Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a

SECTION V.

A Belief in another kind of Resurrection ascribed to him by Tertullian.

TERTULLIAN indeed here ascribes to him the belief of a different kind of resurrection, for he says, it was his opinion that a kind of a third thing, which was neither soul nor body, was to be raised, and which consequently was not man, but might be a bear.' This Dr. Mill understands as pointing out his belief in the Pythagorean transmigration of souls from one body to another, and even in the bodies of beasts; and therefore that men were endowed with the souls of other men, and that even brutes had sometimes those souls which had before resided in a human body. Epiphanius, in his refutation of Marcion on the article of eating flesh, says that the traduction and passage of souls from one body to another, was a common opinion among most of the heretics, and that Marcion and his followers, among whom our Lucian must be ranked, esteemed the souls of men and of brutes equally precious.'

[ocr errors]

SECTION VI.

Some general Account of his Writings.

f

e

THIRDLY, I proceed to give some account of his writings. Grabe, who applied himself very particularly to these matters, hath assured us, that he was the author of many forgeries under the names of the holy apostles; and that he himself had found several fragments of his writings in MS. which were never yet published, but which he intended to give to the world in their proper places. Had he lived to have completed his design, perhaps many pieces would have clearly appeared to have been the forgeries of this person, about which there are now some remaining doubts. However he hath been long and justly regarded as the grand framer of apocryphal books: in which, as Photius the patriarch of Constantinople says, His style is altogether unequal and various. The construction and words 'which he makes use of, though they are sometimes far from being mean, yet they are however for the most part very low and vulgar; and there are in his writings no traces of an even and flowing phraseology; or of a native grace, similar to that which we find in the style of

[ocr errors]

.

a Omnes enim fere hæretici eam, (animæ salutemi) quoquo modo volunt, tamen non negant. Viderit unus aliquis Lucanus, nec huic quidem substantiæ parcens, quam secundum Aristotelem dissolvens, aliud quid pro eâ subjicit, quasi sit tertium quiddam resurrecturum, neque anima neque caro, id est non homo, sed ursus forsitan, quà Lucanus. De Carne Christ. c. 2. p. 315.

Tum vero quod prodigiosam nescio quam resurrectionem commentus sit, quâ neque anima hominum resuscitanda foret, neque corpus, sed tertium quiddam, scilicet (ex Pythagoricâ, quam probavit, hypothesi de transmigratione animarum de corporibus in corpora hominum, nec non pecudum) homines alienis animabus præditi, ideoque nec iidem qui ante fuerant, ut et pecudes, hominum animis donatæ. Sic enim Tertulliani verba interpretor ex Photio. Milli Prole. 334. p. 37. Ox.

• Διδασκει γαρ έτος εμψύχων μη μεταλαμβάνειν, φάσκων ενοχες είναι τη κρίσει τις των κρεων μεταληπτορας, ως αν ψυχας εσθίοντας 8 γαρ τα κρεα ή ψυχη, αλλα εν τοις κρέασιν ἡ ψυχη. και ετε ψυχήν φαμεν είναι την εν τοις ζώοις, ὡς την των ανθρώπων τιμιαν –νομίζει δε ὁ ελεεινος έτος άμα τοις έτω φρονεσιν. κ. τ. λ. τετο γαρ παρα πολλαις των πεπ λανημένων αίρεσεων ματην ὑπολαμβανεται, και γαρ, και Ουαλεντίνος, και Κολοβάρσος, Γνωσίκοιτε παντες, και Μανιχαίοι,

και μεταγγισμός είναι ψυχων φασκέσι, και μετενσωματώσεις Tsxs Epi. adv. Hær. 42. p. 330. B. C.

d See some observations on this point, in the foregoing chapter of Marcion, sec. 17. p. 600.

Evangelium ejus (Petri) fuisse reor figmentum Leucii hæretici seculo secundo plura ejusmodi cudentis, eaque nominibus S. Apostolorum supponentis. Spi. Pat. T. 1. p. 58. f Quos una cum aliorum Apostolorum rebus gestis composuit et publicavit Leucius, sive Lucius, Marcionis successor, seculi II. quosque summatim perstrinxit Photius Cod. 114. Ego vero suo loco fragmenta eorum hactenus inedita orbi erudito offeram. Ibid. p. 77, 8. Jain fateor quidem me in nullis excusis historiæ ecclesiasticæ monumentis istud S. Thoma (scilicet Judæ) cognomen reperire potuisse, reperisse tamen in MSS. actis Græcis Thomæ in Bibliothecâ Bodleianâ Cod. 180. Barocc. fol. 42. p. 2. Quæ Leucium, seculi II; hæreticum, auctorem habere videntur. Ibid. 324.

8 Η δε φράσις εις το παντελες ανωμάλως τε και παρηλλαγ μενη. Και συντάξεσι γαρ και λέξεσι κεχρηται ενίοτε μεν εκ ημελημέναις, κατα δε το πλείσον αγοραίοις και πεπατημέναις. Και εδεν της ἱμαλης και αυτοσχεδια φράσεως, και της εκείθεν εμφύτε χάριτος, καθ ̓ ἦν ὁ ευαγγελικός τε και αποσολικός διαμεμορφωται λόγος, εδ' ίχνος εμφαίνων. Phot. Cod. 114.

2

the evangelists and apostles.' Pope Gelasius hath condemned him and his works in the strongest terms; declaring, that all those books which go under the name of the travels of Andrew and the other apostles, were forged by Lenticius, as he is there called, or Leucius; and that all his writings are apocryphal; and he himself a disciple of the devil. It is however necessary to be observed, that all the contradictions, all the silly stories, all the vulgarisms and inaccuracies which are now in these books, are not to be imputed entirely to Leucius; since it is evident from some of the pieces themselves that they have been interpolated, as Beausobre hath clearly made appear, and that they have been interpolated by several hands, and some of them extremely ignorant.

I would also further remark that this heretic is called by many names; such as Lucanus, Lucius, Leicius, Leucius, Lentitius, Leontius, Lentius, Seleucus, Leucius Charinus, and even Nexocharides, and Leonides, which mean all one and the same person, as is fully shewn by Mr. Jones and Beausobre. Several of the differences in these names were undoubtedly owing to the carelessness of transcribers, and some to the ignorance of those who altered and falsified these forgeries.

This being premised, I proceed to mention in brief those forgeries which are attributed to Lucian, or Leucius, as he is more frequently called. They who would see a more minute examination of particulars, with the reasons at large on which this opinion is founded, may consult Beausobre and Jones.

SECTION VII.

Some Observations on Mr. Jones's Assertions that Leucius was a Manichee.

THIS latter writer has given us in the second volume of his Canon of the New Testament, several of the spurious pieces here referred to, viz. the gospel of the Nativity, the Protevangelion, the gospel of the Infancy, and the gospel of Nicodemus.

He is, I think, greatly mistaken in making Leucius a Manichee, and in assigning him so late an æra as the latter end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century. The only evidences which I can find for his being a Manichee, is the assertion of it in a supposititious letter found among Jerom's works, and because the opinions contained in his forgeries are agreeable to some of the Manichæan doctrines, and therefore these writings were received by the Manichees. But the oriental philosophy had infected Christians long before Manes arose; and this Leucius is very justly considered as a forerunner of him, and a source from which he and his followers derived some of their principal arguments. For he, as I have before observed, held an evil principle as well as a good one, and a just one. The Manichees therefore readily received his writings, which contained sentiments so favourable to their own. From hence it is probable the author of that epistle inserted among Jerom's works was induced to call him a Manichee. Neither Austin nor Pope Gelasius apply this name to him in those places referred to by Mr. Jones; they only say that the Manichees respected his writings. If he had been one of this sect, the place assigned him by Mr. Jones would have been right; but as he was contemporary with Marcion and his scholar, it is undoubtedly wrong. Grabe, a proper and an accurate judge in these matters, declares he was the successor of Marcion, and an heretic of the second century.

To proceed then to his forgeries.

* Libri omnes, sub nomine Andreæ, &c. quos fecit Lentitius, seu Leucius, filius Diaboli, apocryphi. Gelas. Decret. ap. Labb. Conc. T. 4. p. 1264.

b Hist. De Man, F. 1. p. 371, 2. Vide etiam. p. 354.
c Jones, Vol. 1. p. 305, 6, and 309, 10. Vol. 2. p. 419, 20.

g

[blocks in formation]

SECTION VIII.

Leucius was the Author of the History of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.

b

a

He is said to be the author of a spurious book entitled The History of the Virgin: or, The History of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. This is mentioned in a letter, which is generally thought to be supposititious, from Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerom. In the answer ascribed to Jerom it is said to be written by one Seleucus, (or Leucius, according to the MS.) and he is there called a Manichee. It is also said in these letters to have been written in Hebrew; and that there was a report current that the evangelist Matthew was the author of it, and that he prefixed it to the beginning of his own gospel. This is partly contradicted by the writer of the second letter, and by another letter in Jerom, which is a kind of preface to this book. In both these it is ascribed to that Leucius who wrote a spurious history of the Acts and Sufferings of the Apostles.

d

A gospel of this kind, which was in being in the second century, is referred to by Epiphanius and Austin. But our present copies are very much altered from the ancient ones. For in that which is now extant, there is not the least mention of the death of Zacharias, concerning the cause of which Epiphanius has produced a passage from the copy extant in his time, the purport of which is as follows: That Zacharias, while ministering in the temple saw a vision, and being willing to reveal what he saw to the people, was struck dumb. Afterwards, when he recovered his speech, he declared to the Jews, that he saw a man standing there in the form of an ass: upon which they slew him.

[ocr errors]

SECTION IX.

The Writer of it not a Jew.

THERE are Hebraisms in the phraseology which induced Mr. Jones to ascribe this piece to some Jew, or Hellenist. Though he himself allows afterwards that it might be composed by Leucius Charinus, or our Leucius, who borrowed from some former forgery, and that what we now have is different from his. For, in the fragment preserved by Austin, Mary is said to be of

• Ortum Mariæ Reginæ Virginis,in Apocryphis invenimus libris, in quibus multa contraria nostræ fidei considerantes scripta, recusanda credimus universa. Apud Hieron. Op. T. v. vel P. 2. Trac. 2. Ep. 23. fol. 38.

Sed factum est ut a Manichei discipulo, nomine Seleuco (Leucio MS.) Qui etiam Apostolorum gesta falso sermone conscripsit; hic Liber editus. Ibid. T. v. p. 445. vel P. 2. Tra. 2. Ep. 24. fol. 38. vel Tr. 6. Ep. 82. fol. 140.

:

Extiterunt viri Dei Armenius et Virituus, qui dicerent sanctitatem tuam beatissimi Matthæi Evangelistæ manuscrip tum Hebraïcum invenisse, in quo et Virginis Matris, et Salvatoris infantia esset scripta. Ib. Nec ipse sanctus Matthæus Apostolus et Evangelista voluit in aperto conscribi. Si enim hoc secretum non esset, Evangelio utique ipsius quod edidit, addidisset sed fecit hunc libellum Hebraicis litteris obsignatum, quem usque adeo edidit, ut ex manu ipsius liber scriptus Hebraïcis literis, a viris religiosissimis habeatur, qui etiam a suis prioribus per successus temporum susceperunt; hunc autem ipsum librum, nunquam alicui transferendum tradiderunt, textum ejus aliter, atque aliter narraverunt. Sed factum est ut a Manichæo, &c. Ibid. Proinde ut in Hebræo habetur, verbum ex verbo transferre curabo; si quidem sanctum Matthæum eumdem libellum liquet composuisse, et in capite Evangelii sui Hebraïcis literis obsignatum apposuisse. Quod an

verum sit, auctori præfationis et fidei seriptoris committo. Ibid. Epi. 25. F. 39.

d De Nativitate S. Mariæideo scire vos volo multa in eo falsa inveniri. Quidam namque Seleucus, (Leucius MS.) qui passiones Apostolorum conscripsit, hunc libellum composuit. Ibid.

e Jones's Canon, Vol. 2. p. 163.

• Αλλα δε μυρια παρ' αυτοις πεπλασμένα γραφεια τε τολμα ται, Γενεαν μεν γαρ Μαρίας βιβλιον τι φασιν είναι, κ. τ. λ. Hær. 26. n. 12. p. 94. A. Ei yaş xai i rys Maçias isopia, και παραδόσεις εχεσιν ότι ερρέθη τῷ πατρι αυτής Ιωαχειμ. x. 7. λ. Hær. 79. n. v. p. 1062. C. D.

8 Quia eadem patrem habuerit sacerdotem quemdam, nomine Joachim. Contr. Faus. Mani. L. 23. c. 4. opp. T. 6. Ven.

Ac per hoc illud, quod de generatione Maria Faustus posuit, quod patrem habuerit ex tribu Levi sacerdotem quemdam, nomine Joachim, quia non canonicum est, non me constringit. Ibid. c. 9.

* Τον Ζαχαριαν απέκτανθαι εν τῳ ναῳ, επείδη, φασι, οπτα σιαν έωρακε, και από το φοβε θελων είπειν την οπτασιαν απε φραγη το σομα. είδε γαρ, φασιν, ανθρωπον έρωτα, να μορφην εχοντα. κ. τ. λ. Ibid. p. 94. Α. Β.

Canon of the N. T. Vol. 2. p. 175, and 207.

the tribe of Levi, whereas in our present copies she is said to be sprung from the royal race and family of David. Though it must be allowed that there are some Hebraisms in this piece, and some allusions to Jewish customs, yet it is also certain there are other things which are contrary to facts well known among the Jews, and inconsistent with their established customs, as Jones himself has observed. For instance, that Issachar was the name of the high priest who discoursed with Joachim; whereas if this history be supposed to be true in other respects, Simon the son of Boethus Alexandrinus was then high priest, and continued so for nineteen years. It is also said in the history, that Mary was brought at three years old to the temple, and continued there, according to custom, till she was fourteen. But it is certain there were no such cells or apartments in the temple at Jerusalem, nor was there any such custom of keeping nuns there. These appear to me such decisive proofs against the author's being a Jew, as the few Hebraisms found therein are not able to countervail, The truth seems to be, that many of the things contained in this spurious piece were current traditions in the second century. Leucius interwove with these some passages from the genuine scriptures, and thus made up the heterogeneous mass. The author of the pretended letter from Chromatius and Heliodorus, altered the beginning of this gospel of the Nativity to what we now find it to contain, expunging that false opinion of Mary's being descended from Levi, and inserting the real fact: that she was of the royal race and family of David.

The inculcating the propriety of perpetual virginity seems to have been the design of the original composer, especially in the latter part of this piece. This is entirely agreeable to the opinions of Leucius : it is therefore probable that he was the author, and that this part remains the same as he first wrote it.

с

SECTION X.

The Protevangelion, or Gospel of James, was composed by Leucius.

ANOTHER forged gospel ascribed to Leucius is the Protevangelion, or Gospel of James, which hath been published in Greek several times. Of this gospel there are several MS. copies now extant. It pretends to give an account of the birth of Christ, and contains many of the same things which are in the gospel of Mary. It proceeds further indeed, and adds some remarkable stories: such as Joseph's drinking the water of trial to prove whether Mary was with child by him or not; their journey to Bethlehem; the standing still of the clouds, birds, and all other things, at the birth of our Saviour; the affair of the midwife; the coming of the wise men, and many others. It also adds to the account given us by the former of the age of Joseph, that he was a widower, and had several children. The story of the murder of Zacharias is inserted, though a different cause is here assigned for it from that which Epiphanius has assigned in the extract before given. Here it is attributed to Herod, who put Zacharias to death because he would not discover where John was, when by his order the children were murdered.

[blocks in formation]

SECTION XI.

A current Tradition that Joseph was a Widower and had Children by his former Wife.

2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

с

THE opinion that Joseph was a widower and had children by a former wife when he was betrothed to Mary, was current in the primitive ages. Origen mentions it in his commentary on Matt. xiii. 55, and says, many believed that the brethren of Christ there mentioned were the children of Joseph by a former wife; and that they were induced to be of this opinion by some 'passages in the gospel of Peter, or the book of James.' Eusebius' gives us the same reason why James was called the brother of Christ. Epiphanius hath frequently mentioned this same thing. He says that, James was the son of Joseph by a former wife, and therefore called the brother of Jesus.' And again, that Joseph was about eighty years old when he married Mary, and that he had six children by a former wife.' And still more particularly in his dispute with the Antidicomarionites, he informs us that Joseph was very old when he married Mary, and had been many years a widower, that he was the brother of Cleophas, and the son of James, surnamed Panther: that his first wife was of the tribe of Judah, that he had by her six children, four sons and two daughters: that James, surnamed Olbias, was his eldest son ; that he was born when his father was about forty years of age: that his next son was Jose, and then Simeon and Judas: that his two daughters were named Mary and Salome: that he continued many years a widower, and when he was about eighty years old married Mary. This same opinion was embraced by many other of the Greek fathers. appears to have been an opinion generally received in the primitive ages.

d

From this account it

SECTION XII.

Passages in Epiphanius referring to the Gospel of the Nativity and the Protevangelion.

MR. Jones mentions two places more in Epiphanius, where there scem to be references to the two foregoing gospels. The first is as follows: When lots were cast for the widowers ⚫ and unmarried of every tribe to determine who should take virgins which were in the temple; "for it was the custom that the first-born of both sexes should be devoted to the temple service,) he (Joseph) was obliged by the necessity of the lot to take the holy virgin Mary.' This is agreeable to the account given us both in the gospel of Mary and the Protevangelion. The other reference is in a tract ascribed to Epiphanius, but generally supposed not to be his. The purport of it is, that Joachim and Anna were the names of the father and mother of the virgin; that Joachim retired into the wilderness, where he prayed for issue; and Anna into the garden on the same account; and that their prayers were answered by the birth of Mary. The whole of this is in the Protevangelion; and the greater part in the gospel of the Nativity of Mary.

• Τις δε αδελφές αυτό φασι τινες είναι, εκ παραδόσεως όρμω μενος, το επιγεγραμμενο κατα Πετρον ευαγγελια, η τε βίβλε Ιακωβε, υἱος Ιωσεφ εκ προτέρας γυναικός. Origen. Τ. xi. in Matt. vel ex Huet. edit. T. 1. p. 223. A. B.

• Ιακωβον, τον τε κύριε λεγόμενον αδελφον, ότι δη και έτος το Ιωσήφ ωνομαςο παις. Ecc. His. L. 2. c. 1. Β.

Ad. Hær. 29. n. 2, 3, and 51. n. 10.

Ibid. 79. n. 7, 8.

• Jones's Canon. N. T. p. 172. Pearson on the Creed, p. 175, ar. iii. Sixt. Senens. Biblio. Sanct. L. 6. p. 455. Annet. 64. Vales. An. in Eus. H. Ecc. L. 2. c. 1.

f Ancoratus. V. c. 60.
Oratio de Laud. Vir. Mar. V. 2.
p. 292.

VOL. IV.

4 M

« ZurückWeiter »