I need say no more of this book, than that it appears plainly to have been a spurious piece, composed by the heretics, and apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. VI.; only I must observe, that the Gospel of Thomas, of which Cyril speaks, composed by Thomas, one of the followers of Manes, the head of the Manichees, could not possibly be the same with that mentioned by Origen, and perhaps most of the other writers, except Gelasius; because Origen lived a considerable time before the Manichean heresy, or even Manes himself was known in the world: this being not till the latter end of the third century, viz. till the time of Aurelius Probus, or Dioclesian, (as I have above observed, Chap. XXI.) whereas Origen lived in the beginning of it. 1 In Synops. See the passage at large above, Chap. XXI. m Præfat. in Comment. in Matth. See the place at large above, Ch. VII. No. LXVI. The Revelation of Thomas. IT is only mentioned by Gelasius in his Decree. Revelatio, quæ appellatur Tho mæ apostoli, apocrypha. The Revelation, which is ascribed to Thomas the apostle, is apocry phal. To be rejected by Prop. IV. V. and VI. No. LXVII. Books under the name of Thomas. Cætera, quæ sub nomine Mat- The other books under the name of Matthew-or the name of Thomas,know, that they are not only to be rejected, but condemned. It is not very certain what books under this apostle's name this pope here designed to condemn; it is probable they were not the Acts, because he would have attributed them to Leucius, whom he just before refers to, as the author of spurious Acts under the names of Peter and John, and others, as has been proved, Chap. XXI. I suppose therefore he rather intended the Gospel of Thomas. CHAP. XLI. The Gospel of Truth, a forgery of the Valentinians. Some account of Valentinus. A Gospel under his name. N°. LXVIII. The Gospel of Truth. THIS book was undoubtedly a composure of the second cen-tury, and very early therein it is mentioned by Irenæus thus: Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino, iterum existentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa evangelia; siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciæ, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia. Si enim, quod ab iis profertur, Veritatis est Evangelium, dissimile est autem hoc illis, quæ ab apostolis nobis tradita sunt; qui volunt possunt discere, quemadmodum ex ipsis scripturis ostenditur, jam non esse id quod ab apostolis traditum est Veritatis Evangelium. Quoniam autem sola illa vera et firma, et non capit neque plura præterquam prædicta sunt, neque pauciora esse evangelia, per tot et tanta ostendimus. make the authors of the Gospels to be either more or fewer [than four]. But the Valentinians, without any modesty, producing some writings of their own, boast that they have more than the [four] Gospels; for they have been so very impudent, that they have entitled one, The Gospel of Truth, which was not long since written by them, nor does in any thing agree with the Gospels of the apostles; so that they have really no gospel but a mere forgery; for if that gospel which they produce, entitled, The Gospel of Truth, be disagreeable to those which have been delivered to us by the apostles; every one may perceive (as has been proved above from the scriptures) that the Gospel of Truth is not one of those delivered by the apostles. Besides that I have above by several good arguments evinced, that only the [four] above mentioned Gospels are true and just, and to be received. This passage leaves us no room to doubt concerning the design and scope of this Gospel, being calculated to serve the purposes of the Valentinian scheme. The author of the sect, Valentinus, was at Rome under Hyginus, about the year of Christ 142, (according to the Chronicon of Eusebius,) but according to the opinion of some modern critics, near twenty years sooner; which indeed seems to me undeniably demonstrated by several good arguments by our learned bishop Pearson". He was one of the principal authors of the Gnostics; and of his sentiments we have a very particular account given q So I translate the word blasphemia, because it at least implies some injus tice done to the apostles. r Vindic. Epist. Ignat. par. 2. c. 7. us by Irenæuss, Clemens Alexandrinust, Tertullian", Origen3, Epiphaniusy, and several others, which I shall not here largely enumerate, but only give the reader the following specimen. Having been educated in the Platonic philosophy at Alexandria, he formed his notions of Christianity agreeable thereto. He imagined certain gods, which he called ones, to the number of thirty, whose names and pedigree (conformable to the fabulous genealogies of Hesiod) he pretended to assign. Fifteen of them he would have to be male, and fifteen female. Epiphanius has preserved their names: they are such as these; Ampsiu, Auraan, Bucua, Thartua, Ubucua, Thardeadie, &c. That Christ brought a body with him from heaven, and passed through the Virgin as water through a pipe. He asserted the lawfulness of all sorts of lusts to his disciples, allowing them to force other men's wives, &c. denied the resurrection, contended for the transmigration of souls, &c. Such were very probably the contents of this Gospel, so pompously entitled, The Gospel of Truth. To be rejected therefore by Prop. IV. V. VI. VIII. and IX. No. LXIX. The Gospel of Valentinus. Valentinus also has a Gospel of This book, entitled The Gospel of Valentinus, has been supposed by some learned men to have been no other than the Gospel of Truth, made use of and forged by the Valentinians, of which I treated in the last section. This is supposed by Dr. Grabea, and after him by Mr. Fabritiusb, because, as they imagine, Valentinus himself did not write any Gospel. This they gather from a passage of Tertullian, which to me seems to imply no such thing. His words are: Alius manu scripturas, alius sensu expositiones intervertit. Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio quam Marcion manus intulit veritati. Marcion enim exerte et palam machæra non stylo usus est; quoniam ad materiam suam cædem scripturarum confecit. Valentinus autem pepercit; quoniam non ad materiam scripturas, sed ad scripturas materiam excogitavit. i. e. "Some heretics corrupt "the scripture with their hands, (viz. by adding and taking "out;) others do it by perverse interpretations. For though "Valentinus seems to make use of all the scriptures, he no "less artfully than Marcion made his attacks upon the truth. "For Marcion corrupted not only small portions of scripture, "but made almost a total destruction, designing thereby to "make the scriptures accommodate to his principles: but Va"lentinus spared them, because his design was not to accom❝modate the scriptures to his principles, but his principles to "the scriptures." In this passage it is plain that Tertullian says no more, than that Valentinus did not corrupt the sacred volume as Marcion did, by taking out those things which were disagreeable to his opinions; he says not (as these learned men imagine) that Valentinus made no new Gospel; nor is the supposition of his having made one in the least inconsistent with the design of this passage; which shews the weakness of Dr. Grabe's argument, that the latter part of this book under the name of Tertullian is not his, because the author says, Valentinus had a Gospel, and so contradicts this former part of it, where he says he had not one; Tertullian saying no such thing. But if there really were any contradiction in these two places of Tertullian, I should rather think the mistake was in the former, where he says, Valentinus did not corrupt the scriptures, than in the latter, where he says, Valentinus had a Gospel of his own; because I observe, that both Irenæusd and Origene lay the former crime, viz. of corrupting the scriptures, to the charge of that heretic, though the latter, much more plainly than the former; for when Celsus objects that some Christians had changed the first scriptures three or four times, or more, &c. Origen answers, that this was not done by any persons except the disciples of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Lucianus. I conclude therefore, that Valentinus had a Gospel of his own, and that this was different from that called The Gosd Adv. Hæres. 1. 1. c. 1. • Contr. Cels. 1. 2. p. 77. |