Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ó

ἂν αὐτοῦ τὸν βίον καὶ ὁ γείτων, the word] his neighbour would have regarded his life so much, as not to have fallen into the sin.

εἰς τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτεῖν.

The last is a;

Twv d'aipéσewv ai μèv åπò ỏvóματος προσαγορεύονται, ὡς ἡ ἀπὸ † Οὐαλεντίνου, καὶ Μαρκιώνος, καὶ Βασιλείδου, κἂν τὴν Ματθίου αυ χῶσι προσάγεσθαι δόξαν. μία γὰρ ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ̓Αποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις.

Of the heresies some are called by the name of their author, as that of Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides, though indeed they boast of the opinions of Matthias, viz. as favouring theirs. But as there was but one doctrine delivered by the apostles, so there can be but one [true] tradition.

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

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

II. That if there was any such book, entitled the traditions of Matthias, it was certainly apocryphal.

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

1. That, besides Clemens Alexandrinus in the places cited, no writer of the four first centuries, nor indeed any other ancient writer, has so much as mentioned the name of these traditions of Matthias. This one can scarcely imagine, if ever such a book were really extant; for then it could not but have been frequently appealed to by the Valentinians, Marcionites, and Basilides; and consequently must have been mentioned by Irenæus, Tertullian, or Epiphanius, in their disputes against those heretics.

2. This seems clearly deducible from the passages themselves in Clemens Alexandrinus; in no one of which he uses either the word βίβλος, γέγραπται, or any word of that sort, which will imply any thing to have been written; but, on the other hand, in each of these places introduces his account with a a Eodem lib. p. 765.

66

plain intimation, that he looked upon them only as oral traditions. So page 478. Aéyouσi dè év Taïs Tapadóσeσi, i. e. "They Λέγουσι ταῖς παραδόσεσι, say among the traditions," i. e. It is a common tradition, or commonly said, that Matthias taught, &c. And for this construction I have the countenance of the Latin translator, who renders Clemens thus, Dicunt autem in traditionibus, inserting a comma after the word traditionibus, to evidence that Clemens did not there speak of any written book. So likewise in that place, page 436. Λέγουσι γ ̓ οὖν καὶ τὸν Ματθίαν οὕτως διδάξαι, &c. "They, i. e. the Nicolaitans, say, that Matthias taught so,” &c. Where, as there is no mention of any written book of Matthias, so there is a plain intimation, that this saying attributed to him by the Nicolaitans was a current tradition among them, as from him, in order to support their abominable doctrine of the communion of women. Once more, page 765, where he says, several heretics, τὴν Ματθίου αὐχῶσι δόξαν, “ boasted of the

66

66

opinions of Matthias," as being agreeable to theirs, he manifestly shews, they were only some traditionary and spurious opinions of that apostle; for else I know not how to understand that opposition he makes between διδασκαλία and παράδοσις; the words are μία ή πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία, οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις, i. e. “ The doctrine of the apostles in "their writings cannot be different from, or contrary to, any

[ocr errors]

traditionary doctrines pretending to be theirs;" in which there is implied a good argument against those heretics, viz. That their principles must be erroneous, because they were only supported by some traditionary doctrines, which, being contrary to those which were written, must of necessity be false, unless the apostles can be supposed to have preached one thing, and wrote another quite contrary.

3. It is a thing very notorious in Christian antiquity, that the heretics, not being able to maintain their perverse tenets by the written scriptures, nor to answer the arguments brought against them from them, continually applied not only to apocryphal forgeries, but unwritten traditions. By this means the unhappy Jews were deluded into the most fatal errors b: thus the Christians were deceived into a belief of the necessity of Judaism, as we read in the synodical epistle from Jerusalem: b Mar. vii. 7.

c Acts xv. 24.

thus the doctrine of the millennium first gained its reputation from the credulous Papias, who was so fond of tradition ©: thus, in a word, a thousand ridiculous fables have received credit in the church, and even still are made use of in the church of Rome to maintain the absurdest doctrines of it, as may be seen in almost every writer against popery. From all which, with what is said above, it appears more probable, that these were some unwritten traditions, than any written book of Matthias.

To this opinion I know nothing that can, with any reason, be objected; though I am sensible, these traditions have hitherto been always esteemed as a written book by those who have taken any notice of it, as Sixtus Senensis d, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Toland, Mr. Fabritius 8, Dr. Mill h, and Mr. Whiston i, &c. But I hope what I have urged is sufficient to prove the mistake. Dr. Grabe, Dr. Mill, and Mr. Whiston, have proposed their conjectures concerning it, which I shall here briefly

examine.

Dr. Grabek supposes it to have been the same book with that I last treated of, entitled, The Gospel of Matthias. His words are,

Inter Evangelia mala hæreticorum fide nominibus apostolorum supposita, Matthiæ quoque adscriptum aliquod memorat Eusebius lib. III. Hist. Eccl. c. 25. Quod idem puto esse cum παραδό σeo traditionibus a Clemente Alexandrino memoratis; quia Evangelia scribebantur, Kabas maρéδισαν οἱ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου.

Among the false Gospels impiously forged under the apostles' names by the heretics, Eusebius mentions one ascribed to Matthias; which I suppose to be the same with the Tapadóσeıs, i. e. traditions mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus; because the Gospels were written as they delivered, who were from the beginning eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.

There is nothing can be more weak than this argument, being only founded upon a word, which may be used in a very

c Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 39.. d Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 83. ad voc. Matthias.

e Spicileg. Patr. Secul. II. p. 117.

f Amyntor, p. 30.

Cod. Apocr. Nov. Testam. t. 2.

[blocks in formation]

large sense. It needs no other confutation than putting it in its proper light: it stands thus; the accounts of our Saviour's life were composed out of the traditions of those who saw his actions; therefore the traditions of Matthias were an account of our Saviour's life, or a Gospel; i. e. Christ's life was wrote by tradition, therefore there were no other traditions. This is ludere cum vocibus. But besides, as Mr. Fabritius well observes, the contents of these traditions were not like the contents of a Gospel, which are always some sayings or histories of Jesus Christ, but the fragments of these traditions are of another sort, as is evident by the most cursory view of them.

Dr. Mill m follows Dr. Grabe, and supposes further, that it was one of those books, which St. Luke had respect to in the preface of his Gospel, composed and published in the following manner.

Mihi sane videntur napadóσeç istæ ex ore Matthiæ in Judæa prædicantis initio exceptæ fuisse a Christiano quopiam, et in libellum redacta; cui ad majorem traditionibus istis conciliandam auctoritatem apostoli nomen præfixit auctor, quisquis ille fuerit. Cæterum cum libro isti, perinde ac cæteris dynoeon inserta essent, ex errore διηγητοῦ, quædam haud ȧopa, quædam item doctrinæ Christianæ minus consona, quibus, incaute animoque non malo scriptis, abusi essent Basilidiani, Valentiniani, aliique hæretici, ad suos errores stabiliendos; hinc post editionem canonicorum Evangeliorum in desuetudinem abiit, atque etiam inter libros hæreticos numeratus est.

It seems to me, that these traditions of Matthias were taken from his mouth, when he first preached in Judæa, by some Christians, and formed into a little book; to procure the greater respect to which traditions, the author, whoever he was, prefixed the name of the apostle. But as in that, as well as other accounts, viz. of Christ, through the mistake of the author, several things were inserted, neither sound, nor agreeable to the Christian doctrine, which though unguardedly wrote, and without any ill intent, the Basilidians, Valentinians, and other heretics, made a wrong use of, to establish their errors. It became disused after the publishing of the canonical Gospels, and was reckoned among the heretical books.

The same learned doctor in another place n imagines "this

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

"book of traditions to have been interpolated by Leucius," and to have "received the addition of many trifling and false "stories from his hand." But as his opinion about the original of the book is not only proposed without any attempt to make it so much as probable, but appears, by what has been above said, to be false and groundless, so also is his account of the interpolations of it, as I shall shew No. XXXVIII.

Mr. Whiston, discoursing about Philo's Therapeutæ, whom he takes for Christians in Egypt before the coming of St. Mark, supposes not only the Gospel of the Egyptians, but also the traditions of Matthias, to have been in use among them but of this conjecture he has assigned no reason; and therefore I think it sufficient to my design only to inform the reader of it.

What further remains now is;

II. To shew, that if these traditions were really a book, they were apocryphal, which is manifest by Prop. IV. V. and VI. but especially by Prop. VIII. as it contained the principles of the most impious heretics, viz. the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Basilidians, &c.

No. XXXVIII. Books under the name of Matthias. IN the before-cited Decree of pope Innocent I. according to one edition, we readP;

Cætera quæ sub nomine Matthiæ, sive Jacobi Minoris-quæ a quodam Leucio scripta suntnon solum repudianda, verum noveris esse damnanda.

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

Dr. Mill, as I just now said, concludes from these words of Innocent, that "these were the Gospel or Traditions of Mat"thias, quas falsis absurdisque narratiunculis passim inter"spersit hic ipse impostor Leucius, in which the impostor "Leucius scattered up and down several false and absurd "stories; on the account of which Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected it." But in this the doctor is also much mis

66

[ocr errors]

Essay on Constitut. p. 37. P Epist. 3. ad Exuper. c. 7. 4 Loc. denuo cit.

« AnteriorContinua »