Page images
PDF
EPUB

1. Those books were not much used by the primitive Christians.

C

d

с

a

There are no quotations of any of them in the apostolical fathers; by whom I mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; whose writings reach from about the year of our Lord 70, to the year 108. I say this confidently, because I think it has been proved. Irenæus quotes not any of these books: he mentions some of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian: he has mentioned a book, called Acts of Paul • and Thecla,' but it is only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books; but never as of authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike, as may be seen at large in their chapters. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed; but how? Not by way of approbation; but to shew, that they were of little or no value, and that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians. Athanasius mentions not any of them by name; he only passeth a severe censure upon them in general: nor do these books ever come in the way of Jerom but he shews signs of his displeasure. I may not allow myself to go any lower; nor can it be expected.

f

h

[ocr errors]

·

k

I only farther add here, that these books were always obscure, and little known. That the gospel according to the Egyptians was very obscure, appears from Clement's manner of quoting it: and we saw manifest proof of the obscurity of the gospel of Peter in Serapion's censure of. it. Eusebius, having given an account of the two epistles of St. Peter, proceeds, But the book • entitled his Acts, and that called the Gospel according to him, and that styled his Preaching, ⚫ and the Revelation under his name, we know that they have not been delivered down to us in ⚫ the number of catholic writings, forasmuch as no ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our time, has made use of testimonies out of them.' In another place he says, He had given a catalogue of such books of scripture, as according to the ecclesiastical tradition are true, genuine, and universally acknowledged, and of others that are controverted, and yet appear to • have been known to many; that by this means we may know these from such as have been published by heretics under the names of apostles, as containing the gospels of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others; and the Acts of Andrew and John, and other apostles: ⚫ which books none of the ecclesiastical writers in the succession of the apostles have vouchsafed • to mention.' Our author's expressions are very strong: but we may hence conclude, that little notice had been taken of these books by ancient writers.

[ocr errors]

2. These books do not overthrow the evangelical history, but confirm it.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

As formerly said, These apocryphal books confirm the history of the genuine and authentic scriptures of the New Testament...They are written in the names of such, as our authentic • scriptures say, were apostles or companions of apostles. They all suppose the dignity of our • Lord's person, and a power of working miracles, together with a high degree of authority, to have been conveyed by him to his apostles.'

Every one who observes that these books are called Gospels, or Preachings of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, or Acts of Paul, Andrew, John, and other apostles, must suppose that the composers did not intend to disparage them, whatever they might do in the event. No, they had great respect for them, and knew that other Christians had the like: therefore by recording traditions, which they pretended to have received, concerning the discourses and miracles of Christ and his apostles, they endeavoured to recommend some particular opinions, which they had embraced. The presbyter, who was convicted of having composed the Acts of Paul and Thecla, as we are assured by Tertullian, alleged, that he had done it out of love to Paul. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, about the year 200, in his censure of the gospel of Peter, says: Having read it over, we have found, that the main part of the book is agreeable to the right doctrine of our Saviour. But there are some other things, which we have noted.' In the Recognitions, which probably are the same as the Acts, Travels, Circuits of Peter, are references to the gospels, the Acts, and some of the epistles of the New Testament; and the truth of the

[ocr errors]

n

m

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

d

h

b

a

с

principal facts of it is supposed; as may be seen in our extracts out of that work. It is now generally supposed, upon the ground of some things said by Irenæus and the author of the additions to Tertullian's book of Prescriptions, that the Valentinians had a book called the Gospel of Truth,' or the Gospel of Valentius:' nevertheless the Valentinians received all the books of the New Testament, as we are assured both by Tertullian and Irenæus. Mill thinks, that Valentinus was singular in this: I rather think it was the common method. Jerom mentions a book entitled the Gospel of Apelles:' and yet it cannot be questioned, that Apelles received the scriptures of the New Testament; though, perhaps, after the manner of his master Marcion, with rasures and mutilations. The Anabaticon, or Revelation of Paul, was founded upon what the apostle says, 2 Cor. xii. 1, 2, as Epiphanius supposeth. I make no question but that the composers of these writings received the books of the New Testament, and allowed the truth of the things contained in them, though they understood them differently from other Christians. Some of the authors of these works might reject the scriptures of the Old Testament, but it is likely, that most of them received the same books of the New Testament which were received by the catholic Christians of their times, and allowed them a like authority. Accordingly the Manichees and Priscillianists, who made use of apocryphal books, received all the books of the New Testament which other Christians did; at least this is allowed of the Priscillianists. They therefore, who out of a regard to these books, or the great number of them, attempt to set aside, or diminish the authority of the books of the New Testament, now commonly received, are not countenanced by those who in ancient times made the most of them, and shewed them the greatest respect, and go beyond the intention even of the authors themselves.

3. Few or none of these books were composed before the beginning of the second century. There should be an exception made for the gospel according to the Hebrews; which probably, was either St. Matthew's gospel, in his original Hebrew, with some additions of no bad tendency; or, as I rather think, a Hebrew translation of St. Matthew's Greek original, with the additions before mentioned: undoubtedly that gospel appeared in the first century.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla likewise must have been composed before the end of the first century, or in the very beginning of the second, if the presbyter who composed them was censured for so doing by St. John, as Jerom says: but that particular is not mentioned by Tertullian.

St. Luke speaks of many,' who before him had undertaken' to write histories of our Saviour; but those histories being slight and defective, presently disappeared, as I imagine, after the publication of St. Luke's gospel, and those of the other two evangelists, who wrote about the same time with him. I do not think that those histories or narrations are quoted by any remaining author.

k

The gospel according to the Egyptians is first quoted by Clement of Alexandria, near the end of the second century. The same gospel is supposed to be quoted, or referred to, in the1 fragment of an epistle ascribed to Clement of Rome; but I think it manifestly not his, and not written before the third century.

It is not needful for me to enlarge any farther now; but if there were occasion I suppose it might be shown to be probable, that none of the other apocryphal books, of which we are now speaking, were composed until after the beginning of the second century.

m

As they were not composed before that time, they might well refer to the commonly received books of the New Testament, as most of them certainly do; and particularly the Acts of Paul and Thecla, though so early a work, as was formerly shewn: so that these writings, which some have supposed to weaken the credit of our books of the New Testament, do really bear testimony to them.

I might add here (what the readers of this work may easily recollect) that Christian writings

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

of all sorts, about this time, the second century, pay tribute to the received books of the New Testament, and bear witness, that they were the only authentic records of Jesus Christ and his doctrine.

The Sibylline oracles (whatever were the particular views of the composer) owe all their pretended prophecies concerning our Saviour's nativity, baptism, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection and ascension, to our evangelists.

b

The unknown author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs bears a large testimony to the facts, principles and books of the New Testament; and, so far as was consistent with his assumed character, he declares the canonical authority of the Acts of the apostles and St. Paul's epistles.

4. All these books are not properly spurious, though they are fitly called apocryphal.

A 'spurious' work is that which is ascribed to any man as author who did not compose it. In this sense the Recognitions are spurious, because they are ascribed to Clement of Rome, who did not write them. The like may be said of many cther books; but I do not think that the gospels and Acts abovementioned are spurious in this sense. One of our universally acknowledged books of the New Testament is entitled, The Acts of the apostles;' but none thereby understand, that they were composed by the apostles. We are assured that they were written

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

by the evangelist Luke; but supposing that no name were affixed to that book, we should not ascribe it to the apostles as authors. Though there were no account in antiquity of the author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, we should not have imagined that they were written either by St. Paul or Thecla. It is not easy to think that the book, called the Traditions of Matthias (the same as his gospel) was composed by Matthias himself, or pretended to be so; nor were the Acts of Peter, Andrew, and other apostles, ascribed to them as authors. < Acts,' in ancient writers, is sometimes equivalent to Travels,' or Circuits.' The Acts of Paul and Thecla are called their Travels by Jerom; and the Acts of Peter are sometimes called his Travels or Circuits: that book was so called from the subject matter of it, as containing an account of his travels, discourses, and miracles, in several places; and it would be absurd to suppose him to have written that account himself; nor is there any reason to think it was at first ascribed to him as author. The same, as I apprehend, ought to be supposed likewise of those books called Gospels and Preachings of Peter and Paul.

[ocr errors]

These books bear, in their titles, the names of apostles. We often say, that they are written in the names of apostles,' and we call them pseudepigraphal;' but it is said chiefly for the sake of brevity, and for avoiding long circumlocutions. For preventing mistakes, that way of speaking might sometimes be declined. In a sense, these books are pseudepigraphal: many things in them are imputed to the apostles, which they neither said nor did; the histories of them, related in those gospels and acts, are false, fictitious, romantic; but the works themselves were not composed by apostles; nor were they at first ascribed to them, as I apprehend.

[ocr errors]

But they are fitly called apocryphal;' for they have in their titles the names of apostles, and they make a specious pretence of delivering a true history of their doctrine, discourses, miracles, and travels; though that history is not true and authentic, and was not written by any apostle or apostolical man.

5. The publication of these apocryphal or pseudepigraphal books, may be accounted for; it was very much owing to the fame of Christ and his apostles.

The many narrations,' or short histories, referred to by St. Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, were owing probably to an honest zeal for Christ and his honour; and the composers supposed, that their histories would be acceptable to many, who had heard of Jesus, and believed in him: but being defective, they were soon laid aside; and the gospels of the four evangelists, when published, were universally received by the faithful, as the authentic histories of Jesus Christ.

The apocryphal gospels and acts published afterwards, were also owing to the fame of Christ and his apostles, and the great success of their ministry. By the end of the first, or the beginning of the second century, there were in the church many learned men converts from the several sects of philosophy, especially in the eastern part of the empire. These read the scriptures of the New Testament, but they did not rightly interpret them: bringing with them their philosophical principles, and having been used to schemes of philosophy, they formed to themselves a scheme Vol. i. P. 452-454, Vid. Grabe Spicileg. T. ii. p. 117, 118. d Vol. i. p. 435.

b Ib. p. 465.

• Ib. p. 467.

of religion, different from that commonly received among Christians. These peculiar opinions they endeavoured to support by philosophical reasonings; and in order to recommend them, they also laid hold of such traditions concerning Christ and his apostles, though groundless, as were at all favourable to them. These, with fictitious discourses and histories of their own invention, they, or some of their admirers, inserted into a volume; which they published with the title of the Gospel, Acts, or Travels, of some Apostle. To this it is owing, that in so many of this sort of books may be observed the doctrine of two principles, the evil nature of matter, a wrong notion concerning the person of Christ as man in appearance only, a disadvantageous opinion of marriage, and the like.

[ocr errors]

6. The case of the apostles of Christ is not singular.

g

h

[ocr errors]

Many men of distinguished characters have had discourses made for them, which themselves knew nothing of; and actions imputed to them, which they never performed; and eminent writers have often had works ascribed to them, of which they were not the authors. Nevertheless, very few impostures of this kind have prevailed in the world, all men being unwilling to be deceived, and many being upon their guard, and readily exerting themselves to detect and expose such things. Says Augustine, in his argument with the Manichees, No writings ever had a better testimony afforded them, than those of the apostles and evangelists: nor does it weaken the credit and authority of books received by the church from the beginning, that some other 'writings have been without ground, and falsely, ascribed to the apostles; for the like has happened, for instance, to Hippocrates; but yet his genuine works have been distinguished 'from others, which have been published under his name.' Many other such instances might be alleged. Divers orations were falsely ascribed to Demosthenes, and Lysias, as is observed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The same critic and historian has catalogues of the genuine and spurious orations of Dinarchus. Many things' were published in the name of Plautus which were not his. Some works were ascribed to Virgil, and Horace, which were not theirs. The Greek and Roman critics distinguished the genuine and spurious works of those famous writers. The primitive Christians acted in the like manner: they did not presently receive every thing proposed to them; they admitted nothing which was not well recommended. Says Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in his examination of the gospel of Peter, We receive Peter, and the other apostles, as Christ; but as skilful men we reject those writings which are falsely ascribed to them.' We have seen many proofs of the caution and circumspection of Christians in former times. For a good while, the epistle to the Hebrews, some of the catholic epistles, and the Revelation, were doubted of by many, when other books of the New Testament were universally acknowledged. The titles of the numerous Gospels and Acts above-mentioned, and the remains of them, whether entire, or fragments only, are monuments of the care, skill, and good judgment of the primitive Christians, and of the presidents of the churches, and their other learned guides and conductors; and we have all the satisfaction which can be reasonably desired, that the books received by them were received upon good ground, and that others were as justly rejected.

If these observations are right (as I hope they are) they may be sufficient to shew, that the books now, and for a long time, called apocryphal,' or pseudepigraphal,' afford no valid argument against either the genuineness or the authority of the books of the New Testament, generally received, as written by apostles and evangelists.

See Vol. ii. p. 230, 231. and likewise Vol. i. p. 415.
Vol. ii. p. 226.

• Dionys. de admirandâ vi dicendi in Dem. sect. 57. Tom.

ii. p. 320. et alibi. Ed. Huds.

De Lysia Judic. sect. 12. p. 135. Ibid.

• De Dinarch. Jud. sect. 9, 10, 11. T. ii. p. 184.. 186. Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. 1. 3. cap. 3.

Quamvis igitur multa suderiypapa, id est, falså inscriptione, sub alieno nomine sint prolata, ut Thyestes tragoedia

hujus poëtæ, quam Varius edidit pro suâ, et alia hujuscemodi ; tamen Bucolica Virgilii esse minime dubitandum est. Donat. in Vitå Virgil.

Venerunt in manus et Elegi sub titulo ejus, et Epistola prosâ oratione, quasi commendans se Mæcenati. Sed utraque falsa puto. Nam elegi vulgares, Epistola etiam obscura. Quo vitio minime tenebatur. Sueton. in Vità Horat.

1 Vol i. p. 414.

Α

SUPPLEMENT

TO THE

SECOND PART

OF

THE CREDIBILITY

OF THE

GOSPEL HISTORY.

« PreviousContinue »