Aliæ quippe apud nos non habent ad has res ullum pondus auctoritatis; ipsæ sunt enim quas recepit et tenet ecclesia toto orbe diffusa. Ac per hoc illud quod de Generatione Mariæ Faustus posuit, quod patrem habuerit ex tribu Levi quendam sacerdotem, nomine Joachim, quia canonicum non est, non me constringit.

scriptures have no weight at all with us in things of this sort, but those only which are received by the universal church.So that as to what Faustus urges from the book, entitled Of the Nativity (or Pedigree) of Mary, viz. that her father was a priest of the tribe of Levi, named Joachim, is of no manner of authority with me, because it is not canonical.

Pope Gelasius, in his Decree of Apocryphal Books, rejects it

thus:

Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris, et de Maria, et obstetrice Salvatoris, apocryphus.

The book of the Birth of our Saviour, and of Mary, and the Midwife of our Saviour, is apocry

phal.

Although we meet not here with the title of the Protevangelion, yet there can be no doubt it is the book which is here meant, because it has the title from the three most considerable heads of that Gospel.

Thus all the ancient writers, who have mentioned it, have agreed to condemn this history as spurious and fictitious. It is true indeed, some parts of it have been credited, (see above, Obs. VIII.) yet it does not appear they were the more credited, because contained in either of these volumes; and though particularly the story of Joseph's former wife and children was so universally received, this seems to have been owing to the universally prevailing opinion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which the ancients were exceedingly fond of, as founded upon what they thought a credible tradition. I will only add here, that I have observed one place in Jerome's Commentary on Matthew ", where he seems to have had reference to one of these books, and condemned it as apocryphal. "Some,” says he, 66° suppose the brethren of our Lord (spoken of in the Gospel) “to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife, following the idle "fancies of some apocryphal books, and feign her name to "have been Escha," &c. and another in his Epistle against

Helvidius *, in which he plainly seems to reflect upon the History of the Midwife, in the Protevangelion, as false, and reject the book as apocryphal. His words are, "Let us not "entertain such thoughts of the mother of our Saviour and "her pious husband. There was no midwife present at her "delivery, no hurry of women; the virgin herself put the "child in swaddling clothes, and was both mother and mid"wife." To prove this he cites those words of Luke, (c. ii. 7.) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn; then adds, Quæ sententia apocryphorum deliramenta convincit, dum Maria ipsa pannis involvit infantem; i. e. "which text confutes the idle "fancies of the apocryphal books, seeing Mary herself wrapped the infant in clothes." This to me seems a plain reference to, and reflection upon, the Protevangelion, in which we read, ch. 19, of the midwife Joseph brought to Mary.

66

ARG. III. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary and the Protevangelion of James are apocryphal, because neither of them appear to have been read in the Christian churches or assemblies. Prop. VI.

ARG. IV. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary and the Protevangelion of James are apocryphal, because they contain several things contrary to certain and known truths. Prop. VIII. Of this I have observed the following instances.

Falsehoods in the Gospel of the Birth of Mary.

Ch. 2. Isachar is said to be the name of the high priest who discoursed with Joachim; whereas it is certain, from the catalogue of high priests, which is easily to be made out of Josephus, there was no high priest about this time of this name, nor indeed at any other time. On the contrary, if this history should be supposed true, and the Virgin Mary taken from the temple when she was full fourteen, (see chap. 7.) and our Saviour born nine months after that, then we can easily discover who the high priest was at the time supposed; and that it was not Isachar, but Simon, the son of Boethus Alexandri

* Cap. iv.

nus, whose daughter Herod himself marriedy, and began his priesthood in the year of the world 3926, and continued therein nineteen years, i. e. till within four or five years of the time in which our Saviour was born.

Ch. 6. We read that Mary was brought at three years old to the temple, placed in the apartments, and according to custom continued there till marriageable age, viz. till she was fourteen years old. But this is evidently a fiction, or falsehood; for,

1. It is certain there were no such cells or apartments in the temple at Jerusalem, for the reception and entertainment of virgins. Baronius indeed dreamt of ninety cells erected by Solomon for this purpose; but how foolish and absurd his opinion is, the learned Casaubon has well shewna.

2. The scriptures, Josephus, and the rabbins, are perfectly silent concerning any such custom, as that of nuns in the temple at Jerusalem.

Falsehoods in the Protevangelion of James.

Instance I. Ruben is said to be high priest when Joachim offered his sacrifices, (c. 1. and 6;) whereas it is certain there never was any high priest of that name, and I have above proved another person was then high priest.

Inst. II. The same is to be said of the story of Mary's being brought to the temple, related in this book, (c. 7, 8.) which is said immediately above b concerning the cells in the temple.

Inst. III. The high priest, who consulted God about the disposal of Mary, is named Zacharias, (c. 8;) but it is certain there was no one of that name high priest at this time, nor indeed at any other time. See Josephus's account of the high priests.

Inst. IV. The Virgin is said, ch. 17. and 18. to have brought forth our Saviour in a cave and desert place; whereas it is certain, not only from the prophecy of Micah, (ch. v. 2.)

that Christ was to be born in the town of Bethlehem, but from the express testimony of Matthew, (c. ii. 1. &c.) Luke, (c. ii. 4. 6. &c.) and all the ancient writers, except Justin Martyr. Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. This is abundantly proved by the great Casaubon against Baronius, Exercit. 2. ad Ann. 1. n. 2. and though he be opposed in this matter by the Jesuit Lanssellius, in his tract against Casaubon's Exercitations, inserted among the last edition of Justin Martyr's works, (c. 12.) yet it is with the weakest arguments, and such as shew more malice than learning; which is indeed visible in the whole of that performance of the Jesuit.

Inst. V. It is evident by comparing c. 10. with c. 23. that the same Zacharias is spoken of in both places. In the latter place he is said to be the father of John the Baptist, and in the former to have lost the use of his speech; which is a relation concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, in the genuine Gospel of Luke. (ch. i. 20.) Now hence it is easy to collect a fresh argument of the falsehood of this Gospel; for (ch. 10.) Zacharias is said to be high priest, but it is certain the father of the Baptist was not high priest, but one of the common priests, and of the course of Abia, which was the eighth in order of those twenty-four courses of ordinary priests, which were to minister by turn, each his week, according to the institution of David. See 1 Chron. xxiv. 10. and Luke i. 5.

Nor will it be of any force to object, that I suppose in this argument the canonical authority of Luke, which I have not proved; for it can be no unfair way of reasoning to suppose it truer in this particular than the Protevangelion, because in that wherein they differ, the Protevangelion is contrary to Josephus, but St. Luke is not, viz. as to Zacharias being high priest. After all, I am sensible many of the ancients, which Baronius has produced, imagined that Zacharias the Baptist's father was an high priest; and Austin particularly attempts to prove it, "because there were several high priests at the same

c Tract. 49. in Joan. in fine. See Casaub. advers. Apparat. Annal. Baron. Exercit. I. No. 69. The learned Daillé has observed, that the author of the books under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (De Cœlest. Hierarc. c. 4. §. 4.) does also make Zacharias,

the father of the Baptist, to have been high priest; but as he shews this to be false, so he hence forms an argument to prove the spuriousness of those pretended works of Dionysius, viz. because the true Dionysius could not be mistaken in a fact of this sort, and

"time, and it was lawful for none but a high priest to offer "incense." But herein every one knows he is mistaken, as indeed it is common for the fathers to be mistaken in Jewish antiquities.

Inst. VI. The story of the death of Zacharias, ch. 23. with its circumstances, is false, and apparent forgery. This may easily be gathered from several of the preceding observations; but I shall endeavour now to evidence it by this argument, that it is a story jumbled together, and patched up partly out of the history of Zacharias, (2 Chron. xxiv. 20.) and partly out of what we read concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, Luke i. and this will appear by the following comparison.

The story of the murder of Zacharias in Chronicles is, That he was slain in the court of the house of the Lord, and prayed the Lord to revenge his blood; the Jewish exposition of which is, that the blood remained indelible upon the stones, till it was actually revenged by Nebuzaradan, see above, Obs. X.

The story of the murder of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, in the Protevangelion is, That he was murdered in the entrance or court of the temple; that immediately upon his death a voice was heard, saying, Zacharias is slain, and his blood shall not be wiped away till a revenger come; that accordingly his blood petrified, and became hard as stone, ch. 24.

This is evidently the same story; to which there are some circumstances added out of the first chapter of Luke, relating to the true Zacharias, father of the Baptist; for whereas we there read, ver. 20, 21, 22. that Zacharias was dumb, that the people waited for him, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple in the Protevangelion (c. 10.) we read, Zacharias lost the use of his speech, and (ch. 24.) that the priest continued for a long time waiting for him to come out of the temple, &c. Nothing then upon the whole can be more evident, than that the author of this book has jumbled together in this history what is said of two persons called Zacharias, and ap

conjectures also, that these books under his name were forgeries of the fourth or fifth century; because, says he, then arose and was spread the opin

ion of Zacharias, the Baptist's father, being high priest. Daill. de Lib. Supposit. Dionys. Areop. lib. 1. c. 28. p. 164, 165.