Page images
PDF
EPUB

SECTION XIII.

Observations on some of the Contents of these two Gospels.

THE perpetual virginity of Mary, mentioned in both these gospels, and pretended to be confirmed by the testimony of the midwife, was a favourite opinion among the ancient

Christians.

If we will pay any attention to what is said in the letter of Pope Innocent the first, Leucius was the author of this gospel, as well as of that of the Nativity; for he informs us that the writings under the names of Matthew and of James the less, meaning thereby the gospel of the Nativity, and the Protevangelion, were forged by Leucius. This last also was a work of the second century; for it is referred to by Origen as before observed. It is called the book of

James because, both at the beginning and end, James is said to be the author.

The story of the midwife was undoubtedly invented to make us believe that Christ was not really a man, but only one in appearance. This was a story current in the second century, as appears from Clemens Alexandrinus. As perpetual virginity is also strongly inculcated in this apocryphal piece, it accords entirely with the sentiments of Leucius, and very probably he was the author.

SECTION XIV.

Leucius is thought to have interpolated the Gospel of the Infancy.

[ocr errors]

f

THE gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour is supposed by Mr. La Croze to have been forged by some Nestorians; but it is more likely to have been the work of the Gnostics, or rather of that sect of them called Marcosians. Irenæus refers to this gospel, and says it was received by them, and indeed owed its existence to their forgeries. Epiphanius has quoted this passage from Irenæus, and therefore gives his testimony to the same. This gospel is joined with that of the Nativity of Mary, and ranked among apocryphal books, by the author of the letter from Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerom. Dr. Mill thinks that the gospel of the Infancy was generally joined to the gospel of the Nativity of Mary. The passage just quoted from the epistle of Chromatius, as far as that is to be depended on, certainly confirms it: as doth the answer attributed to Jerom, who considered it part of the task assigned him to translate the account of the Infancy of our Saviour. The Doctor also believes, that though it was not originally a composition of Leucius, yet it was altered and interpolated by him, receiving from thence the addition of several idle stories. Mr. Jones is of opinion that it was first forged by

k

* Cætera autem, quæ sub nomine Matthæi, sive Jacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis, quæ a quodam Leucio scripta sunt-non solum repudianda, verum noveris esse damnanda. Innocent. Ep. 3. ad Exuper. c. 7. Ap. Concil. Labb. T. 2. P. 6. 125.

b Vide p. 633. note a of this chapter.

• Και εξήλθεν ή μαια απο το σπηλαις, και απήντησεν αυτή Σαλώμη, και είπεν αυτῇ ή μαία, Σαλώμη, Σαλώμη, καινον σοι θεαμα εξηγησομαι παρθενος εγεννησεν, ὁ 8 χωρεῖ ἡ φύσις. είπε δε Σαλώμη. Ζη κυριος ὁ Θεός με, ότι εαν μη κατανοήσω την φυσιν αυτής, 8 μη πιςεύσω, ὅτι ἡ παρθενος εγέννησε. Ήλθε δε Σαλώμη, και ειπε ή Μαια, Μαρια, σχηματίσον σεαυτην, 8 γαρ μικρός αγών περίκειται περί σε. και εσημειωσατο Σαλώμη, και

Ergaren i xere aurns. Protevangelion. c. 19, 20.

Αλλά, ως εοικεν τοις πολλοις, και μεχρι νυν δοκει ἡ Μαριαμ λεχω ειναι δια την το παιδια γεννησιν, εκ εσα λεχω. και γαρ μετά το τέκειν αυτήν, μαιωθείσαν φασι τινες παρθένον εύρε Syval. Strom. L. 7. p. 756. B. C.

e Beaus. His. de Man. T. 1. L. 2. c. 3. No. 6. p. 368. Jones's Can. N. T. V. 2. p. 208, and 283.

f

Προς δε το τοις αμύθητον πληθος αποκρυφων και νόθων γραφων, ὡς αυτοι επλάσαν, προσεισφέρεσιν ως το Κύριο, τα δια τε διδασκαλε αυτω φήσαντος, καθώς έθος εσιν, είπε αλφα, αποκρινασθαι το αλφά. παλιν τε το βητα το διδασ καλο κελευσαντος ειπειν αποκρινασθαι τον Κυρίον, συ μοι προς τερον είπε τι εσιν το άλφα, και τότε σοι εξω. κ. τ. λ. Adv. Hær. L. 1. c. 17. Gr.

Ad. Hær. 34. No. 18. p. 253. C. D.

hOrtum Mariæ reginæ virginis simul et nativitatem atque infantiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in Apocryphis invenimus libris. Apud Hieron. Op. part 2. Tra. 2. Ep. 23. i Prol. in N. T. p. 37. c. 1.

Qui ad Servatoris nostri infantiam sanctam per nostram potuerint obedientiam pervenire. Hieron. Op. pt. 2. TI. 2. Ep. 24.

Jones's Canon, Vol. 2. p. 316, 321.

the Gnostics, in the beginning of the second century; that it was freque. the Nazarene gospel, sidered as a second part of the gospel of Mary, or of the Protevangelion; that ant one or other concerned in altering, and interpolating it, that he was considered by some as its aure and by are certain things in it which are undoubtedly of later invention; such is the prodigious resor paid to the Virgin Mary, and the attention to the preservation of relicks. These were probably added by some Asiatic Christians of later times, whom La Croze supposes to have been the first authors of this book.

[ocr errors]

SECTION XV.

He was the Forger of the Gospel of Nicodemus.

b

THE gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate, as it is otherwise called, was also a forgery of our Leucius. There were probably some accounts transmitted by Pilate to Tiberius, concerning the transactions relative to Jesus Christ; because it was always customary for the Roman governors to send annually from their provinces a relation of the most material transactions to the senate or emperor; especially if any thing new or extraordinary happened. This Eusebius expressly tells us was the case in the present instance. Justin Martyr, the first and most ancient apologist for the truth of the Christian religion, appeals to these accounts in his address to the emperor Marcus Antoninus. But whether such accounts were really transmitted by Pilate or not, it is evident a report of this kind was current early in the second century.

f

с

d

From hence the hint was taken; and to this the present forgery owes its origin. A great part of this piece is taken up in giving an account of things seen in the other world by Charinus and Lenthius, and which they are said to have written down. Now, as Mr. Jones observes, this is no other than Leucius Charinus. They are said indeed to be the names of the two sons of Simeon; but every one knows they are not Hebrew, but Greek or Roman names. Our Leucius seems therefore to have been the first framer of a book of this kind; but there are most certainly in the present copies interpolations or additions to what he originally composed; such as the signing themselves with the sign of the cross before they began to relate the things they had seen the descent of Jesus into hell to fetch the patriarchs thence: his address to all his saints, commanding them to live by the wood of his cross; and his signing them with the sign of the cross before they were led into Paradise, and many other things of the like sort; all of which strongly savour of the superstition of later ages. This will account for its being said the vision was written down by Lenthius and Charinus. The forger who lived in after times. probably took this part from a piece of that author; adding to it what appeared proper to accommodate it to his own view of things; so that a great part of it may be justly attributed to our Lencius.

From the form of expression in the beginning of the 27th chapter Charinus and Lenthius seem to have been but one person though afterwards, to give the air of a miraculous authenticity to their vision, they are multiplied into two distinct persons, each of which wrote an account of the vision on different papers, one of which was given into the hands of Annas, Caiaphas, and Gamaliel; the other into the hands of Nicodemus and Joseph; and, upon comparing

[blocks in formation]

be the same verbatim et literatim. But I forbear to enlarge on some Contained in it: since the whole may be seen in Jones, as before referred to; and Beausobre have made some good observations on its contents.

[ocr errors]

SECTION XVI.

Two other Gospels ascribed to Leucius.

THERE are two other gospels mentioned by Beausobre,' as attributed to Leucius. One of which Grabe, in his notes on Irenæus,' says is preserved in MS. at Oxford. This Beausobre thinks is no other than the gospel of the Infancy already spoken of. Grabe agrees with him: for the passage he quotes from thence proves it plain enough, though it varies a little from the other copy published by Sike.

d

The other mentioned by Beausobre is the gospel of Peter, which Grabe also assures us is a forgery of Leucius. There was a spurious book under this title, which was mentioned and confuted by Serapion, as hath been already observed. It is also mentioned by Origen in his Commentary on Matthew. Dr. Mill is of the same opinion, that Leucius was the author of it. It appears indeed very probable from Serapion's words, who says that he borrowed it from some of the followers of Marcian (Marcion,) whom he calls Docetæ, and that they used it. This agrees exactly to the followers of Leucius, who was himself a follower of Marcion, and one of the chief of the Docetæ, and who it is very likely forged this piece under the name of

Peter.

Pope Innocent' in his decree concerning the canonical books says that those writings which go under the names of Peter and John, were composed by Leucius, and were apocryphal. These are all the gospels which I can find ascribed to Leucius, either as the author or interpolater.

SECTION XVII.

Of the Traditions of Matthias. It is rather uncertain what they were.

m

THE traditions of Matthias are supposed by Grabe and Mill' to be the same with the gospel of Matthias; and the latter thinks Leucius interpolated these, though he did not forge them. But I cannot agree with them in this point; for I think the decree of Pope Innocent to which Dr. Mill refers, means the gospel of the Nativity of Mary, by the writings under the name of

Jones, ubi sup. p. 402, 430. Beaus. His. de Manich. queviv auтe (Maçxiave) is Doxytas xaλvuev. Eus. Ec. H. Vol. i. p. 370, 375. L. 6. c. 12. p. 213, 4. D. A.

His. Man. Vol. i. p. 375. n. 3.

Nec non, licet paulo diversum in pseudo-evangelio Leucii, quod MS. hic Oxonii extat in Bibliothecâ C. C. C. ubi capite quomodo Jesus docendus erat literas, hæc leguntur. Et cœpit magister impiose (1. imperiose) eum docere dicendo: Die Alpha. Jesus vero dixit ei: Tu mihi dic prius, quid sit Beta, et Ego dicam tibi quid sit Alpha; et ob hæc Magister iratus percussit Jesum, et postquam percussit eum, mortuus est. Ir. L. 1. c. 17. n. 4. p. 86.

e

d Vide p. 629. note of this chapter: or Spic. Pat. T. 1. P. 38.

• Vol. ii. p. 414, 415.

a

Vide p. 633, note of this chapter.

Eidem porro adscripta sunt ab Innocentio quæ sub Petri nomine exiere. Certe in Evangelio κατα Πετρον, notatus est a Serapione, qui de Evangelio isto librum edidit, error Aoxyτwv,

cui addictum fuisse Leucium testatur Photius. Prol. p. 37.

h

* Εδυνήθημεν γαρ παρ' αλλων των ασκησαντων αυτό τότο το ευαγγέλιον (Πετρ) τετέςι παρα των διαδόχων των καταρ

i Vide p. 634. n. of this chap.

* Inter Evangelia malâ hæreticorum fide nominibus Apostolorum supposita, Matthiæ quoque adscriptum aliquod memorat Eusebius, Lib. 3. His. Eccles. cap. 25, quod idem esse puto cum waçadore (traditionibus) a Clemente Alexandrino memoratis; quia Evangelia scribebantur xaws wagedocav oi απ' αρχής αυτοπται και υπηρεται γενόμενοι το λόγο. Spic. Pat, sec. 2. T. 2. p. 117.

Mihi sane videntur rapadoras istæ ex ore Matthiæ in Judæâ prædicantis initio exceptæ fuisse a Christiano quopiam, et in libellum redacta; cui, ad majorem traditionibus istis auctoritatem conciliandam, Apostoli nomen præfixerit auctor, quisquis ille fuerit.-post editionem canonicorum Evangeliorum, in desuetudinem abiit. Prol. in N. T. sec. 53. p. 7.

Quin et wagadores, Matthiæ a primævorum Christianorum aliquo compositas, quod diximus, falsis absurdisque narratiunculis passim interspersit hic ipse impostor, ut ex Innocentio colligimus. Ibid. sec. 337. p.37.

d

Matthias. Origen and Eusebius probably referred to the same, or to the Nazarene gospel, when they speak of the gospel of Matthias. Ambrose also in all likelihood meant one or other of these. Jerom seems to intend by the gospel of Matthias the gospel of the Nativity; and by a spurious one ascribed to Matthew, if really different from the former, the Nazarene gospel, or that of the twelve apostles. It is mentioned by Gelasius according to some copies, but his words will determine nothing in this dispute.

b

[ocr errors]

These traditions of Matthias are mentioned under that name by Clemens Alexandrinus, and by him only. These Mr. Jones thinks were only oral traditions, and not therefore to be inserted among the forgeries of Leucius, though placed to his account by Dr. Mill, who says he at least interpolated them. Beausobre mentions traditions, as spoken of by Clemens Alexandrinus, in a small piece of his on the first epistle of John; which he imagines to be part of the false or forged Acts of which Leucius was the author, and of which I shall presently take notice. In some copies of the decrees of Gelasius mention is made of apocryphal Acts under the name of Matthias. These may be the forged Acts of Leucius, to which I proceed.

SECTION XVIII.

Leucius was the Author of the forged Acts or Journeyings of the Apostles.

THIS book was called the Acts or Journeyings of the Apostles; and, according to Mill, it contained the Acts of Peter, of John, of Andrew, and of Thomas. The Acts of Peter are mentioned by Eusebius,' by Athanasius," or whoever was the author of the Synopsis attributed to him, by Philaster," by Jerom, and by Epiphanius." The Acts of John are mentioned by all the foregoing writers except Jerom. They are also spoken of by Austin. The Acts of Andrew are mentioned by most of the foregoing writers, and by Gelasius in his decree. The Acts of Thomas are spoken of by several of the same persons. The Acts of Paul also are mentioned by Origen, and by Eusebius, and Philaster, in the places before referred to.

These all are expressly condemned by Photius," who had perused the books, and asserts, that they plainly spoke their author to be Leucius Charinus. Leucius is thrice said to be the author of them by Austin. Jerom in the epistle ascribed to him, in answer to Chromatius and Helio

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

• Quæ a diversis auctoribus edita, diversarum hæresium fuere principia; ut est illud juxta Matthiam. Præf. in Comm. in Matthæum.

In Evangelio juxta Hæbreos, quod Chaldaïco Syroque, sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazaræi, secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum. Id. Dial. ad Pelag. L. 3. Ep. 17. in init.

Grabe has inserted two fragments from Clemens. Vide Spic. Pat. sec. 2. T. 2. p. 117. Jones has added three more. Can. N. T. p. 317, 18. Beausobre has inserted another from Cotelerius, which is downright Docetism, and of which probably Leucius was the author. It is likely therefore to have been in the spurious acts or travels of John. Beaus. His. Man. T. 1. p. 383. n. 4.

h Jones's Can. N. T. p. 318, 23.

1 See note immediately preceding.

*Proleg. in N. T. p. 37.

[ocr errors]

Τογε μην των επικεκλημένων αυτό [Πετρο] Πράξεων

εδ' όλως εν καθολικοις ισμεν παραδιδομενα. Ecc. His. L. 3. c. 3. p. 74. A.

m

* Περίοδοι Πετρο-ταύτα εισινωπα και αποβλητα. In Synops. initio.

"Actus et beati Petri similiter Apostoli. Hær. 87.

In Catal. V. J. in Petro. c. 1.

Hær. 30. n. 15. p. 139. B.

Eus. H. E. L. 3. c. 25. Athan. in Synop. init. Phil. H. 87. Epi. H. 47. n. 1. p 406. A.

Con. Adver. Leg. et Pro. L. 1. c. 20. T. 6. p. 195. c. I. Opp. Venet.

Eus. H. E. L. 3. c. 25. Phil. Hær. 87. Epiph. Hær. 47. n. 1. 61. n. 1 63. n. 2.

De Prin. L. 1. c. 2. Comm. in Joan. T. 21. opp. rel T. 2. p. 298, Huet.

[ocr errors]

Ανεγνώσθη βιβλιον, αἱ λεγόμεναι των Αποστόλων Περιοδοι, εν αἷς περιείχοντο πράξεις Πετρο, Ιωάννε, Ανδρες, Θωμα, Παν λε. Γράφει δε αυτάς, ώς δηλοι το αυτο βιβλιον, Λεύκιος Χαρινος. Cod. 114.

* Attendite in actibus Leucii, quos sub nomine Apostolorum scribit. De Fid. Con. Man. c. 38. T. 6. opp. F. 186. c. 4. Ven.

In actibus conscriptis a Lenticio (1. Lencio) quos, tamquam actus Apostolorum, scribit. Act. cum Fel. Mani. L. 2. c. 6. T. 6 opp. F. 165. c. 1, 2. Ven.

In actibus etiam conscriptis a Leontio. (1. Leucio) De Fide. &c. c. 5. The same person and the same book is bere referred to; for exactly the same words are quoted from this spurious piece in the two last references.

y Sed factum est a-Leucio, qui etiam Apostolorum gesta conscripsit. Hieron. Op. T. 5. p. 445. Vel P. 2. Tr. 2. Ep. 24. fol. 38. Quidam namque Leucius, qui passiones Apostolorum conscripsit. Ibid. p. 25. F. 38, 39. Vel ep. 82. fol. 140.

dorus, and in the preface to the translation of the gospel of Mary's Nativity, says Leucius was the author of the spurious Acts of the Apostles. In the three quotations from Austin, it is observable, he is called by three different names. There can therefore be no reason to doubt but the same person and the same books are meant in the decree of Pope Innocent, though he goes by different names." As the author of the Acts of Peter and John he is called Leucius. But as the author of the Acts of Andrew he is increased into two persons, Xenocharides and Leonides, with the title philosophers adjoined. Mr. Jones' hath made it appear very probable that these two names were a corruption of Charinus and Leucius. For as names were writen contractedly in the ancient MSS. and as evos might be prefixed to denote his strange doctrines, being used by the fathers in that sense, an ignorant scribe might easily mistake, and change the words ¿evos and xg's, the contracted way of writing xapivos, into evoxapides. And Leonides is not further from Leucius than Leontius and Lenticius are from one another. Though the same person is undoubtedly meant in Austin by these two names.

SECTION XIX.

Some Account of the Contents of this Book.

THIS book of the Acts or Journeyings of the Apostles, contained a number of idle ridiculous stories; one of which is given in the margin from Austin, or whoever was the author of the book de Fide. One part of the story seems to be the interpolation of some one after Leucius, for he who was in some sort of the sect of the Encratites could never approve of the prostitution of a Christian servant to a heathen husband, instead of the wife. That he might insert some thing concerning the scruples of Maximilla, is consistent with his avowed principles, and therefore not improbable.

In the commentaries which go under the name of Clement of Alexandria, these Journeyings of the Apostles are probably referred to, and a passage cited from them, which says that John attempting to touch the body of Christ, perceived no hardness of the flesh, and met with no resistance from it, but thrust his hand into the inner part. This is perfectly agreeable to the opinion of Leucius, who was one of the chief of the Docetæ.

• Cætera, quæ sub nomine Petri et Johannis, quæ a quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andreæ, quæ a Nexocharide (1. Xenocharide) et Leonide philosophis, non solum repudianda, verum etiam noveris esse damnanda. Inno. Ap. ad. Exup. 3. c. 7. Ep. Con. Lab. T. 2. p. 1256. b Jones's Canon. Vol. 1. p. 309, 310. • See note*, p. 637.

Qualia sint quæ accipitis de Maximillâ, uxore Egetis, quæ cum nollet marito debitum reddere, cum Apostolus dixerit uxori vir debitum reddat, similiter et uxor viro, illa supposuerit marito suo ancillam suam, Eucliam nomine, exornans eam,

sicut ibi scriptum est, adversariis lenociniis et fucationibus, et eam nocte pro se vicariam supponens, ut ille nesciens cum eâ, tamquam cum uxore, concumberet. De Fide. T. 6. opp. F. 187. 1, 2.

Cum quo consentiunt fabulosæ illæ traditiones citata in commentariolis quæ sub Clementis Alexandrini nomine prodierunt ad 1 Joh. i. 1. dum in iis fertur Johannes, corpus externum Christi tangendo, manum suam in profunda misisse, duritiâ carnis nullo modo ei reluctante, sed locum manui præbente discipuli. Cotel. notæ in Ign. Ep. ad Smyrnæ, p. 37. n. 7. Ed. Cleric.*

* I cannot help observing here that this epistle to the Smyrneans proves that the word daimovia was used by the primitive Christians for the souls of dead men. For Christ says, after his resurrection, to Peter, and those who were with

him, handle me and see, for I am not daiμoviov arwμatov, a human soul raised from the dead without a body. Epis. ad Smyr. p. 34. 5. Ed. Cleri. See before sect. 14. p. 94–97.

« PreviousContinue »