Imatges de pÓgina

counted for, by considering the contracted way of writing formerly, which has produced an infinite variety of such mistakes by ignorant and careless scribes, especially in proper names : for the name Leucius being contractedly written thus L. or Lús. by one scribe, might by another scribe be read, and accordingly written in his copy, Leonides, by the easy mistake of the letter u for the letter n, which are much alike in many writings. This we are sure was the case, in respect of the name Leontius, which was another name for Leucius in some copies, as I have above observed. As to the name Nexocharis, or, which is the better reading, Xenocharis, I am inclined to think, that it was by some blundering scribe formed from, or written for, Charinus, the surname of Leucius, in the following manner. Before the name Charinus, contractedly written in some Greek book thus xps, happened to be the appellative word gevos (perhaps to denote his strange doctrines, it being commonly used by the fathers in that sense) or Zévous; now an ignorant scribe, not knowing the true name of the person there spoken of, might very probably join the words gevos and xps together, and so form the name Eevóxapıs Xenocharis, which must afterwards be received as a true name. This seems to me the more probable, because,

1. I do not remember ever, besides here, to have seen this


2. Because it is certain, that in the ancient way of writing (as is evident by manuscripts extant) there was no distinction or space between one word and another, but the whole line was written as one continued word.

3. The word gevos was very commonly prefixed to men's names; hence we read of several called Xenophon, as those two who were the famous disciples of Socrates at Athens; Xenocrates, a philosopher of Chalcedonia, and two more remarkable philosophers of that name; so also Xenodochus, Xenodorus, Xenodotus, Xenophanes, Xenophates, Xenophilus, &c. vid. Suid. The word &évos being so frequently prefixed, the mistake was so much the more easy.

4. Such mistakes are very common, especially in the proper names of persons and places.

CHAP. XXII. The false Gospels of Lucianus, a famous critic and martyr

under Dioclesian ; who published an edition of the Septuagint: a different person from Lucanus, the disciple of Marcion. A correction of a place in Epiphanius. The commentaries under the name of Origen, upon Job, proved not to belong to that father.

No. XXXIV. The false Gospels of Lucianus. To these I have, for method sake, given a distinct title, though they appear to have been only some corrupted interpolated copies of our present Gospels. They are only mentioned by Jerome and Gelasius together with the false Gospels of Hesychius. The places are produced above, Chap. XIX. No. XXIII. to which, and what is there said, there seems nothing necessary here to be added, but some short account of Lucianus, their author. He was undoubtedly that eminent critic, whose labours in correcting the corrupt copies of the Septuagint version have made him famous. He was a presbyter of Antioch, and suffered martyrdom under Dioclesian and Maximian, viz. about the year of Christ 296. He was so remarkable in his study of the scriptures, that the copies were called by his name; and his edition of the LXX. was the only one received in all the eastern part of the world, except that which Hesychius published in Egypt, and Eusebius and Pamphilus published from Origeni. That this was the same Lucianus with him who interpolated the Gospels, is evident from the express testimony of Jerome k, who says, “ the same Hesychius “ and Lucianus were employed in altering the LXX. version, “ and the copies of the New Testament.” Hence it is plain, that Dr. Mill l is egregiously mistaken, in supposing this Lucianus to have been the same person as Marcion’s disciple and follower, mentioned by Tertullian m, and called Lucanus : for as it is certain, that Marcion, and consequently Lucanus, lived early in the second century; so from what has been said, it is no less certain that Lucianus suffered martyrdom in the very end of the third. It may not therefore be improper here to observe, that the heretics called by Epiphanius n the Lucianists, and placed between Marcion and Apelles, called so from Lucian who was the disciple of Marcion, and fellow-pupil of Apelles, were either falsely so called by Epiphanius, or else our printed copies of that author are corrupt, and we ought to read Λουκανιστοι instead of Λουκιανιστοι, i. e. Lucanists instead of Lucianists, as proceeding from Lucanus, as he is called by Tertullian in the place just now cited, and also by Origen in his book against Celsus °, though in the old Latin translation we meet with Lucianus, contrary to the Greek. I have no thing more to add here, but that by accident I observed a passage in the Commentary under the name of Origen, upon the book of Job, where mention is made of Lucianus, with a very glorious character P; but inasmuch as it is most undeniable that Origen died long before the time of Lucianus, viz. in the year of Christ 253, under the emperors Gallus and Volusianus 9, there is no question to be made, but those books upon Job were wrote by some person long after Origen's time.

i This account I collected from Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 9. c. 6. Jerome Catal. vir. illustr. in Lucian. et Præfat. in Paralipom. et Suidas in Lucian.

k Præfat. in Evang. ad Damas.
1 Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 333.
m De Præscript. adv. Hæretic. c. 51.

CHAP. XXIII. Books under the name of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthias.

The traditions of Matthias. All its Fragments produced. There never was any book under this title. The sentiments of late writers concerning these traditions. Some books ascribed to Matthias. The Acts of the Manichees.

M. No. XXXV. Books under the name of St. Matthew. EPIPHANIUS, concerning the Ebionites, says, they forged several books under the apostles' names, and particularly under St. Matthew's. The passage is produced above, Chap. XX. No. XXV. There being nothing more said by Epiphanius of these books, nor indeed by him or any other author, of any spurious books under this apostle's name, besides the Gospel of the Nazarenes, I have no more to say concerning these books, than that, as they are rejected by this father as spurious, so for that reason they are apocryphal, as also by Prop. IV. V. VI. and perhaps what he here means was no other than the Hebrew Gospel of the Ebionites or Nazarenes.

n Hæres. 43, 44.
• Lib. 2. p. 77

p Opp. Lat. t. 2. fol. 27.
4 Catal. vir. illustr. in Origen,

No. XXXVI. The Gospel of Matthias. ALTHOUGH there be not any remains of this Gospel now extant, yet it is taken notice of by several of the most celebrated writers among the ancients, viz. Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome, as also in some copies of pope Gelasius's Decree. Origen mentions it among many other spurious pieces, thus": Ecclesia quatuor habet Evangelia, The church receives only four hæreses plurima. Scio Evange- Gospels, the heretics many. I lium quod appellaturjuxta know one, which is called the Matthiam, &c.

Gospel according to Matthias. [See the passage at large above,

Chap. VII. No. V.] Eusebius ranks it among the books published by the heretics, not received nor cited by any ecclesiastical writer, but a mere forgery, to be rejected as impious and absurd. (See the place produced at large above, Chap. XXI. No. XXXIII.]

Ambrose in like manner places it among those spurious books which the church rejected as such. (See the passage at large above, Chap. VII. No. V.]

Jerome places it among the books which gave birth to the heresies which troubled the church, and which were wrote without the spirit and grace of God. (See the place above produced, Chap. VII. No. IV.]

Lastly, in some copies of the Decree of pope Gelasius, we read, Evangelium nomine Matthiæ apo- The Gospel under the name of cryphum.

Matthias is apocryphal. From all this it is easy to see, what judgment we are to form of this book, and to conclude it apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. The learned Dr. Grabes, and after him Dr. Millt, suppose this Gospel to have been the same with the traditions of Matthias, but with very little reason, as I shall shew presently in discussing that book. r Homil. in Luc. i. in init.

+ Prolegom. in N. T. $. 337. Spicileg. Patr. Secul. 2. p. 117.

[merged small][ocr errors]

No. XXXVII. The traditions of Matthias. THESE are only mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, in whose Stromata there are some fragments of them remaining, which the heretics made use of. They are collected by Dr. Grabe, and shall be here produced, with the addition of two or three more places, where these traditions are referred to.

The first is as follows u. Και Ματθίας εν ταις παραδόσεσι So Matthias advises in his Traπαραινών, Θαύμασον τα παρόντα, ditions, (saying) Admire the things βαθμον τούτον πρώτον της επέκεινα that are present, making this to γνώσεως υποτιθέμενος.

be the first step towards increase

of knowledge. .

The second is *; Λέγουσι (Νικολαϊται) γ' ούν και The Nicolaitans accordingly say, τον Ματθίαν ούτως διδάξαι, σαρκί that Matthias taught the followμεν μάχεσθαι και παραχρήσθαι, ing doctrine, viz. That we are to μηθέν αυτή προς ηδονήν ακόλαστον oppose the flesh, and so to use it, ενδιδόντα, ψυχήν δε αύξειν δια πί

as not to gratify it in any excesστεως και γνώσεως.

sive pleasures, but to enlarge the

soul with faith and knowledge.

The third is y; Ζακχαίον τοίνυν, οι δε Ματθίαν Therefore when Zaccheus, others φασιν, άρχιτελώνην, ακηκοότα του say it was Matthias, a chief pubΚυρίου καταξιώσαντος προς αυτόν lican, heard our Lord say, Thut γενέσθαι, Ιδού τα ημίση των υπαρ- he was worthy for him to abide χόντων μου δίδωμι ελεημοσύνην, with, he said, Behold I give half φάναι, Κύριε, και εί τινός τι εσυ- of my goods to the poor, and if I κοφάντησα, τετραπλούν αποδί

have wronged any one, I restore to δωμι.

him fourfold.

The fourth is 2; Λέγουσι δε εν ταις παραδόσεσι But they say among the TradiΜατθίαν τον απόστολον παρ' έκα

tions, that Matthias the apostle στα ειρηκέναι, ότι εάν εκλεκτού among other things said, That if

the neighbour of a believer fall γείτων αμαρτήση, ήμαρτεν ο εκ

into sin, the believer himself is λεκτός: ει γαρ ούτως εαυτόν ήγεν, guilty of it; for if his conduct ως ο λόγος υπαγορεύει, κατηδέσθη had been agreeable to reason, [or 1 Lib. 2. p. 38ο.

y Lib. 4. p. 488. x Lib. 3. p. 436.

1 Strom. lib. 7. p. 748.

« AnteriorContinua »