diftinct. Books, as the five of Mo- " fees ; or altogether, as the Gofpel. That when ** God todk any of thefe Prophets to himfelf, he *' took the Sacred Book alfo, and only left a Co- " py, except, the Alcoran $ which being the laft ''Book that was to be given, was preferv'd- " Hence they imagine no truly divine Book on " Earth, but the Alcoran. They neverthelefs ve- '-' ry much refpect our Old and New Teftament, '-' kifs them, arid lay them upon their Heads. They *.' acknowledge them to contain many Truths, but **¦ they allow them not fo%much Authority, be- " caufe they fay, they are not the fame whieh the il Prophets Motes and Jefos deHver'd, but feme cor- " rupted ¦ Abridgments. Hence the Mahometan ** Doctors hold the reading of them vain and iin- tt profitable; ; and fome of them judge it crimi- " nai." 'And a little after ; " As to the Gofpel, rc fert, that it is alter'd and corrupted by' the Cbrifli- f ans, as well as the Old Teftament by the « Jews, " .' _ i Thus univerfal is the Charge ofthe Mahometans:^ againft the Chriftians Gofpels, that they are al ter'd and corrupted. 'Tis avow'd and efpous'd by that intolerable Sophift and Juggler in Writing, Mr. Toland; which, tho' it may be eafily anfwer'd by other Arguments,: feems no Way capable of fo full an Anfwer, as by the preceding Account. For u9 as. I have largely prov'd, Mahomet took his J r\j>u& Fabric, Loc, pit,, p. 570, ©v. Account PartIL An Appendix^ sitj Account of Chrift out of ^Apocryphal and fpurious Books j and neither thefe Accounts, nor any Thing like them,' are to be founjd in our prefent Gofpels^ his Followers were undet a Sort of Neceffity of railing into this < Miftake concerning the Chriftian Books : For when, upon a Search made into them, they found none of thofe Things which are faid Concerning Chrift, or afcrib'd tP' Chrift in the Ah cor an, they muft neceffarily believe, either (i.) That they were Forgeries of Mahomet} or (2 J That he took them out of fiome fpurious and fabulous Books-} or (5.) That he took them out of Jhe genuine Gofi- pels, which are fince that .Time alter'd : But as no one can fuppofe they would conclude either of the former, they muft inevitably conclude the laft 5 and fo we at once fee, hpw-it came to pafs they charg'd our Scriptures w|th Corruption, and how groundlefs that Charge is., ,% j n»-- Co roll. II. Hence it appears, that Mr. To- land's Notion in his Nazaqenus, ,that the Gofpel of JSamabas, which is in Prince Eugene's Poffeffion (of which above, Part II. Ch. VIII.) is that re fer'd to in the Alcoran, and by the Mahometans, is perfectly whimfical and ridiculoas, ; for befides that that Gofpel appears- plainly a late Mahometan For gery, it is evident Mahomet took his Accounts from other Eooks. After my preceding Collection out of the Alco ran of the Sayings and Hiftories of Ch r i-s t, and Obfervations thereupon,- it may not be .unfuitable to add the four Sayings br Difeourfies afcrib'd to Ch r is t by the Mahometan Doctors, which are collefted by Levinus Warner.', and refer'd to by Mr. Toland in .fc'is Nazarenus d, and afterwards tran- fcrib'd by Fabricius c. They are thefe : ¦ '""Wot ald Centur. Proyerb, i " Ch. 7. Perficor, Proverb. 6f. '• ¦ « f Cod.Apoc, N.T.P.3JM94- 5*0 An *A?fei^d£x. Part I| Dixit Jefus , filio* Ma rise,,? fuper quo pax fit, Qjttiropibus iahia% .fir maMsteft ei*qui aquajn ma- . xris potat ; .is,, qua plus bibit? fitim jpkts) provois cat, i nee bibere defiftaifc donee perear,, ,;r , Jefos, :the Son <£fWfaryt npon whom be Peace, {aid, He, ,$oha thirfts af ter Ricbffox is like to him who dritffy,, Sea- Water. Much, a , Perfion, the more he drinks the more h$ «»¦» cwafethi his Thirft, nor JmM he give over. drinking 'till he die. . IL Dixit Jefus, filius Ma riae, Joanni, filio Zacha- riae, Cum quifpiam ali* quid de te commemo- rans vera loquitur, Deum lauda ; fi mendacia pro- felt,' Deum magis lauda ; aiugefcu* enim opus toum in catalog© operum tu- orum, idque .fine omni tuo labore, h@c eft, il- lius bona opera in cata- logum tuium referuntur. Jefus, the Son of Ma ry, faid to John, the < Son at Zacharias, When any -me relates, that whieh , is true cme&rimgthee, praife God'% if be fays that which is falfe concerning thee^ praife God the more, for- fit an Addition is made to. "thy Works in- the Ca talogue of them, and that without any Pains ef thine, that is, his good Works fliall he plac'd in the Catalogue of thine^ III. JCefu beatse memorise a- liquando mundus vifus eft mftar anus decrepi- taej cui ille, Quot, m« Juft, maritos habuifti ? pfa adeo multos fe ha- On a certain Time the Worfd did appear to Je fus of bleffed Memory in the Form of a decrepit Old Woman, to whom he laid, How many Huf band s have you had? She anfwer'd, She had for buiffe #*art if. baifle refpopdet:, ut nu- inerarinon.p*j|aVe tfagrent, & de aliis e^emplum n'en capiant. fttl APPEND**. many "that ; th^r^oiild not be number'd. 3l jfet^is rt^edfSo ,tlffi\vffriy du dead,' ' and hdve left you' ?¦ Yes, replied fli^I have %\U them, aWd% ken them off. -^Mn m']ethi,-iti?:mm Others Mid! tiWfflk taated3 thai when, Bey perftetve how you ^ hf4$e deali with other ff they {Jbmd 'fa fio, fond1 of you, and not take Warning by dfhers. IV. Tempore Jefu, , tres ali- quando iter fac ientes, qui thefautum invenientes , F/urimus, inquiunt, id- eoque unus ex nobis abi- bit, & cibum coemet. Unus ille, qui ibat alla- tum cibum, Confultum, inquit, erit, ut cibum venenoinficiam, quovef- centes illi moriaiitur, e- goque folus thefauro po- tiar. Quod fecit, cibo venenum admifcuit, fed fit duo illi viri inter fe convenerant, ut cum ci bum apportaret, eum in- terficerent, quo foli the fauro fruerentur. Cum i- gitur cibum venenomix- a Time in the Days of .Jefus, there were three Perfons travelling, ?and havirtg foundaTrea- fure, thfey faid, We are hungry, let one of us go and buy Food. He who went to fetch the Food, faid, / will Contrive to mixPoifihnwiththe Food, Mat when they eat there of, they may die, and I alone pofifefs all the Trea- fure. Accordingly he did, and mix'd Poifon with the Food. In the mean time the two Men a- greed, that when he brought back the Meat, they would kill him ; fo when he brought back the Meat mix'd with turn i9£ Arj App turn afferret, eum occi- derunt ; & ipfi cibum ilium venenatum come- dentes, ftatim font mor- tui. Cum ecce Jefus tranfiens cum apoftolis fuis. dicebat, H$c,ett conditio- mundi I Ecce quomodo terrios hofce tractaverit, & ipfe tamen poft hos in ftatufiio per- feveret. Vae illi, qui pe- . tit mundum ex mundo. | (endix; Part It Poifon, they flew hini } and they, when, they eaj: the poifon'd Meat, prer fently died. At which Time Jefus ;paffing "$y with his^ Apoftles fafd Such is the. Condition of the World ! See how it has dealt with thefie three Perfons, and it contiriuff ftill the fame. Woe untq him who fieeks the ¦ World by the World (or by worldly Means.) P I N I £ INDEX TO THE FIRST VOLUME. \Bdias, His ridiculous Hiftory of the Lives ofthe Apoftles, 393. Ace, Aco, Acco, Acu, were the Syriack and antient Names of Ptolemais, 127. Adulterous Woman, Hiftory of, John viii. wanting in many antient Greek MSS. and efpeci ally in the prefent Syriack Ver fion, 136. Alcoran, A colleclion of the Hiftories and Sayings of Chrift, and Things relating to him, to be found in it, $68 to 5-79. Vide Mahomet. Alogians, their Error con cerning St. John's Gofpel, 9. Ambrofe places the Gofpel of Matthew among fpurious and rejected Books, 315-. cen fures the Gofpel of Thomas, 5-03. n. Apocryphal Bookscited by him, 40. why he read them, ij-6. n. Amira, His Obfervation on the Chaldee and Syriack Lan guages, 1 16, n. Anabaticon, and Revelation of Paul the fame Book, 1/2. Vide Paul. Andrew, his A£ts- and Gof pels not extant, 14^-. his Acts cenfur'd as Apocryphal by -Eu febius, 179. n. by PhilaJIrius, 180. n. by Epiphanius, 181. n. byPapeGelafius, 182. n. Other Books under his Name declar'd fpurious by Auflm and Innocent I. i8f, 1 86. n. his Gofpel Apo cryphal by Gelafius, 187. n. Q_ cj Anonymous, The INDEX. Ancr.ymous Author of the Works under the Name of DioKyp'us, his Catalogue of Ca nonical Books, 76. Anonymous Author, his Frag ment of the preaching of Peter, 441, 442. Apelles, An Apocryphal Gof- pel under his Name not extant, 1 45-, n. nor mentioned by any Writer till Jerome, 191. n. His Ageand Principles, 192, 193. n. ' Apocryphal Books extant in the Apoftles times, 28, 29. A Catalogue of thofe mentioned in the fecond Century, 36. which are not extant, ibid, of thofewhich are extant, 44, 45-. Reafons why fo many were extant fo early in the Chriftian Church, 45, 49. what Books are fo, 7 8 to 1 oj. Some men tioned tho' not extant, 145- to 191. made out of the prefent Canonical, 1/4. never appeal'd to by Chriftian Writers, as of Authority, ij-y, ij-6. cited by the Fathers to (hew their Lear ning, 1 j-6". or becaufe the Per fons againft whom they wrote, did receive them, &c. 15-7. Apollonius , his Account of Themifm and his Epiftle, 494, 49J-. Apoftles 12, Apocryphal Gof pel according to them not ex tant, 145-. feems to have been a different Name of Matthew's Hebrew Gofpel, 15-2. n. An Ac count of it by Origen, Ambrofe, and Jerome, 193, 194. 11. Their Acls under the Names of Leu cius, Lenticius, Leontius, and Leu- thon, one and the fame Book, 29? to 297. the fame with the Apocryphal Acts under the Names of John, Andrew and Thomas, 8cc. 297. ApotaSicks, A fort of Here ticks lo call'd, 27. Theyefteem- ed the Apocryphal Acls of An drew above other' Scriptures, and why, 183, 184. Arabick, a Diakcl of the Old Hebrew, 113. Athanajms,kfoay\>hi\ Books mentioned by him, 40. his Ca talogue of Canonical Books, 74. of Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament, 209. n. condemns Peter's Acls for Apo cryphal, 406. n 5-00. n. docs the like by thole of Thomas, joo, As alio his Gofpel, 5-04. n. Athenagoras afcribes a par ticular Saying to our Saviour, ff1- Auflin, Apocryphal Books mentioned by him, 42,43. His Catalogue of Canonical Books, 76. his Opinion of Chrift's Epiftle to Peter and Paul, 229, 230, 231. Difputation with Pauftus the Manichee, 237. n. He proves the fpurious Acls of the Apoftles to have been writ ten by Leucius, 298. His Ac count of the Revelation of Paul, 396. n. 399. B. Balufius, his Conjecture con cerning the Decree of Gelafius, 189. Bamabasi his Gofpel not ex tant, 146. An Account of it by Gelafius, 196. Two fuppos'd Fragments of it, 197, 198, 199. Another large ItaUan one, where in Mahomet is nam'd for the Paraclete, 201,202,203. there fore reafonably concluded a Ma hometan Forgery, 204. The Author's and Dr. Mangey 's Con jectures The INDEX. Jefiures concerning the Origi nal of it, 207, 208. Baronius, his high Opinion of the Nazarene Goipel, 35-2. n. Bartholomew, his Writings and Goipel not extant, 146. feems to have been a different Name of the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, 15-2. The Book under his Name prov'd fpuri ous, 210. and by Jerome and Gelafius accounted Apocryphal, 2 1 1 . n. is the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew interpolated, 212, 213, 214. n. Baruch. Book of, its Er ror concerning the Captivity. 12. Bafilides, his Error concer ning the Crucifixion of Chrift, 14. n. his Gofpel not extant, 15-2, 218. only juft cited a- mong the Apocryphal Books by Origen, Ambrofe, and Jerome. 2 iy. n. His Age and Tenets, 216, 2171 n. his Commenta ries, &c. 217, 218. Baxter, Mr. a Citation from him .concerning Peoples remif- nefs in enquiring into the ge nuinenefs of the Scriptures, 17. Beda, his Sentiments of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gofpel, 3f2- n- Beza, his Opinion that St. Paul wrote feveral other Epif tles befides thofe we now have, l6f, 167. n. Of a Saying of Chrift mentioned by St. Paul, A3sxx. 35-. p. fi8- n. Burnet Bifhop, a Citation out of him concerning the Necef fity of Tradition to eftablifh the Canon of the New Tefta ment, 70. n. C. Caianites, a Seel of the Gnof ticks, &c. 290. forg'd a Piece under the Name of Judas, ibid. their Tenets, 291. n. Cajetan queftion'd the Au thority of the Revelation, 10. Caius, Presbyter of Ronie, Apocryphal Books mention'd by him, 38. Calvin, Mr. queftion'd the Authority of the Revelation 10. fuppos'd St. Paul to have writ ten more Epiftles than we now have, i6f, 167. n. Canon of the New Tefta ment more difficult to fettle, than that of the Old, 3, 4. The original of the Word, and when firft applied to Scripture, 24, 25-, 26. Primitive Chriftians did well agree about Books Canonical, 49. and did gene rally receive the fame for fuch, as we do now, j-o. Tradition of the Antients, the principal Method of determining it, 64, 6f. A demonstrative Indica tion of a true Canon, 78. Ca nonical Books which, ibid, none of them loft, 15-9, 160, 161. A noted Objection to this an- fwered, 162, 163. The bare Citation of a Book in facred Writings does noe prove it Canonical, 164. Canterbury prefentArchbifhop of, a Citation out of him con cerning the Apoftolical Fatber«, 6, 7. a miftake of him in put- ing the word ioul for the Greek o-.j-i8. n. Chrift our Saviour, his Epi ftle to Peter and Paul, fome other Bc.oks under his name, an Epiftle of his produc'd by the Manicheans, and a Hymn, which they pretend he taught his Difeiples, not extant, 146, 229. not mentioned t\\\Auftin's time, except an Epiftle to Ab- pinion that the Judgment of garus, &c. 229. that to Peter Peter was the fame Book with and Paul prov'd out of Auftin the Shepherd of Hermas re jected, 421, 422. his favou rable Sentiment of the preach ing of Peter, 447. n. Celfus, his objection to our Saviour, as a Magician, 23^". banters the Chriftians under the name of Sibyilifts, 45-7. n. Cerinthus, his Gofpel and Revelation not extant, 146. feems to have been a different to be a ridiculous Forgery, 229,230, 231. Another Book mention'd under his Name, 2 3 3, 234, 23$-. He is falfly charg'd by the Jews and Celfus, as* a Magician. 233-. An idle trite Story of the former to the fame Purpofe, 235-, 236. A fpurious Epiftle of his among the Manichees, 237. n, a Hymn forg'd by the Prifcillianifts under name for the Hebrew Gofpel of his Name prov'd fpurious, 240, Matthew, 15-2. mentioned only 241, 242. n. A Saying of his by Epiphanius, 219. n. his Age, Tenets, &c. 2io,22i.AStory of St. John the Apoftle and him at Ephefius, 220. n. he is re fer'd to in Atls xv. ibid, his Gofpel the fame with the Na zarenes, 22f. his Revelation mentioned only by Caius or Gains the Presbyter, 224,22j-.n. mention'd by St. Paul, 5-17. Others afcrib'd to him in the Epiftle of Barnabas, j-i8, 5-19. Others by Clemens, fuppos'd to be the fame mention'd by St. Paul, 5-22, 723, 5-24. A Frag ment in his Name cited by Iren&m, 5-26. n. A Difcourfe afcrib'd to him by Papias, 714. Another The I N D E X." Another by thefame.y2j-.ASay- ing of his out of Juftin Martyr, SiT. Hiftory of his Baptifm by the fame, 5-40. Another concer ning him in his younger Years, by the fame, 3-43. A Saying of him in Iren&us, 5-47. Hi ftory of his Age in the fame, 548. A Saying afcrib'd to him in Athenagoras, and a continu ation of it by Pfaffius, j->-i. A- nother by Clemens Alexandri nus, ff-i. Another by the fame, j-j-8. Another cited by moft of the antient Fathers, -5-3. Hi- ftorv of him and his Parents by Origen, $60. Ot his Rela tion according to the Flefh in, Epiphanius, 5-61. An Anfwer of the Apo -ties to him in Jerome, f-6%. Hiftories and Sayings of, and things relating to him, to be found in the Alcoran of Mahomet, j-68 to y?9- Four particular Sayings afcrib'd to him by the Mahometan Doctors, fSg, ad fin. Chryfoftom makes no men tion of the adulterous Woman in John viii. p. 136. Clarke, Dr. A miftake of his concerning Mr. Dodwell recti fied, f. n. Clemens Alexandrinus, Apo cryphal Books mention'd by him, 37. makes no mention of the adulterous Woman in John viii. p. 1 36.his Teftimonies of the Gofpel of the Egyptians, 244, 245-, 246. n. his Inter pretation of 1 Cor. vii. 1. and 1 Tim. iv. 3. p. 2j-8.n. menti ons the Traditions of Matthias, 216 His Account of the Nar z,are'ne or Hebrew Gofpel, 333. n. does not appeal to the He brew Gofpel as of any Autho rity 16* cites Fragments of The preaching of Peter, 432 to 440. Obfervation on the Hy potypofes of Clemens, See. 466. n. that Book not his, 470, 471. The Citation of it by Theodotus examin'd, 47 2, 47 3 . Clemens Romanus, Cotempo rary with St. Paul, his Tefti mony of St. Paul's firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, contrary to the Opinions of many modern learned Men, 16S. Cleobius, Author of feveral A- pocryphal Books, 47. Le Clerc, Mr. His Opinion of feveral Epiftles of St. Paul, not extant, and fanguine Re mark on thofe that are, exa mined, 166. His Sentiments of the Egyptian Gofpel, 25-0, cenfute of Dr. Grabe, zf-j, n. His Opinion the fame with Dr. Whitby's concerning the Na zarene Gofpel, 35-7. n. Collins, Dr. was of Opinion that St. Paul wrote an Epiftle to the Corinthians, previous to thofe two extant, 167. n. Conftantine Emperor, cites" a Greek Acroftick concerning Chrift, 45-7. n. Corinthians, a fpurious Epiftle of theirs to Paul, and another of Paul to them, 175-, 176. Cofin, Dr. a Miftake of his reclified, 68. Cyprian, Apocryphal Books mentioned by him, 39. his Ac count of the Chriftian Meet ings, 83. Cyril, Apocryphal Books men tioned by him, 40. his Cata logue of Canonical Books, 74. Inftruclions to his Catechumen concerning the Scriptures, 83. o. hisdiftinclion of Books Ca nonical, and fuch as were doubt ed of, 85. n. Account of the Q_q j Gofpel The I.ND.E.X: Gofpel of the Scythians, 485-. n. Cenfure of the Gofpel of Tho mas, as the Gofpel of one of the Manes of the fame Name, J03. n. D. Daille, Monf. demonftrates the Spurioufnefs of a Book un der the Name of Bartholomew, mentioned by the fuppos'd Dio nyfius the Areopagite, 210. a Miftake of his rectified by Bp. Pearfon, ibid, n. another concern ing Bartholomew's Gofpel, 2 14. He thinks the Epiftles, of Igna tius to be fpurious, 367. Daniel the Prophet, a Cita tion out of him, whereby the Chaldee and Syriack Languages feem to be fynonymous, 117. De Dieu, his Obfervation on the Affinity of the Chaldee and Syriack Languages, 116. n. Dionyfius the Areopagite, one of St. Paul's Converts at Rome, 209. n. Doceu, a branch of the Gnof- tick Hereticks, 415-. fuppos'd to forge Peter's Gofpel, which Jikely may be the fame as the Gofpel of Bafilides, 41^-, 416, 4'7. Dodwell, Mr. a falfe Opinion of his concerning the Books of the prefent Canon, efpoufed by Mr, Toland, refuted, j-r. n. j 39*- W'7ht AUS mppofes this and the Ana baticon to be one Book, 397, 398, 399. proves that it is fo, and Apocryphal, 401. This Book feems to be referred to as fuch, in a paffage of Tertul- lian, 401,402, n. The Revela tion of his now extant in Mer ton College, Oxon, a Forgery, 403, 404. Pearfon, Bifhop, Attempts to prove that the Decree of Ge lafius, concerning Apocrypha! Books, is fpurious, 190, n. corrects an Error in Monfieur Daille concerning thetime ot the fuppofed Dionyfius the. Areopa gite, 210. n. Perfection, the Gofpel of, not extant, 148. proved to be a fpurious and apocryphal Book, the Forgery of the Gnofticks, 479. n. A Conjecture concern ing the Defign of it, 480. Peter,, his Acls, Doctrine, Gofpel, Judgment, Preaching, Revelation, and Books under his Name, not extant, 149. his Gofpel prov'd to be fpuri ous by Eufebius, Athanafius, &c 298, 299. n. His and Paul's preaching one Book, 15-2, 394, 42^. His Acts, or Travels, written by Clemens, one Book, and cenfured for Apocryphal by the Antients, 40^, 408. His Doctrine, 409. Goipel ci ted by Serapion, TertuUian, Ori gen, &c. 409 to 413. Why Modi's Gofpel was formerly called his, 414. it was not compos'd by Leucius, but forg'd by the Docetss, 415-. and likely the fame as the Gofpel of Bafi lides, 4.16, 417. His Book of Judgment accounted by Je rome Apocryphal, 419. n. by Ruffin not Canonical, but Ec clefiaftical, 420. n. His Preach ing very antient, and cited by the The I N D E X.' the Fathers, &c. 426. The E- piftle of Peter to James feems to be the forgery of fome Ebio nite, ibid, produc'd at length in Greek and Englifh, 427 to 432. SeveralFragments of his Preach ing, 432 to 44f. The con current Opinions of late Wri ters, to elevate the Authority of it, 446, 447, 448. re futed, and the Piece prov'd A- pocryphal, 448 to 465-. His Revelation cited by Clemens A- lexandrinus, Theodofius, &c. 466 to 470. rejected by Eufebius as fpurious, 474, and by the An tients, as Sozomen tells us, 476. fuppos'd by Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill to beaPropbefie concern ing the Jews and the State of the Church till Antichrift, 477. Other Forgeries by Leucius un der the Name of Peter, 478, 479- Philaftrius, Apocryphal Books mention'd by him, 40. his Ca talogue of Canonical Books, -if. Cenfure of the Apocryphal Acts ot Andrew, 180, 181. His Charge againft theManichees,&cc. for receiving the Apocryphal, and rejecting the Canonical Books of the Apoftles, 300, 301- He pronounces the Acts of Paul Apocryphal, 392. n. Philip, his Acts and Gofpel not extant in the Writers of tbe firft Century, 48 1 . prefid ed to be in the Vatican, ibid. 11. His Gofpel a Forgery of the Gnofticks, and a Fragment of it produc'd by Eufebius, 481, 482. n. its abominable Doc trines, 483. n. proved to be Apocryphal, 484. Photius, Patriarch of Conftan- tinople, his juft Obfervation on the Forgeries of Leucius, 288. n. 297. a further Account of them by him, 306, 307. His Account of the Hypotypofes un der Clemens's name, 470, 471. Plac&us, an Abfurdity of his concerning Books Canonical and Apocryphal, 68, 60. Prideaux, Dean, obferves it was the Cuftom of Mahomet to flatter the Chriftians on all Occafions, f%f. Ptolemais, its antient Names among the Ifraelites, 127. Revelation, Book of, why omitted in the publick Calen dar for reading the Scriptures, 72- Richardfon, Mr. hisSehtifnents concerning the Nazarene Gof pel, 3 $-6. n. R«#w,Apocryphal Book men tioned by him, 43. his Cata logue of Canonical Books, 76. his Account of the Judgment of Peter, 420. n. Satanas, its Derivation, 123^ 124. Scythianus, the Gofpel of, not extant, 149. mentioned by Cy ril and Epiphanius, 485-, 486. He was Founder of the Mani chean Sect, 485-. Seleucus, his Acts of the A- poftles not extant, 149. He is the fame with Leucius, 296. n. 3°f> 487- Seleuciani (call'd alfo Hermi- ani) their Tenets, &c. 305-. Serapion, Apocryphal Books mention'd by him, 37. His Account The INDEX. Account of the Gofpel of Peter, 409. n. Sergius, a Nejkrian, the prin cipal Afiiftant of Mahomet, in his Alcoran. 5-83. Severus, what part of the New Teftament he rejected, 9. Sibylls, an Account of them, and their forg'd Propbefies, <\,ff, 4J-6, 457. Simon, Father, his Defence of the Antiquity ofthe Syriack Ver fion, 143. n. his Sentiments of the Gofpel of the Egyptians, 249. n. He condemns the Go fpel of Eve for Apocryphal, 276. n. His high Opinion of the Nazarene, or Hebrew Go fpel, If*, n- he endeavours to fupporc The preaching of Peter, 447. n. wrongfully charges Stephen, the Revelation of, not' extant, 149. declar'd Apocry phal by Gelafius, 488. Styles of Authors various, with a Differtation upon them, 94 to too. Syriack Verfion, loy. an hi ftorical Account of it, 106. when firft known among the Europeans, 107. The Judgments of learned Men about it, 108, 109. An Attempt to prove this Verfion was made in the Apo ftles times, 111. This Lan guage is fometimes called Chal dee, fometimes Syriack, fome times Syro-Chaldaick; but moft commonly by the Writers of the New Teftament, and firft Chriftians, Hebrew, 112. It was the Language of Syria and Me- Eufebiuswith felf Contradiction, fopotamia, and of Jerufalem and 47f- Stmonians, fo called from Si mon Magus, their Gofpel, 487. Sixtus Senen(ss,h\s Sentiments concerning the Gofpel of the Egyptians, 247. n. his Miftake Concerning the Traditions of Matthias, 321. n. Opinion con cerning the Nazarene or Hebrew Gofpel, 35-2. n. his favourable Opinion of The preaching of Pe ter, 446, Sozomen,h\s fabulous Account of the Revelation of Paul, 40 1 . fays Ptter's Revelation was read yearly in fonn Churches of Pa leftine, 476. n. but was rejected by the Antients, as fpurious, Spanheim, Mr. an Obferva tion of his concerning Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, 6.. an Error of his concerning the Anabaticon and Revelation of Paul, 398. n. Galilee in our Saviour's time, 113, 114, 1 if. Syriack and Chaldee are by the Prophet Daniel fynonymous Languages, 117. This Verfion has not the Hiftory of the adulterous Wo man mentioned in St. John, 136. n. nor the famous con troverted Text 1 John. v. 7. ibid, nor has the Old Verfion the four Catholick Epiftles, nor the Revelation, [37. This Ver fion was thought by Tremellius and Bp. Walton to be made in the Apoftles time, 138. n. The Antiquity of it, confirms the Purity of the printed Copies of the New Teftament. 143. is of grear. ufe in explaining many Paffages, 144. The con troverted Text, 1 Cor. v. 9, paraphras'd by the old Syriack Tranfiator, 17 I. Syrians were the firft Idolaters mentioned in Scripture, 13 in. R c among The I N D E X. among thejiws, that Appellation denoted prophane Perfons, ibid. T. Tatian, the Gofpel of, not extant, 149. mentioned by Eu febius znd Epiphanius, 490, 491. n. was a Harmony of the four Gofpels, 49 1 . feems to be taken from the Hebrew Gofpel, 492. An Account of him and his Principles, 494, 493. Terebinthus, afterwards called Manes ( the Father of the Ma nichees ) ftiled himfelf the Pa raclete, 496. TertuUian, Apocryphal Books mentioned by him, 38. his Ac count of the Chriftian Meet ings, 83. n. Interpretation of 1 Tim. iv. 13. f. 2y8. Account of Marcion* Gofpel, 326. n. He cites the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 389. n. fays the Go fpel of Mark is affirm'd by fome, to be that of Peter, 411, n. Thaddms, the Gofpel of, not extant, 148. declar'd Apocry phal by Gelafius, 494. n. Thecla., Martyrdom of, how, and by whom firft publifh'd, 38. vide Paul. Themifon, his Catholick Epi ftle not extant, ifo. mentioned by Apottonius, 494. he was a Montanift, 495-. Theodotus Byzantius , Apo cryphal Books mentioned by him, 37. his fragment of The preaching of Peter, 440. a par ticular Account of him and his Herefies, 4^0. He cites the Revelation of Peter, 467. n. TheopkylaB, makes no men tion of the adulterous Woman in John viii. p. 136. n. Therapuu, an Account of them from Mr. Whifton, zf 1 . Thomas, the MGts, &c. under his Name not extant, 15-0. men tioned by Epiphanius, Athanafius and Gelafius, 449, foo. a. not the fame with thofe of Leuciut Charinus, foi. A MS. of it faid by Father Simon to be in the French King's Library, and another by Dr. Grabe, in our Bodleian, ibid. His Gofpel men tioned by Origen, Eufebius, Cyril, Ambrofe, Athanafius, Jerome and Gelafius, foz, foz, /04. n. there were two Gofpels under his Name, fof. His Revela tion only mentioned, and de clared Apocryphal by Gelafius, ibid. Other Books under his Name condemn'd by Innocent I. ibid. Tobit, Book of, guilty of a direct falfity, n. Toland Mr, his pretended Ca talogue of Canonical Books not complete, 4, f. his falfe Opi nion, concerning the depofitory of the Books of the prefent Canon t\W Adrian's time, fi, a. He endeavours to confirm a Conjecture of Dr. Grabe, con cerning a Fragment of Barna- bas's Gofpel, 196. His Ac count of an Italian MS. he had feen of it, 198, 199. A no torious falfe Inference of his detected by Dr. Mangey, ioy, 206, n. A malicious Miftake of his, concerning the Books reported to be written by our Saviour, 230, 231. An inftance of his inaccuracy in Quotati ons, 239. n. His difingenuity in citing, as genuine, a For gery of the Ebionites, 270. n. Folly in placing among Cano nical The I N D E X.' nical Books the Gofpel of Eve, 276. n. as alfo that of Judas Ifcariot, 290, n. A Miftake of his in efteeming the Traditi ons of 'Matthias as a written Book, 321. n. his Sentiments of the Hebrew or Nazarene Go fpel, 35-4. iff. his extra vagant pofitivenefs, and unpar donable Miftakes, 360. n. Ano» ther concerning Hegeftppus, 269. n. Another very notorious in relation to Origen, 370, 3 7 1 . n. his unpardonable Falfhood in afferting, that the Fathers ap pealed to the Nazarene, as a true Gofpel, 373. The Au thor's juft rebuke, and admo nition to him, ibid. An In ftance of a notorious Impofture of his, 375-. n. his falfe Cita tions of St. Auftin and Epipha nius detected, 390. n. An ig norant blunder of his concern ing the Anabaticon and Revela tion of Paul, 398. n. Hi* en deavour to prove that the Na zarenes were the only true Chriftians. 473. anfwered by Dr. Mangey, ibid- his fond O- pinion of Tbe preaching of Pe ter, 447. n. He efteems Peter's Revelation as valuable, as feveral Books of the prefent Canon. 447, 448. n. He injurioufly charges Eufebius with a Miftake, 474? 47 f. refers to a Citation out of Sozomen, to prove Pe ter's Revelation not fpurious, 4.76. n. fuppofes that Revela- lEion to be a Prophefy concern- ins the Jews, and the State of the Chriftian Church, 47 7- n- His Ignorance and Malice in his dilution, between Para- tletemdParichte,dete&t:d,491. He fupports the Charge of the Mahometans againft the Chri ftians, of having corrupted the Gofpel of Chrift, j-88. Tradition, certainly the beft Method to prove the truth of the facred Books, 66. An Ob- jeclion to it anfwered, 60, 70. Tremellius thought the Syri ack Verfion to be made in the Apoftles times, 183. n. Truth, the Gofpel of, not extant, ifo. condemn'd by I- renaus, 5-07, 5-08. n. a Forgery of the Valentinians, f 09, U. 9 Valentinus, Gofpel of, not ex tant, iyo. different from the Gofpel of Truth, fiz. Valefius, wrongfully charges Euftbius with felf Contradiction, 475-. n. his Opinion of the Harmony of the Orthodoxogra- fba, 493. VoJJius Mr. a Miftake of his concerningthe Language fpoken in Jerufalem, in our Saviour's time, rectified, iff, if 6. Ufher, Bp. proves Ignatius his Epiftle to be corrupted and in terpolated, 267. n. His Senti ments of a Saying of Chrift in the Epiftle of Barnabas, f 1 9. W. Walton Bp, thought the Sy riack Tranflation of the Nevr Teftament to be made in the Apoftles time, 138. Wifdom of Solomon, Book of a grofs Error in it, it. Whifton Mr. a Citation from him, concerning the Conftitu-. tions of the Apoftles, 7, 8. his Error concerning St.. Mark's Gofpel, The I N D E X. Gofpel, i of. n. his Sentiments of the Gofpel. of the Egyptians, and Account of the Therapeuta mentioned by Philo, zfi. n. He wrongfully fuppofes the Egyptian Gofpel, and Traditi ons of Matthias to be ufed a- mong them, 333. n. would have The preaching of Peter Ca- nonical, 448. n. recommends Peter's Revelation as a facred Book, 469. His Miftake con cerning a faying of Chrift, cited by moft ofthe Fathers, ffj. Whitby, Dr. his Examen of Dr. Mill's various Lections, &c. 142. n. ftf- his interpreta tion of 1 Cor. v, 9. rectified, 171, 172. his Remark on 1 Tim,, iv, 3. p.z6z. n. Opi nion of the Hebrew or Naza rene Gofpel. zfj. n. His Mi ftake concerning the Woman of Samaria, 5-33. Wilkins Mr, an Overfight of his in theDedication of hisTran- flation of the third Epiftle of Paul to the Corinthians, and P«a/'s Epiftle to them, 177. X. Xenocharis, a corrupt way of writing Charinus, 310. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02970 2959