Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ner; the first thus; "If any one will admit or receive the Gos66 pel according to the Hebrews," &c. The second; "It is "written in a certain Gospel, entitled, according to the He"brews, if any one be pleased to receive it, not as of any au"thority, but only for illustration of the present question," &c. See the place at large above, Chap. XXV. No. IV. V. From all this it is evident, Origen did not esteem this Nazarene Gospel as of any considerable value or authority in the church, but rejected it as apocryphal.

66

Eusebius is the next called in to support the credit of this Gospel: "He very often makes use of it," says Mr. Toland 8, as on the contrary I affirm, he never once has made use of it. "He places it in the rank of dubious scriptures, such as not only the Epistles of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Her"mas," saith Dr. Grabeh; "but the Epistles of James, Jude, "and other apostles:" on the contrary I affirm, he expressly distinguishes these from it, placing them among the scriptures which he calls άvtiλeyoμévas, i. e. doubted of by some; but this among those which he calls vótous, i. e. spurious, and to be utterly rejected. I confess, he a little after places them all under the general title of avτiλɛyóμevai; but the word must there be taken in a more extensive signification than in the former place, else Eusebius will not be consistent with himself.

66

But if all the rest fail, Jerome must make it out. "He fre"quently," say they, "appeals to this Gospel, and not only so, but translated it into Greek and Latin:" notwithstanding all which, a little observation will inform us, Jerome had no higher opinion of it than the forementioned writers. For,

1. He expressly saith, "It was the same with the Gospel, "entitled, according to the Twelve Apostles," above, Chap. XXV. No. XV. but this he expressly rejects as apocryphal, in another place, (viz. above, Chap. VII. No. V.) and as a book of the heretics, wrote by men destitute of the Spirit and grace of God, without a due regard to truth. See the passage at large above, Chap. VII. No. IV.

2. The same appears from the manner of his citing it in several of the places above, Chap. XXV. For instance, in that there produced, No. XVIII. he introduces his citation thus,

Loc. jam cit. h Lib. jam cit. p. 16.

i Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25.

"He who will believe the Gospel according to the Hebrews," &c. And after the citation of it in another place, as also a passage of Ignatius, he subjoins, Quibus testimoniis si non uteris ad auctoritatem, utere saltem ad antiquitatem, &c. "Which "testimonies though you are not to receive as of any authority, yet may be regarded for their antiquity," &c.k

66

From all this it is evident, how unjustly it has hitherto been asserted, that these fathers cited or appealed to this Gospel, and with what unpardonable falsehood Mr. Toland asserted its being appealed to by them in their writings frequently, as a true Gospel. Let him henceforth for ever cease his accusations against the clergy, or priests, as he calls them, for unfair dealing and false quotations, as also his attempts against Christianity, unless he can produce some better arguments, and proceed in some more honest method to support them.

CHAP. XXIX.

Positive proofs that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was apocryphal. It is found in none of the ancient catalogues of sacred books. Never was cited, as of authority. Never read in the churches. It contained many things apparently false; as, that Christ was a sinner; was unwilling to be baptized, &c. It contained several idle stories; as the Holy Ghost taking Christ by one of his hairs into a high mountain, &c. The rich man scratching his head, &c. Things in it later than the time of their being said or done. The design of it. Made out of Matthew. Its age. Not equal in authority with the present Greek. Made by Jews. Of the Nazarenes. AFTER having so largely shewn what were the sentiments of the old Christian writers concerning this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, there may seem but little necessity of saying any thing further to invalidate its authority. But inasmuch as there is no other apocryphal piece which hath been so highly extolled as this, and it has been so often preferred to our present Greek copies of St. Matthew, it cannot be improper, that, according to my first proposal, I proceed,

Lib. 3. adv. Pelag. in princip.

IV. To demonstrate in a more positive manner, that it really was a spurious and apocryphal piece.

This is clear by Prop. IV. as not being mentioned in any of the ancient catalogues; by Prop. V. as not being cited by any of the ancient writers; by Prop. VI. as not being read in any of the assemblies of the primitive Christians. And I here cannot but take notice of a most notorious and villainous imposture of Mr. Toland', who with all the assurance imaginable asserts, "That this Gospel was publicly read in their churches as authentic, for above three hundred years." For this he cites two passages of St. Austin m; in neither of which there is the least distant intimation or insinuation of what he asserts: all that he says is, "that in his time there were some very few "heretics called Nazarenes, or Symmachians, who admitted "both the circumcision of the Jews and the baptism of the "Christians."

66

I add now further, that this Gospel of the Nazarenes is to be esteemed apocryphal by Prop. VIII. as containing several things contrary to certainly known and undoubted truths; by Prop. IX. as containing things trifling and silly; by Prop. X. as containing things later than the time in which it pretends to have been written.

I shall prove each of these separately:

1. The Gospel of the Nazarenes was apocryphal, because it contained several things contrary to certainly known and undoubted truths, by Prop. VIII. I might here instance in a great number of particulars contrary to one or other of our present Gospels; but having not yet proved their authority, I shall omit these; and to be as just in my proof as I can, I shall only select those instances, which are contrary either to the generally agreed articles of the Christian religion, which have been proved true above, Cor. II. Prop. II. or to more than one or two of our present Gospels; whose agreement I think may be fairly enough urged (considered only as any other common history) against the assertions of any one particular book.

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

1.) The first instance of this sort which I assign is that in the passage of Jerome above produced, Chap. XXV. No. XV. where it is said, "The mother and brethren of Christ spake to him, and said, John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of "sins, let us go and be baptized by him: he said to them, In "what have I sinned, that I have need to go and be baptized

66

66

by him? unless my saying this proceeds perhaps from igno"rance." The meaning of this passage will be best perceived from a parallel one in another apocryphal book, entitled, The Preaching of Peter, hereafter to be produced: in which it was related "," that Christ confessed his sins, and was compelled, contrary to his own inclinations, by his mother Mary to sub"mit to the baptism of John." Now hence it follows,

66

First, That Christ was a sinner; at least, was doubtful whether he was not so: but this is contrary to the whole design of the Christian scheme, which is entirely founded upon the supposition of Christ being free from all manner of sin, in order to his making atonement and the necessary satisfaction. See 2 Cor. v. 21. 1 Peter ii. 22. 1 John iii. 5.

Secondly, That Christ was unwilling to submit to the baptism of John. But this is contrary to the certain notions we have of Christ and his conduct, who never was backward to obey any of the divine commands. Besides, St. Matthew says, (chap. iii. 15.) he compelled John to baptize him; so far was he from being unwilling. To which it may be worth adding, that after this Gospel had related the baptism of Jesus by John, it a little after adds, that John was desirous to be baptized by Jesus, and then confounding St. Matthew's words, says that of Christ's denying John baptism, which St. Matthew says of John's denying Christ baptism, and makes Christ to give that as a reason for his not baptizing John, which St. Matthew says he gave as a reason for his being baptized by John. For so the words of it are related by Epiphanius, "John fell down before him

(above, Chap. XXV. No. XI.) "and said, O Lord, I pray thee baptize me: but he hindered "him, saying, that it is so fit all things should be fulfilled;" on which that father justly censures that Gospel for falsehood, disorder, and confusion.

n Tract. de non iterand. Baptism. ad calc. Opp. Cypriani.

2.) The next instance of falsehood I observe in that Gospel is that history related by Jerome, (above, Chap. XXV. No. XIV.) concerning James's oath, "that he would not eat bread "from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, till "he should see the Lord risen from the dead," &c. This is not only an idle fable, but contrary to known fact; for it has been long a very just observation, that as our Lord's disciples seem to have had few higher expectations from him than the advancements of a temporal kingdom; so they either did not believe, or but faintly believe, that he should be put to death, and rise again. As to their disbelief of his resurrection, (which is all I have to do with now,) the matter is very easily gathered from the whole conduct of the apostles before his crucifixion, but especially from the relations of our evangelists of what happened afterwards. So Mark tells us, that when Mary Magdalen had seen him after his resurrection, she told his disciples that he was alive, and had been seen of her; but they believed her not P; as also, when two of the apostles had seen him, and affirmed it to the rest, they did not believe them 9; and that upon Christ's appearing to them all assembled, he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. St. Luke expresses this somewhat more strongly, viz. that when report was made to the apostles of Christ's resurrection, the words of them (who related it) seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them nots. And St. John, speaking of himself and Peter, saith, They knew not the scripture as yet, that Christ must rise again from the dead. Now after such plain testimonies, there is not any room left to question the truth of the fact, which by consequence demonstrates the falsehood of the Nazarene Gospel, which supposes the apostle James, not only before Christ died, to be persuaded of his death, but also to be very positive in his belief, both before his crucifixion and afterwards, that he should rise again.

3.) To the two former may be added the account Jerome more than once gives us out of it, that at our Saviour's cruci

• See my Vindication of Matthew,

c. 12. p. 117, 118.

P Chap. xvi. 9, 10, 11.

a V. 12, 13.

r V. 14.

5 Ch. xxiv. ir.

t Ch. xx. 9.

« AnteriorContinua »