Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

SECTION VIII.

What Parts of Scripture they received.

a

Ir appears, by the passage quoted from Eusebius in the beginning of this article, that they received the Old Testament, as well as the gospels in the New; though they rejected particular passages in several parts of these as they did the apostle altogether. Epiphanius says they made use of the same book with the Ebionites and Nazarenes, as he had before frequently mentioned: referring undoubtedly to a copy of the gospels, in some measure differing from that in common use which these Christians had, and that they paid a regard to another book, the author of which they said was the brother of Elxai. He adds, that they received neither the writings of the prophets nor apostles.' Theodoret confirms their rejecting the apostle, and paying great attention to a certain book, which they say fell down from heaven. Upon the whole then it appears that the Ossens as well as the Elcesaites were Christians, and regarded many parts of the Old Testament, and the gospels at least in the New, as sacred books; though it is probable their Christianity was mixed with a number of superstitious rites and absurd

doctrines.

с

SECTION IX.

Explanation of a Prayer of Elxai.

I SHALL only further mention a prayer which Epiphanius says Elxai ordered his followers, to use the words of which he has given us with an interpretation in some part of it unintelligible. The meaning of this, after it had been in vain attempted by Petavius and Scaliger, the learned Croius has well explained, and has given a sense of it very different from that of Epiphanius. The reader will no doubt be pleased to find the whole of this in the note."

• Page 683, note b.

Vide page 683, note *, and p. 684, note ".
Ibid. note c.

There seems at first sight to be some little difference between the accounts given by Eusebius and Epiphanius, with respect to the parts of the Old Testament rejected by these heretics. But it should be observed that the expression in Eusebius is general, and in Epiphanius particular, which Theodoret confirms. The words κεχρηται ῥητοις παλιν απο warns wahaias, may therefore very well be understood consistently with their rejecting the prophets. For Eusebius himself explains the next word in a manner similar to this. Ευαγγελικής is used in him by way of distinction for the New Testament, as waλaias is for the Old; and though he had said that they quoted passages from every part of the New Testament, από πασης γραφης ευαγγελικής, yet he immediately adds αθετει τον αποςολον. This is the same with ετε αποστολές δεχονται of Epiphanius. And for this reason the former part of Eusebius may be understood in a perfect agreement with the ετε προφητας δέχονται οf the same author.

• Τον δε αποςολον παντελως ηρνήθησαν. και βιβλον δε τινα συντεθείκασιν, ἦν εκ των ερανων εβασαν πεπτωκεναι. ταύτης τον ακηκοότα αφεσιν αμαρτιων λαμβανειν, παρ ̓ ἦν ὁ Χρισος Edwpηoar. Hær. Fab. lib. 2. c. 7. p. 222.

* Φάσκει γαρ λεγειν, Αβαρ, Ανιδ, Μωιβ, Νωχιλε, Δαασιμ, Ανη, Δαασιμ, Νωχιλε, Μωις, Ανιδ, Αβαρ, Σελαμ, ὁ τίνα

VOL. IV.

ἑρμηνευόμενα εχει την σαφήνειαν ταύτην. παρελθετω ταπεινω σις εκ πατέρων με, της κατακρίσεως αυτών, και καταπατη ματος αυτών, και πον αυτών καταπατήματι εν κατακρίσει δια των πατέρων με απο ταπεινώσεως παρέλθωσης εν αποςολή τε XEIWGEVIS. X.T... Ad. Hær. lib. 1. H. 19. No. 4. p. 42. D. 43. A. • Non est facile ex Hebraïcis hisce verbis eam sententiam elicere, quam subjecit Epiphanius. Petavii in Locum.

Tentavit et Scaliger sensum expiscari loci difficillimi. 'Ego,' inquit hic esse nullam ex colligere possum. Sed statim ⚫ ut oculos in ea conjeci, tres yvwuas agnovi,' quas vir summus sententias exhibet Elenchi capite xxvii. Sed temeritate propius abest negare eam orationem esse, quam orationem affirmat esse Epiphanius. (μηδεις ζητήση την έρμηνειαν, αλλ' η μόνον εν τῇ ευχή ταδε λεγετω. lbid) Neque hic falli potuit Epiphanius, ut pro Ossenorum precatione haberet, quod pura' puta sententia est. Vigebat adhuc sancti Patris ævo secta Osseniaca, a quâ scire facillime potuit, num inter orandum precationem adhibuerit ejusmodi. Quod si precatio est, totâ Scaliger erravit viâ, cum nil orationis sit in ea sententiâ. Qui 'conculcat paupertatem, conculcat fraudem,' &c. Nostro quidem judicio verborum sensum optime assecutus est doctissimus ille Johannes Croius, cujus explicationi suffragium

[ocr errors]

עבר עני מאבותי נהרי ושים אותי .libentissime nostrum damus

Ό ' Υ » Πιο Transivit afflictio a patribus meis: tribulationes conterunt me: conterunt tribulationes a patribus meis. Afflictio transeat, et pace fruar, Apud Basnagii Annales. Anno 104. p. 12, 13.

4 T

CHAP. XXIII.

OF THE ALOGIANS.

SECTION I.

The Account of them by Epiphanius and Philaster, as rejecting John's Gospel and the Revelation.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

a

THE Alogians, so called by us,' says Epiphanius in his Summary, who reject God, the Logos, coming from the Father, do not receive either the gospel according to John, or his Revelation.'

b

To the like purpose Augustine.

с

In his larger work Epiphanius speaks of this heresy as arising after the Cataphrygians, Quartodecimans, and others; and says that he gave them the name of Alogians.

6

[ocr errors]

d

They reject,' says he, the writings of John, they receive neither his gospel nor his Revelation. If they had rejected his Revelation only, some apology might have been made for them; but, by rejecting his writings in general, they shew themselves to be like those whom holy John speaks of in his catholic epistles, and calls antichrists. They say they are not written by John, and ' ascribe them to Cerinthus; pretending they are not worthy to be received by the church.' Afterwards he says they argue after this manner, that they may not seem without reason to reject the gospel and the Revelation of John, and perhaps his epistles likewise; for they are of ' a piece and agree together.' Once more: they say that John's gospel ought not to be placed in the New Testament, because it is not of a piece with the other parts.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Thus writes Epiphanius; so that one knows not well what he would have us think of these men; whether that they rejected all the writings commonly ascribed to St. John, or only his gospel and the Revelation. Mill however roundly says that they rejected all St. John's writings. Damascenus, agreeably to Epiphanius's Summary, says they rejected the gospel of John and his Revelation,'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Before we proceed any farther, it should be observed that Philaster too has a * heresy that. rejected John's gospel and Revelation, and ascribed both to Cerinthus: he does not call them by

[blocks in formation]

d Ibid. n. 3. • Αίρεσιν αποβάλλεσαν Ιωαννα τας βιβλος-8τε το τε Ιωαννα Ευαγγελιον δεχονται, ετε την αυτε Αποκαλυψιν. Και ει μεν εδέχοντο το Ευαγγέλιον, την δε Αποκαλυψιν απεβαλλοντο, ελεγομεν αν -όποτε δε 8 δέχονται φύσει τα βιβλια τα απο το ἁγιο Ιωαννα κεκηρυγμένα- Λεγεσι γαρ μη είναι αυτα Ιω-. αννο, αλλά Κηρίνθο και εκ αξια αυτα φασιν είναι εν εκκλησία. Ibid. n. 3. p. 423, 424.

* Ίνα δόξωσι παρεκβάλλειν τα τα άγια αποτολε βιβλια, φημι δε Ιωάννη το τε Ευαγγελιον, και την αποκαλυψιν, ταχα

[blocks in formation]

SECTION II.

There never was any such Heresy.

HAVING alleged all these passages, it is time to deliver my own opinion, which is, that this is a fictitious heresy, and that there never were any Christians who rejected St. John's gospel and first epistle, and yet received the other gospels, and the other books of the New Testament. There is not any notice taken of Irenæus, Eusebius, or any other ancient writer before Philaster and Epiphanius; nor has Theodoret thought fit to borrow any thing here from Epiphanius; he has no account of this heresy.

a

SECTION III..

Some Account of Epiphanius's Article of the Alogians.

EPIPHANIUS's article of Alogians is long, and has in it divers good remarks relating to the evangelists, and for reconciling their several histories: at the same time it has in it some confusion; for in one place he mentions Porphyry and Celsus, as if he intended to consider their objections against the evangelical history. Nevertheless the article seems to concern Christians, who,' as he says, did not receive the Logos; and who rejected John's gospel and the Reve6 lation, and would not have them to be in the New Testament, or canonical.' Heathens rejected all the books of the New Testament, and some Christians, we well know, rejected some of them but it does not appear that there were any Christians who received the other books of the New Testament, but rejected St. John's gospel, or all his writings in general. I think that the authority of Philaster and Epiphanius cannot be sufficient to satisfy us concerning the existence of a heresy omitted by all ancient writers before them. Serious Christians might propose difficulties relating to any books of the New Testament, with a view of discovering and being established in the truth; and some of the difficulties mentioned by Epiphanius might proceed from such persons. But that there was a sect or number of Christians who rejected John's gospel and the Revelation, and ascribed both to Cerinthus, (whilst they received the other books of the New Testament) I do not believe, for the reason before-mentioned: that is, because we have not sufficient assurance of it from antiquity. However, if there really were some such persons, their opinion would be of little moment, considering the general testimony of the ancients in favour of St. John's gospel, and his first epistle: and that all objections against St. John's gospel may be casily answered.

SECTION IV.

This Heresy was probably invented upon the Occasion of the Controversy with the Millenarians.

I IMAGINE, then, that this heresy was invented upon occasion of the controversy of Caius and Dionysius, and others, with the Millenarians in the third century; some of whom disputed or denied the genuineness of the book of the Revelation, and ascribed it to Cerinthus. Hence some said that those enemies of the Millennium might as well reject also St. John's gospel; and others said that they actually did so, though they did not. It is observable that in Philaster's catalogue this heresy follows next after the Millenarians, or Chilionetites, as he calls them. And the order in Epiphanius leads us to the same time.

a Hær. 51. n. 8 p. 429. D.

SECTION V.

A groundless Opinion among the Moderns concerning the Unitarians of the second Century.

THERE has been a notion among learned moderns that the Unitarians of the second century, who appeared soon after the apostles, rejected St. John's gospel. Fabricius, in a note upon the fore-cited chapter of Philaster, speaks to the same purpose. But how groundless that supposition is, must clearly appear from our accounts of Theodotus, Praxeas, and others of that principle.

a Alogos hoc nomine arguit Epiphanius et Damascenus, quos vide H. 51. Evangelium Johannis rejecerunt Ebionai, Cerinthiani, Cerdoniani, et Theodotus Byzantinus, atque Marcion. Ap. Philast. p. 120.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »